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.

 Redbeard wrote:

 Skriker wrote:

Nothing screams old school warhammer chaos than random table rolls before a game. This used to be a constant part of playing chaos in the early days. In one battle a unit could be uber strong thanks to decent rolls on the mutations table, and the next it could be stupid, slow one-legged pointy headed morons. You just never knew what you were going to get. The only issue I have with it is that it does increase book keeping for each game, but I don't see that ruining it.

The problem I have with it is that is throws the whole idea of playing a fair game out the window. Seriously, if we're playing a 1000 point game and my 300 point HQ just obliterates himself before turn one because of warp storms, now it's 700 to 1000. How is this fun for me or my opponent?

I have no problem with randomness being a large part of games, IF those games are short. MtG can use crazy wacky randomness because a game might last 15 minutes at most. However, If I'm dedicating two or more hours to playing a game with someone, I want to actually enjoy that time, not be hamstrung from turn one because of some random event. The longer a game lasts, the less impact isolated random events should have (And yes, 40k is a game based on dice, but there's a huge difference between the managable probabilities involved in shooting (for example) and the game changing single-die events that this codex is in love with.)

Seeing as you cannot since you only roll in your shooting phase, you'd have some weird house rules going on if you died before turn one. Unless of course your using the old dex and deep striking?

There's less of a chance of dying to the 1/1 result then dying from deepstrike from the Daemonic Assault rule along with all the anti-deep strike type abilities.

 Redbeard wrote:

 Skriker wrote:

Nothing screams old school warhammer chaos than random table rolls before a game. This used to be a constant part of playing chaos in the early days. In one battle a unit could be uber strong thanks to decent rolls on the mutations table, and the next it could be stupid, slow one-legged pointy headed morons. You just never knew what you were going to get. The only issue I have with it is that it does increase book keeping for each game, but I don't see that ruining it.

The problem I have with it is that is throws the whole idea of playing a fair game out the window. Seriously, if we're playing a 1000 point game and my 300 point HQ just obliterates himself before turn one because of warp storms, now it's 700 to 1000. How is this fun for me or my opponent?

I have no problem with randomness being a large part of games, IF those games are short. MtG can use crazy wacky randomness because a game might last 15 minutes at most. However, If I'm dedicating two or more hours to playing a game with someone, I want to actually enjoy that time, not be hamstrung from turn one because of some random event. The longer a game lasts, the less impact isolated random events should have (And yes, 40k is a game based on dice, but there's a huge difference between the managable probabilities involved in shooting (for example) and the game changing single-die events that this codex is in love with.)

Red, could you specify the events necessary to cause this to happen? I'm looking at the Warp Storm chart now, and I'm not sure how a 300pt HQ could die before turn 1?

Okay... during turn one, before my opponent has taken a turn, the effect is the same.

You guys are too pedantic.

Roll a 2 on the table (all units take a instability test), roll a double 6 for the test *poof*.

Roll 3 on the table, Randomly select your HQ. Roll 3D6 and kill your HQ with enough wounds. Also more likely to roll a double 6 with 3 dice!

 Shandara wrote:
Roll a 2 on the table (all units take a instability test), roll a double 6 for the test *poof*.

Roll 3 on the table, Randomly select your HQ. Roll 3D6 and kill your HQ with enough wounds. Also more likely to roll a double 6 with 3 dice!

Ah, now I see. So, anyone with the math hammers interested in running the probability on this happening? Because it sounds so unlikely as to be a non-issue.

 matphat wrote:

 Shandara wrote:
Roll a 2 on the table (all units take a instability test), roll a double 6 for the test *poof*.

Roll 3 on the table, Randomly select your HQ. Roll 3D6 and kill your HQ with enough wounds. Also more likely to roll a double 6 with 3 dice!

Ah, now I see. So, anyone with the math hammers interested in running the probability on this happening? Because it sounds so unlikely as to be a non-issue.

Anydice.com is good if you can figure out the coding.

2/36 is roughly 5%.

Then you need to do 5 wounds to kill a greater daemon. They're Ld9, so you'd need to roll 14+ on the 3d6 to have that happen (or any double sixes). There are 35 of 216 possible rolls that sum to 14 or higher, plus three rolls ({6,6,1},{1,6,6},{6,1,6}) that include double sixes without totaling 14, for a total of 38/216 that will kill a greater daemon outright - So, that's going to happen roughly 18% of the time.

