DL FAB 2.2 Beta Discussion Thread

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

  • Peacemaker wrote:

    its just a problem for filthy casuals who don't read every armybook and study its weaknesses.

    Peacemaker wrote:

    squalie_SK wrote:

    Daemons are ultra customizable - which is cool. But it does create a lot of accounting for the army and demands repeated explanation to your opponents as you change your manifestations. You saying it doesn't (or you haven't) simple isn't true and a silly thing to claim.
    Only if your opponent has not read and studied the book.This happens with every army if your opponent doesn't know it.

    In my Meta for the last 8 years almost no one played Daemons. 1 guy from a different city played Daemons who might show up with that army at the tourny.
    The result is that NO ONE read the book. No one knew how the army played. Literally knowledge of how the army played would come from watching OnceBittten batreps against Daemons.
    Even in T9A, people might glance at the free armybook but unless you are somewhat interested in the army, it's boring to read.

    I've read the WoDG book like 3 times and I still find it a boring book to read just because I have almost no interest in the army. I still don't know what the army does. And the 1 guy in my meta who plays WotDG is the same guy who plays Daemons, lol.
    Edit: since DL book release I think there are 3 of us who play DL. And a couple hidden Tzeentch players who sold their armies upon destruction of their avoidance shooting army.


    Anyway, if you are going to a competitive tourny where people are playing to win, then they should know the enemy books. Or at least be very familiar with the common builds.
    I think you may be slightly missing my point and I'm honestly not sure what the point of your responses are - other then to be mildly condescending to casual players. It doesn't matter if you studied the Daemon book - you would still need to explain the difference of "unit X" each time you play it against an opponent. There's 5+ manifestations for EACH unit, couple with guiding and dominant - it creates an overlap that has a ton of possibilities, which is inherently confusing. What does that have to do with Tourney play or not?

    I play 10 Games with Myrmidons. Each time, for craps and giggles, I change the manifestations on the unit. Then I add in Omen, or Kuulima's, or Herald, THEN I state the Dominant from General - that will be different in every single one of those 10 games, but my opponent is still looking at 20 Myrmidons. See what I mean?

    Even if you're AWARE of the options of each unit, and if you have that memorized then hats off to you, it doesn't matter as you're explaining every single game as it's different. It's not the same as saying "This unit has banner of '"his" , and this dude gives them hatred = as that's pretty much what it can/would always have.

    Maybe I'm not explaining myself properly (wife tells me this all the time, lol) And I'm sure not looking for an arm wrestle, just stating that Daemons are obviously more confusing than any other armies because of the amount of options, multiplied by the number of influences the characters can give.

    I play Daemons A LOT, home games, tournies, whatever and I can get almost sheepish from my opponents reactions to all the things I have to explain, and I simply won't believe that another individual NEVER has to do that. :)
  • squalie_SK wrote:

    Not even close. Pretty much every Daemon unit can have many different possibilities instead of just one, that could change game after game, needing probable explanation every time you field the army
    Lets take two core units from DL and EoS armies.

    1. DL Myrmidons. They always have these rules:
    1.1. Fearless
    1.2. Scoring
    1.3. Supernal
    1.4. Devastating charge (BF)
    1.5. Fight in Extra Rank
    They can also have one of the following rules:
    1.6. Devastating Charge (+2 Agi)
    1.7. Reroll to wound vs Large, Gigantic
    1.8. Lightning Reflexes
    1.9. Hatred
    1.10 + 1 AP

    2. EoS Heavy Infantry. They always have these rules:
    1.1. Scoring.
    If they are 21+ size they have the following rules:
    1.2. Parent unit. It doesnt do much itself but used to interract with the later.
    If they are 20 strong they have the following rules
    1.3 They are Insignificant but only for the Parent units
    1.4. They get Fight in Extra rank and can shoot in extra rank (conditional)
    1.5. They can perform out of sequence charge against enemy unit Parent unit successfully charged (conditional)
    1.6 They can perform Stand and Shoot reaction against enemy unit that charged Parent unit (conditional)
    1.7. They can perform out of sequence charge against enemy unit that charged Parent unit (conditional)
    1.8. They can combine their Rank Bonus with Parent unit contrary to normal rules for CR (conditional)
    Their choice of equipment gives the options for one of the following rules:
    1.9. Parry
    1.10. Fight in Extra Rank
    1.11. +2 Agi and +1 AP when charged to the front
    They can also have one of the following rules:
    1.12. +1 Adv +2 March
    1.13. + 1 AP one use only
    1.14. 15" March one use only
    1.15. Strider
    1.16. Flaming Attacks one use only
    1.17. Reroll Panic tests
    1.18. Additional bonus to CR due to extra ranks
    1.19. MR(1)

