Fixing Daemonhunters

[Aidoneus]

Okay, I think it's time to make some definitive decisions. As always, these can be changed later on, but for the time being I think we have enough of a consensus to write some rules.

 

First, to answer my own questions (based on your responses):

1) Should Deathcults be allowed sans inquisitor?

2) Should Assassinorum Operatives be allowed sans inquisitor?

3) Should Operatives pay a cost for this change?

4) If they should pay a cost, what's fair?

5) Should other assassins get stat-boosts?

1) No

2) Yes

3) Yes

4) back to this in just a minute

5) No

 

4) I'd say 5pts for the Eversor and Culuxes, bringing them to 100 and 110 points respectively, keep Vindicare at where he is, and maybe bump Callidus up to 125 or 130?

This sounds about right. Culexus is best with Daemonhunters around (psykers, fearless, and their powers combine to equal hell for daemons), and the eversor provides CC ability for radical Inqs, which other armies don't need as much. The Vindicare is a bit more useful in other armies, but already slightly overcosted, so maybe bump him up 5pts as well. And then the Callidus is extremely useful everywhere (other armies particularly, for what she can do with AWIYE). So the official costs will be:

Culexus: 110

Eversor: 100

Vindicare: 115

Callidus: 130

 

 

2) Should Assassinorum Operatives be allowed sans inquisitor?

-consensus seems to be yes, and I agree. this seems settled

I say no too this one purly from a fluf point.

Can you see a GK GM saying..."That deamond lord is too tough for us. *snaps fingers* I know

call up on of those Vindicare assasins, He can head shot it while we hide in the Land Raider!" ;)

The problem is, this argument assumes that for an inquisitor to be involved at all, he must be walking around on the battlefield. But that's not how operatives work. They are given assignments on their little home-planet, or some other base of operations, and then they go out on their own to do whatever needs to be done. Might an inquisitor accompany them into battle? Sure. But does he necessarily need to? Absolutely not. So that's kinda where I'm coming from, from a fluff standpoint.

 

I know I've come late too this, but I just want too put my two cents in from time too time.

Not trying too step on anyones toes either. :jaw:

No worries friend! All are welcome here! Disagreements are going to happen, but no one has any more authority than anyone else (well, except me, but that's just because I'm god-like :P ), regardless of when you entered the discussion. I look forward to hearing more from you in the future.

 

 

I think you missed slightly what I was after. The Culexus kicks enough psyker butt already. Now we need to make him a valuable alternative when enemy psykers aren't present.

Why? It's his job to tackle enemy psykers, why would you take him for anything else? It's like getting an electrician to fix your plumbing.

That's what GW has made him into. If you read his fluff, it's true that he is clearly the best man for the job when combatting enemy psykers, but it's also clear that he has a great effect on ALL people around him, not just psykers. I get the feeling, reading the fluff, that while he would definitely be the man sent out against a psyker, it isn't the case that psykers would be the only targets he is sent out against.

 

True, but keep in mind that the GKs already have a TON of anti-daemon stuff. I'm not sure we need any more specifically anti-daemon stuff. Also, keep in mind that, in conjunction with Rites (or Coteaz), any Ld ability the Culexus has will affect daemons, so we can cover that aspect of its fluff that way.

What about the Radicals? Not every DH army will include GKs, we can't operate on the principle that everyone will take them. You'd be fixing the GK list but breaking the Radical list.

I'm not sure I see how I'm breaking the Radical list by improving assassins? If anything, that should make them better. Now, will a culexus in a radical list be any use against daemons? Not, not really. But it will still be useful against anything else around, and radicals still have access to stuff that can help against daemons (psycannon, incinerators, grimoires, incense, etc.)

 

How about a rule that makes a lone operative Always an Independent Character, ie benefit from other units' special rules and can't use transports? If you take an Inquisitor as well, then the Assassin can do all those things, making him that bit more flexible?