Combining these, and you get a little under 1% chance of this happening every time you roll on the warp storm table. Limiting for it happening before you use the model, that's a fairly low chance. Factoring that it might happen on any turn, and assuming an average 6 turns/game, you should see it bite you once every 20 games or so.

This also doesn't include the storm abates result, or that it might pick something besides a greater daemon, although losing a herald would pretty much suck too, and would happen more easily as they have fewer wounds, so the chance of scoring enough wounds on the Ld test goes up.


Still, does it matter if it happens infrequently? Let's say it happens once every 2000 games. In that case, does this add anything relevant to the game? Of course not. So why even include it. If it happens too infrequently to worry about, then it doesn't need to be there at all. If it happens often enough to piss you off, then it makes the game less fun, and again, why include it.

It's just a BS inclusion, added by lazy game designers who have substituted random tables for attempting to find balance.

 Redbeard wrote:
2/36 is roughly 5%.

Then you need to do 5 wounds to kill a greater daemon. They're Ld9, so you'd need to roll 14+ on the 3d6 to have that happen (or any double sixes). There are 35 of 216 possible rolls that sum to 14 or higher, plus three rolls ({6,6,1},{1,6,6},{6,1,6}) that include double sixes without totaling 14, for a total of 38/216 that will kill a greater daemon outright - So, that's going to happen roughly 18% of the time.

Combining these, and you get a little under 1% chance of this happening every time you roll on the warp storm table. Limiting for it happening before you use the model, that's a fairly low chance. Factoring that it might happen on any turn, and assuming an average 6 turns/game, you should see it bite you once every 20 games or so.

This also doesn't include the storm abates result, or that it might pick something besides a greater daemon, although losing a herald would pretty much suck too, and would happen more easily as they have fewer wounds, so the chance of scoring enough wounds on the Ld test goes up.


Still, does it matter if it happens infrequently? Let's say it happens once every 2000 games. In that case, does this add anything relevant to the game? Of course not. So why even include it. If it happens too infrequently to worry about, then it doesn't need to be there at all. If it happens often enough to piss you off, then it makes the game less fun, and again, why include it.

It's just a BS inclusion, added by lazy game designers who have substituted random tables for attempting to find balance.

I can't disagree with any of that, but at least it's not a dark cloud hanging over my head all the time. Aside from that, I can imagine this losing someone a tourney and causing them to ragequit daemons.

Daemons Codex FAQ is up in German, dated as 05MAR13.

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m3080052a_GER_Chaosdaemonen_v1.0a_Maerz13.pdf

Google translated... some words obviously don't translate well:

Page 26 - demon of Tzeentch
replace the last sentence with the following: "In addition
Tzeentch demons repeat all protection drafts
of 1 "

Page 49, 100, Sections - disease drones device-type,
change the device-type to "cavalry with schwebemo
Module "or cavalry with floating module (Charaktermo
dell) ".

Page 66 - powerful rewards, Obesity
change the sentence as follows: "the demon has +1 life
point and the special rule it does not die. "

Page 104 - demon of Tzeentch
Change the last half sentence as follows: "protect drafts of 1
be "repeated.

Summary - Icon of Chaos
replace the first paragraph with the following: "If
you choose the melee result, you add one
results point to your website, in particular if the
melee at least one friendly unit with an
Bound icon of chaos. "


Original German Text:

 Redbeard wrote:
2/36 is roughly 5%.

Then you need to do 5 wounds to kill a greater daemon. They're Ld9, so you'd need to roll 14+ on the 3d6 to have that happen (or any double sixes). There are 35 of 216 possible rolls that sum to 14 or higher, plus three rolls ({6,6,1},{1,6,6},{6,1,6}) that include double sixes without totaling 14, for a total of 38/216 that will kill a greater daemon outright - So, that's going to happen roughly 18% of the time.

Combining these, and you get a little under 1% chance of this happening every time you roll on the warp storm table. Limiting for it happening before you use the model, that's a fairly low chance. Factoring that it might happen on any turn, and assuming an average 6 turns/game, you should see it bite you once every 20 games or so.

This also doesn't include the storm abates result, or that it might pick something besides a greater daemon, although losing a herald would pretty much suck too, and would happen more easily as they have fewer wounds, so the chance of scoring enough wounds on the Ld test goes up.


