Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I very much doubt he "hates" Orks. They might not inspire him like Space Marines, but I think hate is a bit OTT.

I for one welcome our new Daemonic Overlord, Phil Kelly. I actually like the current Daemon codex, it was just a lot of the models were missing/impractical for much of it's existence. If they had just reprinted it with new GD kits and rules tweaks I would have been sold.

 buddha wrote:
Daemonic instability: Roll d6 for any unit with daemonic instability on the beginning of the turn, on a roll of a 1 they are removed from the table with a token placed where they were positioned before they left, the unit is placed into ongoing reserves and must roll to deepstrike them back onto the table in subsequent turns(only being allowed to land 3" from their token)

This sounds horrible.

Well, fantasy O&G players have been fairly vocal here and elsewhere stating their displeasure at the last armybook. It worries me what he could do to my beloved greenies in 40k, especially if he's been so stung with criticism from overgunning in the power armored codices that he's now operating in reverse and toning down hard.

I will just keep my fingers crossed he creates a mix n match sledgehammer of a codex and does us proud. If he is the one writing the book and given that we've just seen this split for the daemons between the two systems, I'm interested to see who will write it.

 buddha wrote:

Daemonic instability: Roll d6 for any unit with daemonic instability on the beginning of the turn, on a roll of a 1 they are removed from the table with a token placed where they were positioned before they left, the unit is placed into ongoing reserves and must roll to deepstrike them back onto the table in subsequent turns(only being allowed to land 3" from their token)

As an assault based army this terrifies me for usability....If true

IS it for fantasy or 40k, that rule?

 undertow wrote:

 buddha wrote:
Daemonic instability: Roll d6 for any unit with daemonic instability on the beginning of the turn, on a roll of a 1 they are removed from the table with a token placed where they were positioned before they left, the unit is placed into ongoing reserves and must roll to deepstrike them back onto the table in subsequent turns(only being allowed to land 3" from their token)

This sounds horrible.

Actually, that isn't too bad if you consider they deploy on the table.

Also, maybe take the Ork/Ward discussion to another thread?

It states the words deepstrike and ongoing reserves. It'd be for 40k....and that is pretty bad Pretre. Setting up charges or a game plan only to have a model disapear from the board and be taken out of play for at least two turns (unless they can assault out of reserve). And what happens if it happens the last turn of the game. You lose an expensive unit to a single bad D6 roll....

 pretre wrote:


Also, maybe take the Ork/Ward discussion to another thread?

Quite right, apologies.

Believe it Hulksmash...its going to happen one way or another, Daemonic instability is going to be a very serious problem for us, I do not doubt.

Pray that the book is balanced...and that we get assault grenades!!!

 Hulksmash wrote:
It states the words deepstrike and ongoing reserves. It'd be for 40k....and that is pretty bad Pretre. Setting up charges or a game plan only to have a model disapear from the board and be taken out of play for at least two turns (unless they can assault out of reserve). And what happens if it happens the last turn of the game. You lose an expensive unit to a single bad D6 roll....

I guess the question is whether it is worth giving up the 'all deepstrike army with primary/secondary wave' thing in exchange for instability...

 Hulksmash wrote:
It states the words deepstrike and ongoing reserves. It'd be for 40k....and that is pretty bad Pretre. Setting up charges or a game plan only to have a model disapear from the board and be taken out of play for at least two turns (unless they can assault out of reserve). And what happens if it happens the last turn of the game. You lose an expensive unit to a single bad D6 roll....

Whew. No Ward hate on that then

Daemonic instability: Roll d6 for any unit with daemonic instability on the beginning of the turn, on a roll of a 1 they are removed from the table with a token placed where they were positioned before they left, the unit is placed into ongoing reserves and must roll to deepstrike them back onto the table in subsequent turns(only being allowed to land 3" from their token)

Does it work on units in assaults? What if you can't fit within 3"? Or if there's another unit (say the one you were in assault with) on top of it..

Until we know the specifics, it could be bad/good.

@Pretre

No, it's not.

Assuming that's the overview of the rule and the gist unless there are ways of keeping units on the table (i.e. re-roll instability tests) out there this is brutal. Unless there are changes in how the unit acts once it comes back this is brutal.

But if for instance you come back into play and can act normally (i.e. move, shoot, charge) then it's not to insane and could be viewed as units dissapearing into the warp to strike out again from it which is kinda neat.

It's going to depend on the interaction after returning on how this rule works but if there isn't some kind of change to the basic idea then I'd be terrified to run daemons at an event with more than 3 games.

There would definitely need to be an exception to the normal deep strike limitations. However that "within 3" can't be correct. Your enemy could just move a tank or unit on it and screw it over.