I'm not sure I quite follow what you're proposing here. However, if I understand well enough to gather that you want assassins to work different depending on whether or not an inquisitor is present, I'm hesitant. Why would this be the case?

 

 

It's to make him a more attractive option. Very few people field him otherwise. Enhancing his anti-morale abilities makes him more useful outside the specialist anti-psyker role, and would serve to not punish players for including him in an all-comers list.

 

Plus, we've already enhanced his anti-pysker capabilities by rendering him immune to all psychic effects, both direct and indirect.

In that case, can we make his anti-psyker abilities effective (at least in part) against non-psyker units, in the same way that The Aegis and The Shrouding aren't just effective against Daemon units?

Well, sort of. It's not so much his anti-psyker abilities, it's his anti-Ld abilities. It's a subtle point, because his anti-Ld abilities are very useful against psykers. However, they can also be useful against other units as well. That's what improving his Soulless ability will give us. Instead of just affecting enemy HQ and Elite units, where going down to Ld7 is a big penalty, he will now affect everyone, taking already-low-leadership troops and bringing them down even further.

 

So the Culexus' Soulless ability will now just produce a flat -3Ld modifier to every unit within 12".

 

Edit: Okay, now that I think we have assassins settled, please go back and re-read posts 176 and 179, at the very top of page 8, so we can get back to some of those unresolved issues.

[Grand Master Tyrak]

I'm not sure I see how I'm breaking the Radical list by improving assassins? If anything, that should make them better. Now, will a culexus in a radical list be any use against daemons? Not, not really. But it will still be useful against anything else around, and radicals still have access to stuff that can help against daemons (psycannon, incinerators, grimoires, incense, etc.)

 

I'm saying that no changes should be made on the assumption that the Grey Knights will be there to cover for his weaknesses, as was suggested before.

 

I'm not sure I quite follow what you're proposing here. However, if I understand well enough to gather that you want assassins to work different depending on whether or not an inquisitor is present, I'm hesitant. Why would this be the case?

 

It's basically the idea that if there is an Inquisitor present, he will at least be informed of the presence of the Operative. He will then be able to give assurances to his army that the Operative is friendly, no matter how spooky he might seem, and he can then organise a better level of coordination.

 

On the other hand, if the Operative simply turns up on the battlefield, or in camp the night before, there's going to be a good deal of confusion. A Guard Commander, for example, will not be nearly as high up the food chain as an Inquisitor, so his "Need to Know" information will be much less.

[FunkyEntropy]

Alright, now that we're done with all the assassins (yay!), back to the other pressing issues at hand...

 

Back to, what, shrouding on dreads?

 

Assuming we allow dreads to take both the venerable and shrouding upgrades (and I am neither for nor against either of these changes), I don't see why we don't give the shrouding two point costs. A hellfire dread with the extra BS is much more valuable, and so I would assume people would be willing to pay more to keep their investment safe.

 

[edit: whoa whoa whoa. What's with the universal change to assassin point costs? I thought it was going to be separate costs - one for getting the assassin via the normal route, and the second with a slight point increase to reflect the "paperwork costs" of getting an assassin to show up without having an inquisitor physically present to direct their actions.]

[Ominous Anonymous]

It's basically the idea that if there is an Inquisitor present, he will at least be informed of the presence of the Operative. He will then be able to give assurances to his army that the Operative is friendly, no matter how spooky he might seem, and he can then organise a better level of coordination.

 

On the other hand, if the Operative simply turns up on the battlefield, or in camp the night before, there's going to be a good deal of confusion. A Guard Commander, for example, will not be nearly as high up the food chain as an Inquisitor, so his "Need to Know" information will be much less.

 

Not to keep beating this dead horse since we've more or less decided to go with the assassins acting alone, but generally the Inquisitor has an assassin under his charge (Eversor kept in stasis somewhere, Callidus as a faceless member of his retinue, etc.) and by having them in other armies we can simply take to mean that, before the battle, the Inquisitor met with the general of that army and loaned them the assassin. It's not like the Officio would send out an assassin and not have an Inquisitor to latch them to or somesuch.