Still, does it matter if it happens infrequently? Let's say it happens once every 2000 games. In that case, does this add anything relevant to the game? Of course not. So why even include it. If it happens too infrequently to worry about, then it doesn't need to be there at all. If it happens often enough to piss you off, then it makes the game less fun, and again, why include it.

It's just a BS inclusion, added by lazy game designers who have substituted random tables for attempting to find balance.

While I admit I am not too keen on some of the results of the warpstorm table (especially the ones for losing characters), remember that it can happen to the opponent and not just the daemon player.

I for one would find it very annoying if my farseer or avatar went poof in one turn and got replaced by a herald because of some random event and not the actions of my opponent.

However, I do recognise that it won't happen often (statisitically) and so I won't worry about it until it does.

You know, it's just as bad, in my opinion, if it happens to my opponent.

I want a fair game. I don't want to play down 300 points, I also don't want to play up 300 points. If Eldrad bites it on turn one and he's key to my opponent's plans, he's not going to have a fun game. He's going to be in a sour mood from the get go and any victory I score is going to be written off as a result of a stupid table. That's not how I want to win.

 Redbeard wrote:
You know, it's just as bad, in my opinion, if it happens to my opponent.

I want a fair game. I don't want to play down 300 points, I also don't want to play up 300 points. If Eldrad bites it on turn one and he's key to my opponent's plans, he's not going to have a fun game. He's going to be in a sour mood from the get go and any victory I score is going to be written off as a result of a stupid table. That's not how I want to win.

Except, rolling an 11 on the Warpstorm table is also a part of our army's built-in psychic defenses.
We don't get fancy crap like psyhoods, or the Aegis, or a 4+ Staff of NO! or Runes of awsomesauce, etc... Instead, we get the ability to potentially turn enemy psykers into naked Heralds. It's not like we simply get to auto-pick out specific models. Opponents have multiple ways of protecting against Daemonic Possession. (ie: take more psykers, don't rely on psykers against Daemons, etc...)

Besides, if your opponent is hinging their entire battleplan around a 300pts psyker, then they need to start learning how to play without their crutches.

Experiment 626 wrote:
Besides, if your opponent is hinging their entire battleplan around a 300pts psyker, then they need to start learning how to play without their crutches.

Really? That's your take on this? In a game where people build an army list and then develop a battleplan around that list, your advice is 'don't do that' (with a side order of 'your expensive HQ means you're a weak player)?

Ironic, coming from someone who appears to dig the 1k Sons.

Am I missing the 5+ ward save somewhere. I just got the book 5 minutes ago.

It's part of the Daemon special rule, in the main rulebook. Everything in our book get's it from their mark

daveNYC wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:
Besides, if your opponent is hinging their entire battleplan around a 300pts psyker, then they need to start learning how to play without their crutches.

Really? That's your take on this? In a game where people build an army list and then develop a battleplan around that list, your advice is 'don't do that' (with a side order of 'your expensive HQ means you're a weak player)?

Ironic, coming from someone who appears to dig the 1k Sons.

Yes, I do think that SC's like Eldrad, Mephy, old Fatey, etc... are crutches. Increadible beatsticks that take little effort to use well and are a head-and-shoulders cut above anything else in their relevent codices. (why do you think people get so butthurt when facing Eldrad or Mephy at only 1000pts games?)

Seriously, with his re-roll bubble and 3 Princes to act as bodyguard/LoS blockers, Fatey was still undercosted for what he brought to his army in the grand scheme of things. Same with Eldrad being essencially a Farseer+11 in power.
Daemons for example were playable and competitive, (albeit rediculously difficult to play well), without *always* relying on Fatey's re-rolls. Even before the WD up-date 'uberfied Flamers into obscene realms of broken awsomesauce. He simply made Daemons more of an auto-pilot provided you could get your prefered wave and not blow every Deep Strike roll.

So nowadays with the Warpstorm table, if you're really worried about the roughly 2% chance for Eldrad to turn into a Herald, then either;
a) Don't bring him. Try something new, mayhaps you might even discover some new combos once you step outside your old comfort zone!
b) Bring along plenty of Warlocks/a second Farseer to make sure losing Eldrad isn't completely crippling.
c) Bring a secondary non-psyker HQ who can be your Warlord and thus eliminate the risk of the Possession result pooching your Warlord
d) Accept the risk that your longtime favourite SC will occasionally pop into some gribbly Daemon.