    Clearly, EoS unit have almost twice possible special rules. Its just that most of them are Rulebook ones, are shared by other armies and known to most players. Daemon units cant use Rulebook weapons or banner enchantments, they have their uniqe ones not in addition but insead of what other armies' units have.
    I totally understand what that means - DL units have generally less known rules and its hard for casual players to remember them all. But saying that they have simply have more rules is wrong.
  • AlexCat wrote:

    Clearly, EoS unit have almost twice possible special rules. Its just that most of them are Rulebook ones, are shared by other armies and known to most players.
    That's actually what I'm trying to say. Most armies unit rules will be static - they pretty much will always look and do what it says on the tin. Daemons, have more options that can change radically from game to game, requiring explanation. Not sure what else to say. It's cool, I'm slowing down on the army until we see something Gold allegedly in Dec?
  • squalie_SK wrote:

    Most armies unit rules will be static - they pretty much will always look and do what it says on the tin. Daemons, have more options that can change radically from game to game, requiring explanation
    ... and how these daemon rules are different from the different weapon options and banner enchantments? Those also can change from game to game.
  • AlexCat wrote:

    squalie_SK wrote:

    Most armies unit rules will be static - they pretty much will always look and do what it says on the tin. Daemons, have more options that can change radically from game to game, requiring explanation
    ... and how these daemon rules are different from the different weapon options and banner enchantments? Those also can change from game to game.
    Sure, but as you said - they're commonly shared between armies, and will surprise no one as you'll often see the same banner on same unit.

    Listen, I'm complimenting Daemons for having diversity, but they DO require a little more explanation than most, if not all other armies because of manifestations, characters and guiding. That's it. That's all I'm saying, lol. I'm not saying anything bad, just that I have many armies and every time I use Daemons, there's a lot more chatter about it than any other army I use. Maybe my evidence is anecdotal at best, but if I use another army, I plunk it down on the table and we play. With Daemons, it's constant explaining why it does something and what's causing I to do something, even at Tournaments. Just an observation. Someone mentioned they never had to explain and I 100% didn't believe it based on the experience I've had in the last year - and said so. And here we are. :D
  • squalie_SK wrote:

    I think you may be slightly missing my point and I'm honestly not sure what the point of your responses are - other then to be mildly condescending to casual players.
    I am a casual player and my post was a joke in that regard.

    squalie_SK wrote:

    It doesn't matter if you studied the Daemon book - you would still need to explain the difference of "unit X" each time you play it against an opponent. There's 5+ manifestations for EACH unit, couple with guiding and dominant - it creates an overlap that has a ton of possibilities, which is inherently confusing. What does that have to do with Tourney play or not?
    Unfortunately it is not that confusing.
    This has been a topic time and again about unit upgrades.
    If people want 16 armies then this is what we get. If people want only mundane weapon options with the same names then we get 5 armies because the units become extremely similar.

    In fact, I would argue that since you actually take the different manifestations, that you are actually adding to the narrative feel of the daemon legions and giving both you and your opponent an immersive feel to the tabletop battle. Which is good.
    So what if you have to explain it at the start of the game to your opponent, you're not being timed. ....and if you are being timed then it's at a tourny and both players should know the others army book, if not then it is a casual tourny where most games don't' make it past turn 5 anyway regardless if both players know the other army.
  • I think my original point is getting caught up and twisted a little bit. I was suggesting we have relatively simple, straight forward core that is easy to explain and that's the way I'd like to keep it. In a game all I have to say is that these Succubi have lots of low strength attacks and are better against infantry (or If I'm running the deceiver just say they are essentially Dread Elf Witches with a 5++), Myrms all I have to say is 1 attack each Str 5 AP 1 and people tend to know what's going on with the unit. Lemures, all I say is T5 parry, tanky AF, and move on to another unit.