 

And Funky: I think having two separate costs would have been too confusing, and instead gave only a minor increase in points to compensate for the 'going solo' option without putting too much of a drain on those who take an Inquisitor.

[FunkyEntropy]

Well, we could solve the issue of confusion by making the ability to take an assassin w/o an Inq a piece of wargear. Much like Orbital Strikes are now wargear, why not have the option open to those those who want to field assassins w/o the Inq, but not punish those who take Inquisitors already.

 

Because really, haven't the radical Inquisitors suffered enough indignities already?

 

We could call the wargear piece "Orders from Above" or "Strategic Reassignment" or "Shuffled Paperwork" if we're feeling particularly snarky.

[The Drake of Nocturne]

Well im not shure if this is too late, but I think that GK dreads should be WS 5 normal because even a normal grey knight has a beter weapon skill than it's far more experianced dreadnaught battle brother.

 

Again I hope this is't too late to be considered, Thanks.

[Grand Master Tyrak]

The Drake of Nocturne Posted Today, 02:46 PM

Well im not shure if this is too late, but I think that GK dreads should be WS 5 normal because even a normal grey knight has a beter weapon skill than it's far more experianced dreadnaught battle brother.

 

Grey Knight Dreadnoughts are already WS 5. :wacko:

 

Unless I've missed a suggestion here that we should lower it. ;)

[FunkyEntropy]

The Drake of Nocturne Posted Today, 02:46 PM

Well im not shure if this is too late, but I think that GK dreads should be WS 5 normal because even a normal grey knight has a beter weapon skill than it's far more experianced dreadnaught battle brother.

 

Grey Knight Dreadnoughts are already WS 5. B)

 

Unless I've missed a suggestion here that we should lower it. :lol:

 

I must have missed that part too. ;)

 

But no, I don't think lowering the Dreads WS was ever discussed. Thank goodness for that!

[Lungboy]

On Dreadnought Shrouding, i'm against it. The fluff for Shrouding states that it is the combined psychic powers in a unit of GK that allow them to confuse their enemies. To me, it seems that a solo Dread wouldn't be able to produce the same effects.

[Inquisitor =D=]

On Dreadnought Shrouding, i'm against it. The fluff for Shrouding states that it is the combined psychic powers in a unit of GK that allow them to confuse their enemies. To me, it seems that a solo Dread wouldn't be able to produce the same effects.

 

But a solo Brother Captain can? Sorry, just wanted to point that one out. As much as I would love for my Dreadnoughts to have the shrouding I don't believe they should. And its not from a fluff standpoint as GK Dreads simply aren't mentioned in any combat situations, its from a table-top perspective. I can think of more than a few players who would turn down a game if my Dreadnoughts gained that ability(hmm... now that I think of it there were a few players arguing to give it to him.). It would be an unnecessary complication to have to apply separate points costs and rules for the same ability. And to be honest I really like my "Cheap" heavy hitters, maybe I'm just lucky but I've seen my 2 dreadnoughts take out half of the apposing armies working in tandem why change that?

 

I will admit though... I want that venerable option. ;)

 

=]D[=

[Wrath]

I have to say, I really do want Dreads to get Shrouding. However...

 

Shrouding for regular GKs definitely needs to be fixed. Shrouding as it stands now would be pretty much perfect for a Dread, but an improved version would be plain old overpowered. So how do you make it all work together properly?

 

I'd hate to see two different methods for calculating range, given that any way you set it up would have to involve greater complication. However, leaving Shrouding the way it is for GK infantry would be to allow it to remain useless for everyone but Psycannon wielders. So how do you balance Shrouding for both the infantry and the Dreads? I don't have any real ideas to offer, but I really would like to see Shrouding made to work for Dreads.