Basically that.

New Codex throws a wrench into the idea that the entire army is just an escort team for the one Death Star unit.... or, rather, has the potential to be. If your Death Star isn't a Psyker? Then this result doesn't do diddly.

Experiment 626 wrote:

Except, rolling an 11 on the Warpstorm table is also a part of our army's built-in psychic defenses.

Wow, so you're considering an event that will happen one game in three to be designed as part of the daemon's psychic defense? (Part of? What else do they have?)

Besides, has anyone noticed that, with the exception of the tzeentch ones, the daemons are actually pretty poor psykers. Every base librarian the emperor can suit up is Ld10, but actual warp entities, greater daemons of slaanesh or nurgle are Ld9? And Heralds only Ld8? Your run of the mill primaris psyker is a better wizard than a herald. And why do daemons even suffer perils of the warp? Daemons are the perils of the warp.

 Redbeard wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:

Except, rolling an 11 on the Warpstorm table is also a part of our army's built-in psychic defenses.

Wow, so you're considering an event that will happen one game in three to be designed as part of the daemon's psychic defense? (Part of? What else do they have?)

Besides, has anyone noticed that, with the exception of the tzeentch ones, the daemons are actually pretty poor psykers. Every base librarian the emperor can suit up is Ld10, but actual warp entities, greater daemons of slaanesh or nurgle are Ld9? And Heralds only Ld8? Your run of the mill primaris psyker is a better wizard than a herald. And why do daemons even suffer perils of the warp? Daemons are the perils of the warp.

My main objection too :/

 Redbeard wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:

Except, rolling an 11 on the Warpstorm table is also a part of our army's built-in psychic defenses.

Wow, so you're considering an event that will happen one game in three to be designed as part of the daemon's psychic defense? (Part of? What else do they have?)

Besides, has anyone noticed that, with the exception of the tzeentch ones, the daemons are actually pretty poor psykers. Every base librarian the emperor can suit up is Ld10, but actual warp entities, greater daemons of slaanesh or nurgle are Ld9? And Heralds only Ld8? Your run of the mill primaris psyker is a better wizard than a herald. And why do daemons even suffer perils of the warp? Daemons are the perils of the warp.

Yes, and this topic does a pretty good explanation of why. People are scared of this stuff. Some players will be less likely to bring psykers, or will be more likely to hide them away in transport's, with the warpstom there, even if the chances of it actually hurting the psyker are miniscule.

It doesn't -have- to kill the psyker, to change how the enemy might play the psyker. And I can have a right good giggle to myself as they try and keep their psyker safe from warpstorms, only to have me run up and shred them in CC instead.

Gotta remember, that as daemons are psyker heavy now, taking out enemy psykers who can give deny the witch bonusses and such, is one of our big priorities. Especially if it's a warlord. Double especially if it's eldrad or similar. Warpstorm won't matter if we kill it in 2 turns anyway.

 Redbeard wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:

Except, rolling an 11 on the Warpstorm table is also a part of our army's built-in psychic defenses.

Wow, so you're considering an event that will happen one game in three to be designed as part of the daemon's psychic defense? (Part of? What else do they have?)

Besides, has anyone noticed that, with the exception of the tzeentch ones, the daemons are actually pretty poor psykers. Every base librarian the emperor can suit up is Ld10, but actual warp entities, greater daemons of slaanesh or nurgle are Ld9? And Heralds only Ld8? Your run of the mill primaris psyker is a better wizard than a herald. And why do daemons even suffer perils of the warp? Daemons are the perils of the warp.

Uh, Red, do you have numerical stats for rolling an 11? Your likelihood is to roll a 5-9 and either a 4,10 or additional 7 per game, with the other results being on the fringe. You'd be lucky to insta-gib a psyker 1 game in 6, if not closer to 7.

 Redbeard wrote:
(Part of? What else do they have?)

Seekers (or whichever the dudes with the -Ld bubble are)?

 Redbeard wrote:

And why do daemons even suffer perils of the warp? Daemons are the perils of the warp.