Yep, we'll just have to wait and see then.

It looks like the aesthetic for Daemons is changing quite a bit. Not sure if I like it or not. Tzneetch chariot and the heralds look good, but the khorne thing kind of reminds me of a tricycle for some reason, and the nurgle fliers are... ...well, really odd looking, even for nurgle. Could go either way.

Fail Kelly is doing the 40k Chaos Daemons book?

Well now I know to take the old 4th edition book and add in the Chaos boons table and a couple new fugly models which are way more powerful than anything else. That'll save me 50 bucks!

 thenoobbomb wrote:
Doesn't take away that it is a warmachine with the following idea:

GW staff 1:'we need a warmachine for Khorne Daemons. Khorne... Skulls! Hey, mono-Khornearmies don't have shooty things! Let's make a SKULLCANNON!
Other GW staff: 'Yeah! Huzzah! Let's prize it at $75,-'
Even different GW staff: 'Huzzah! Fill the WD with pictures of them!'

Khorne cares not from where the blood flows, as long as it flows...


I also can't wait for more of the chaos new release images to appear.

It looks like the aesthetic for Daemons is changing quite a bit. Not sure if I like it or not. Tzneetch chariot and the heralds look good, but the khorne thing kind of reminds me of a tricycle for some reason, and the nurgle fliers are... ...well, really odd looking, even for nurgle. Odd and Cool or ridiculous? Could go either way.

If you can act normally after Daemon Instability deepstrikes you back in, it might be reasonable (but still irritating). If not, to hell with Daemons. (Oh, the irony of that statement...)

 undertow wrote:

 buddha wrote:
Daemonic instability: Roll d6 for any unit with daemonic instability on the beginning of the turn, on a roll of a 1 they are removed from the table with a token placed where they were positioned before they left, the unit is placed into ongoing reserves and must roll to deepstrike them back onto the table in subsequent turns(only being allowed to land 3" from their token)

This sounds horrible.

Yeah, I really hope we're missing an important part of that rule, because otherwise..bad news bears....

Great, Kelly has written the 40k Daemon codex. Then we can expect the same issues the CSM codex suffers (like useless units and pt imbalances).
Ward will give the Fantasy Daemon codex (fluff aside) a pretty strong book.

 Vladsimpaler wrote:
Fail Kelly is doing the 40k Chaos Daemons book?

Well now I know to take the old 4th edition book and add in the Chaos boons table and a couple new fugly models which are way more powerful than anything else. That'll save me 50 bucks!

Yeah, cause he didn't change Noise Marines at all. Or Spawn. Or marks to Oblits. Or Bikes. Or basic CSM. Or add cultists. Or create some cool combo's. Yeah, he definitely just copy pasted the previous book and added 3 new units and the boon table....

To long to read, the CSM book isn't 3.5 reborn so a lot of people dislike it. It's a well built codex for the edition it's in.

If the Daemonic Instability thing is real, it could explain the completely stupid seemingly clear-fake rules leaks for the Greater Daemons. The problem is, if both are true, it would basically make Daemons just like now - an absurd, unreliable army with even more absurd units embedded w/in it that are extraordinarily difficult to stop, except when they randomly do really stupid things.

I wonder if Instability is more something like Instinctive Behavior, where it only kicks in during certain circumstances, i.e. being too far from more substantial daemons, or too far from icons, etc.

There was a rumor of a Nexus or something like that for Heralds...

2-21-13: Warseer

KronusDaSneaky wrote:

hmmm something seems to be missing?



There we go

 undertow wrote:

 buddha wrote:
Daemonic instability: Roll d6 for any unit with daemonic instability on the beginning of the turn, on a roll of a 1 they are removed from the table with a token placed where they were positioned before they left, the unit is placed into ongoing reserves and must roll to deepstrike them back onto the table in subsequent turns(only being allowed to land 3" from their token)

This sounds horrible.

This is just one interpretation of daemonic instability.
Recently, I've seen a Necron army with 3 Spyders. The player rolled three 1's on 3D6 for the generation of Scarabs causing 3 wounds. Rolling 1's is everywhere.

 wyomingfox wrote:
2-21-13: Warseer


hmmm something seems to be missing?


There we go

I think you see them flying underneath the plaguebearers.

Also.. subtle hint? Black Templars!

Is it just me, or are those flies sporting different heads than the other pictures?

That ought to cure the anteater complaints.

I dunno. Makes me think there are some ridiculous units in there and this is a 'method' to tune it down.

If so, not a good resolution.

Looking at it again, I'm not sure why the leadership would be average on the drones, as I figured it'd be used for Instability. Maybe take a test and then roll a D6...? Speculation?