[Aidoneus]

It's basically the idea that if there is an Inquisitor present, he will at least be informed of the presence of the Operative. He will then be able to give assurances to his army that the Operative is friendly, no matter how spooky he might seem, and he can then organise a better level of coordination.

I don't think it works like that. It's not that he looks really scary, and therefore people are frightened. It's that his lack of warp presence is disturbing at a deeply emotional level. No amount of warning can defend against that. In point of fact, he affects the very inquisitors used to "unlock" him just as much as anyone else.

 

Assuming we allow dreads to take both the venerable and shrouding upgrades (and I am neither for nor against either of these changes), I don't see why we don't give the shrouding two point costs. A hellfire dread with the extra BS is much more valuable, and so I would assume people would be willing to pay more to keep their investment safe.

That's getting quite complicated. Also, I don't see the need. Shrouding will protect short-range dreads as well, assuming they stick to a flank or whatnot. At the end of the day, we simply provide an option, and people can decide for themselves whether or not to utilize it.

 

That is, assuming we give them that option at all. That's still up in the air. My point is that it would have 1 cost, to keep things simple.

 

[edit: whoa whoa whoa. What's with the universal change to assassin point costs? I thought it was going to be separate costs - one for getting the assassin via the normal route, and the second with a slight point increase to reflect the "paperwork costs" of getting an assassin to show up without having an inquisitor physically present to direct their actions.]

That's pretty complicated. The idea behind cheap increases was to cover the overall benefit the unit gains by being available no matter what. Not saying it's a perfect solution; I personally was in favor of removing the restriction without changing points costs at all. But that seems the most fair solution. Giving them wargear or something to cover the cost only when an inquisitor isn't present is complicated and, to my knowledge, unprecedented.

 

Because really, haven't the radical Inquisitors suffered enough indignities already?

No. They haven't. They've had points costs for wargear reduced, orbital strikes greatly improved, daemonhosts both improved and reduced in points, they're going to get better storm troopers and valkyries and cheaper CC weapons when the IG codex comes out, and deathcults aren't an auto-lose for annihilation any more. Radicals have been improved just like everything else in our codex.

 

As much as I would love for my Dreadnoughts to have the shrouding I don't believe they should. And its not from a fluff standpoint as GK Dreads simply aren't mentioned in any combat situations, its from a table-top perspective. I can think of more than a few players who would turn down a game if my Dreadnoughts gained that ability(hmm... now that I think of it there were a few players arguing to give it to him.). It would be an unnecessary complication to have to apply separate points costs and rules for the same ability. And to be honest I really like my "Cheap" heavy hitters, maybe I'm just lucky but I've seen my 2 dreadnoughts take out half of the apposing armies working in tandem why change that?

I agree, Shrouding would be a huge benefit. That's why it would come with a huge point cost, and in turn, that is why it would not come standard, but would be an optional upgrade. As someone (I think tyrak) said earlier, we'd have to test it thoroughly to make sure we got the cost right. But off the top of my head I estimate about 40pts for just the shrouding.

 

No matter what, dreads are getting a venerable upgrade. In fact, I added that some time ago. You can see it in post #11. Whatever we decide for shrouding, that stays.

 

Edit: Wrath posted while I was posting.

Shrouding for regular GKs definitely needs to be fixed. Shrouding as it stands now would be pretty much perfect for a Dread, but an improved version would be plain old overpowered. So how do you make it all work together properly?

First off, when you say shrouding "as it stands now," are you referring to the 3D6x3 in our codex, or the 4D6x2 that we settled on in this project? Because I think the 4D6x2 solves your concerns for infantry.

 

For dreads, obviously it would be powerful. Most of that comes from dreads having longer range than GKs, so they can stay near the fringe more. However, at 40-ish points, given that people generally take dreads as a cheap alternative to land raiders, and given all the fast/deep-striking/flanking units that can get close enough that it won't matter anyway, I don't see much danger of abuse for any build of dread.

[Wrath]

As it stands now means in the current codex, not in the still-under-development revision rules here being worked on. Just to clarify.