    Manifestations I have nothing against, since unless I'm explaining my list in the greatest of detail few of them change the *function* of a unit, or are so simple that I would just say the stat-change instead of the manifestation. I.e Brazen beasts w/ lightning reflexes, or Gremlins with 5+ poison. Where it gets a little embarassing is explaining all the 'low impact' unit special rules, dominions and omniscience and divine right and hellish growl and mageblights and blazing glory stubborn and guiding mirrored scales and unnatural roots not stacking and our chariot having a rank and the unqiue daemon magic phase. I'm not saying it's too much or bad design, i'm just saying that it's a lot, and that we should strive to ensure that core units are easy to wrap your head around. I was just responding to someone suggesting that imps could summon more imps if they hit a unit a certain number of times, and imho that's far to complex for what a core unit should be able to do.
  • Not sure if completely new rule is necessary for imps. Just one of already existing ones would be nice. The one that will make their shooting a bit better, for they already incapable of melee, while lacking in shooting effectiveness.
    Something like shoot in extra rank, volley fire or anything that will make them better at ranged combat without making their existing shooting too powerfull.
    PS: All other core options are more than just ok as they are. With few small changes here and there - they will be fine.
    DH - main
    WODG - secondary
    OK - reborn be my childhood army
    DL - side project
  • Happy Aspid wrote:

    Kapten Kluns wrote:

    Id like to see stand and shoot together with an increase to range. But at the expense of S5
    S5 shooting is unique str for shooting squads, together with AP0. Not sure if we need str4.Imps struggle mostly with actually hitting anything.
    true it is unique, we have however no problems in wounding but rather against armour in DL.
    My suggestion simply comes from the need of a static unit being able to participate in the battle and range is one, if not the more important stat for a static unit.
    S4 ap 0 is also not that well used as a shooting stat, together with range 30 and no volleyfire they would still be, and have a unique role in the army.
    But I have a feeling that it is too late to change how the unit plays. And it will most likely see point drop after point drop untill it matters little about the units actuall shooting capabilities as a unit cheap enough will still be strong enough.

    For me the fact that imps arent sharpshooters is okay, they need to be useful however. And if they have a hard time hitting, well then they need to be able to shoot more times, longer range and the ability to stand and shoot would help with this. And im afraid that a Stand and shoot with S5 might be seen too strong? Thats why they have that rule that makes it impossible.
  • The real question is how much does a unit of imps bring to the table compared to another core unit of similar cost. And the answer is nothing. Well, almost nothing.
    Since they are not good enough to kill chaff ,it's actually better to deploy ten succubi as counter chaff to hunt/block other chaff or just be a divert in need.
    The only actual reason to choose imps is to chipp off wounds from stuff like giants, and that's not a good enough reason imho.
  • One main problem with the Imps is that they do not have great synergies with the other units in standard DL lists. They tend to stay behind while the rest of the army goes forward.

    I would address this by making their rules something along these lines: Aim 4+, 24" range, S6 when distance to target is less than 6", S5 when <12", S4 when <18", S3 when <24", always AP0, Accurate. This kind of design would certainly be unique and it would hopefully encourage DL player to advance with the unit alongside the rest of the army. With this design, Aim 5+ and QtF would be cool also, but I know that the rules team is not a big fun of more QtF in the game.
  • Speaking of army complexity, I´ve played EoS for a lot of years and have never had problems with people not understanding what stuff in the army does (and yes, I´m running IG+ support unit and all the synergies). They might have misjudged the potential of the synergies, but they´ve always understood them.

    Now I play daemons and I usually print out a cheat-sheet with all the rules and manifestations of my units since they every unit is so packed with rules. Sure, EoS have a lot of rules as well, but everyone knows that a shield gives parry, no one knows what talon scythes does. I have lost count of the number of times I´ve had to interrupt opponents with the remark "Also, I have this special rule that does...". So keeping core somewhat simple is probably a good idea.
    Square bases, happy faces!

    ETC Team Sweden 2016 - Infernal Dwarves
    ETC Team Sweden 2017 - Infernal Dwarves
    WTC Team Sweden 2018 - Empire of Sonnstahl
    ETC Team Bulgaria 2018 (as Mercenary) - Vampire Covenant

    UN SW

    Tournament Support

    Tournament Analysist