Exactly. Daemons aren't exactly a monolithic entity, they hate each other as well. A Slaanesh psyker might have a Bloodthirster reach out and unch it in the face because psykers are bad and stuff.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Redbeard wrote:
(Part of? What else do they have?)

Seekers (or whichever the dudes with the -Ld bubble are)

Fiends. Seekers are the mounted daemonettes.

I guess it depends on what you mean by competitive. Competitive as in can you line up against another player and have a reasonable game?

Sure.

Competitive as in are all the tourney kiddies going to sell their freshly painted Grey Knight or Necron armies and rush out to buy daemon?

Hardly.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Redbeard wrote:
(Part of? What else do they have?)

Seekers (or whichever the dudes with the -Ld bubble are)

Fiends. Seekers are the mounted daemonettes.

That's the ones. Cheers!

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 Redbeard wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:

Except, rolling an 11 on the Warpstorm table is also a part of our army's built-in psychic defenses.

Wow, so you're considering an event that will happen one game in three to be designed as part of the daemon's psychic defense?

Uh, Red, do you have numerical stats for rolling an 11? Your likelihood is to roll a 5-9 and either a 4,10 or additional 7 per game, with the other results being on the fringe. You'd be lucky to insta-gib a psyker 1 game in 6, if not closer to 7.

I was forgetting the second roll. It's 1-in-18 to roll the 11, but you have six shots at it (on average) each game, so 6/18 is roughly 1/3, but that's just to get the 11. They still have to fail some other test, right?

 Redbeard wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 Redbeard wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:

Except, rolling an 11 on the Warpstorm table is also a part of our army's built-in psychic defenses.

Wow, so you're considering an event that will happen one game in three to be designed as part of the daemon's psychic defense?

Uh, Red, do you have numerical stats for rolling an 11? Your likelihood is to roll a 5-9 and either a 4,10 or additional 7 per game, with the other results being on the fringe. You'd be lucky to insta-gib a psyker 1 game in 6, if not closer to 7.

I was forgetting the second roll. It's 1-in-18 to roll the 11, but you have six shots at it (on average) each game, so 6/18 is roughly 1/3, but that's just to get the 11. They still have to fail some other test, right?

I'm not sure how, but I'm not sure that's how the math for the statistics actually works, seeing as by that logic you have a 1/3rd chance for everything else.

They also have to fail a 3D6 LD check.

Ive had some time with the book and besides the warpstorm table and random wargear and abilities the book will suffer mostly from:

-T3 dies very quickly
-No frag grenades
-Skull cannons suck, open topped is pretty much a death sentence, taking multiples is just a waste
-standard anti horde tactics work very well since they lack any form of long ranged shooting.
-MCs are super expensive, one is easy to deal with, the more you take the less easy to kill troops you have.
-5++ on an MC isnt very good.
-Crushers, flamers, chariots are a joke
-Anti psyker gear really hurts alot of the good options

Things I like:
-Beasts of nurgle, thats a wall of pain
-Seekers, cheap and very very fast.
-Horrors, as long as no space wolves or eldar are around

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Redbeard wrote:


I was forgetting the second roll. It's 1-in-18 to roll the 11, but you have six shots at it (on average) each game, so 6/18 is roughly 1/3, but that's just to get the 11. They still have to fail some other test, right?

I'm not sure how, but I'm not sure that's how the math for the statistics actually works, seeing as by that logic you have a 1/3rd chance for everything else.

Why not?

If you're interested in whether you'll roll an 11 on any one of six turns, the math is fairly easy. There's a 1-in-18 chance per roll, and you're doing it six times. Because you're not interested in how many times you roll 11, or which specific turn you roll it on (figuring the odds for those is more complex), you just add the odds for the individual events. It's not entirely accurate, but it's a very close approximation that's easy to get quickly. (the actual odds are going to be marginally smaller, because otherwise, the odds of getting an 11 in 18 rolls would be 100%, but they're obviously not, so you can see that there's some approximation involved. You can work that out, but it's a much longer formula, and doesn't really add much to the discussion because the approximation is pretty darn close.

They also have to fail a 3D6 LD check.

Right, already covered that I wasn't factoring that in.

Statistics are kinda bad for this, though, because even if you are making this test 20 times in the course of a game, what you rolled in Tests 1 through 19 has no bearing on what you roll in Test 20. Each one is its stand-alone case.