[Aidoneus]

Really quick, I thought about it some more, and I think the callidus is too expensive. I'm bumping her back down to 125pts, making every assassin 5pts more than original because they can be taken with inquisitors.

[FunkyEntropy]

Now just to clarify, it is only DH/WH armies that can take assassins without having to buy an Inquisitor first, correct?

[DinoDoc]

Missed the intent of post. Move along.

[Aidoneus]

Now just to clarify, it is only DH/WH armies that can take assassins without having to buy an Inquisitor first, correct?

No. We have removed that restriction entirely. When an assassin is allied-in to another army, they get the exact same assassin we get, with no more or less restrictions. Thus, our change will allow spacies, IG, and WH to all take our updated DH assassins regardless of whether or not an inquisitor is present.

[FunkyEntropy]

Now just to clarify, it is only DH/WH armies that can take assassins without having to buy an Inquisitor first, correct?

No. We have removed that restriction entirely. When an assassin is allied-in to another army, they get the exact same assassin we get, with no more or less restrictions. Thus, our change will allow spacies, IG, and WH to all take our updated DH assassins regardless of whether or not an inquisitor is present.

 

Thanks for the clarification. I must admit some error on my part...when I was considering the value of allowing assassins without their taskmasters, I completely forgot about using them as allies; I was always thinking within the realm of the DH codex. The failure in that regard is mine.

 

My concern is that the assassin is one of the most powerful tools available to the DH player, and they plug a lot of holes in the DH list. Assassins are a powerful tool and helps balance out what is otherwise one of the weaker armies. SMURFs already have a pretty strong army, and I'm not one to hand one of the best weapons in my arsenal over to my opponents willy-nilly.

 

And from a fluff standpoint, while it makes sense that members of the Inquisition might send an assassin to tag along with their Chamber Militant to fulfill its role, I don't see it happening as often with outside organizations.

 

Sorry to take away from what was the general consensus, but it bugs me.

[Aidoneus]

The Officio Assassinorum is not the Inquisition. Inquisitors do have the authority to requisition assassins whenever they need, but they are not the only ones with access to them. So it's not a matter of handing over our assets; it's a matter of they have access to assassins too.

 

This is actually something that bugged me about assassins. There used to be a separate codex: assassins, and any imperial force could take one. Of course, such a codex was a waste, by itself, so assassins got folded in to the DH and WH codices, which already covered inquisition, grey knights (which are simultaneously a chapter of space marines and the chamber militant of the ordo malleus), members of the ecclesiarchy, and sisters of battle (the chambers militant of the ecclesiarchy). We're a very heterogeneous bunch, we are. Anyway, it bothered me that other imperial lists could no longer take assassins without also taking inquisitors. This would be like saying they couldn't get grey knights or sisters of battle or deathwatch kill teams without also taking an inquisitor. It just doesn't fit the fluff, nor previous rules. So on some level, while I think our change helps our own lists (all-GK lists can take assassins without inquisitors), it's also there specifically to allow other imperial forces access to assassins without needing to take inquisitors as well.

[Mutt-Man!]

I think inquisitors fit a wider variety role then normal, and often have several assassins work in-liege with their plans all over a large target area of operations. The one assassin with the Inquiz being his pet-killer the one that comes with him on battle operations. Assassins rarely invite themselves to all-out war situations and often avoid them to avoid detection. At least until they would be near their target of course. Until then most assassins would be the pet bodyguard(s) accompanying their inquiz. Which is the more common view of them in a battlefield role.

 

The very concept of assassin doesnt make them a field sniper or sergeant hunter among squads, they hardly ever abide to natural army doctrine and join a fight until they were ordered to. Given orders from far away and not recievng any new orders wont allow them to fight in any common battle that they come across until they know their target is there. So then, it reverts the other way depending on personal views.

 

 

For the sake of my sanity I wont read through all 9 pages just yet, just tossing out some rules we've fiddled with... Mostly on the shrouding.

 

We treat the shrouding as a type of advanced classic siren+the horror power. Take an unmodified LD check, if you fail then you cannot see the GK unit/model, if you are within 12" this rule does not apply, vehicles LD is the same of their lists top LD model. (Chaos would be10 having a prince/sorc/lord, etc, while orks would be 8 or 9 with boss/bigmek) Take the LD test when you declaire you want to shoot them, if you fail they must pick another target. No psychic test required.

 

-All wargear and items that have a similar/same name as items and wargear from the new SM codex must use the newer version. Including Land Raiders, dreadnoughts, and so on. (Any rules-additions remain like the gun options) - This applies to all marine codexes DA/BA/BT/SW here as well. (When the new IG codex arrives, we will do the same for the storm troopers)

 

-For the sake of sanity, the rules ofr radical inquisitors and unit limitations are all removed (daemonost/GK restrictions and all other 0-1 choices are removed aside from the usual standard bearer-like rules like holy relics). We've also mixed both inquisitorial-codexes at one point, but that lead to a lot of GK armies with Excorsists. (Excorsist fighting daemons with daemon hunters? No way!) =p

 

-We also tried GK's like a regular SM codex, the standard marines removed for the GK units of course. Giving them bikes, speeders and so on, but that seemed a bit off.

 

So far we're trying to use things that we're positive that will be in the next codex by guess-work done by viewing current codex changes so that players facing them wont feel robbed and players that play them wont feel the new stuff they buy to build their army around these things wont feel robbed if they cant do so when the new codex arrives.

 

Seems fair enough I hope?

[Grand Master Tyrak]

For the sake of sanity, the rules ofr radical inquisitors and unit limitations are all removed (daemonost/GK restrictions and all other 0-1 choices are removed aside from the usual standard bearer-like rules like holy relics).

 

What? Mixing Daemonhosts and Grey Knights in the same army. No way would that happen. The player should have to make a choice - Puritan or Radical. Each should have it's own advantages and disadvantages, and it's own mix of unique units and wargear.

[Mutt-Man!]

Well we're trying to guess GW's approach to their new codex methods... Khorne lords leading a thousand son army is now possible.. Considering radicals and puritans are able to walk side by side may also be on the horizon. Just a pre-heretical guess made on our part.

[Skyhawk]

Well we're trying to guess GW's approach to their new codex methods... Khorne lords leading a thousand son army is now possible.. Considering radicals and puritans are able to walk side by side may also be on the horizon. Just a pre-heretical guess made on our part.

 

Do not sow the seeds of terror in my heart, please. I have enough concerns about the prospect of our future codex as is.

[Lungboy]

Indeed, being able to field Daemonhosts with GK is a horrible thought.

[FunkyEntropy]

The Officio Assassinorum is not the Inquisition. Inquisitors do have the authority to requisition assassins whenever they need, but they are not the only ones with access to them. So it's not a matter of handing over our assets; it's a matter of they have access to assassins too.

 

This is actually something that bugged me about assassins. There used to be a separate codex: assassins, and any imperial force could take one. Of course, such a codex was a waste, by itself, so assassins got folded in to the DH and WH codices, which already covered inquisition, grey knights (which are simultaneously a chapter of space marines and the chamber militant of the ordo malleus), members of the ecclesiarchy, and sisters of battle (the chambers militant of the ecclesiarchy). We're a very heterogeneous bunch, we are. Anyway, it bothered me that other imperial lists could no longer take assassins without also taking inquisitors. This would be like saying they couldn't get grey knights or sisters of battle or deathwatch kill teams without also taking an inquisitor. It just doesn't fit the fluff, nor previous rules. So on some level, while I think our change helps our own lists (all-GK lists can take assassins without inquisitors), it's also there specifically to allow other imperial forces access to assassins without needing to take inquisitors as well.

 

You've convinced me.

 

What's next on the agenda?