I asked FW for a Daemon Lords update for IA:13

[Lagrath]

Hello everyone,

 

As some of you may know, FW was great about getting back to me with a list of responses to IA:13 and IA:Vraks issues when I sent in a two-page document with questions and omissions for Renegades and Heretics armies. They stated in their response that FAQs are underway for these books.

 

I therefore decided I should pull a Hail Mary and also write in about the Daemon Lords. We will see if I get any response. Here is my email, with points values removed:

 

 

Dear Forgeworld,
 

Thank you for your prompt email forward (below) earlier in March with the replies from your rules team regarding IA:13 and IA:Vraks (2nd). I look forward to the eventual full FAQs for these books being published.
 

On a related note, I also wanted to inquire as to whether FW is willing to consider any updates to the 4 Daemon Lord entries in IA:13. I had two questions in particular:
 

1) Would FW consider errata to remove the "max 25% of your total points" restriction to field a Daemon Lord? This rule seem an oddity, as most GW and FW units no longer have long since abandoned this type of restriction. Furthermore, fielding these units is in any case constrained by the very high points costs, the Unique status for each lord, the Lord of War slot, and the Arch-primaris Witch devotion requirement for non-Vraks Renegades and Heretics armies.

More importantly, the 25% limit makes these models de facto impossible to field in standard 40k games - even the cheapest can only be used in games of 2,664+ points! There are almost no tournaments in the world where players field such large armies, and I think that many players have trouble finding opponents even for casual games of 2,600-4,000 points. Considering that Khorne Daemonkhin now have X point Bloodthirsters with Str D axes and that a single Eldar decurion detachment can legally field many multiple Lord of War X-point Wraithknights (each a 6-wound Gargantuan Creature with possible Str D melee attacks), does this restriction still make sense?
 

I would also point gently to an email FW recently sent the popular Spikey Bits blog, which states in part: "We no longer want to put heavy handed restrictions on what people can use in their games." (http://www.spikeybitsblog.com/2015/04/is-everything-40k-approved-now.html). I can think of no heavier-handed restriction in the game than the 25% limit for fielding Daemon Lords!

 

2) Related to the above question, the entries for the Lords of War seem little changed from the 2013 Apocalypse update. It seems odd that a low-level X point Daemonkin Bloodthirster swings with a D axe, but Khorne's mightiest X point Bloodthirster hits with a measly Axe of Khorne. Imperial Knights and Wraithknights can be fielded in multiples at each 1/2 to 1/3 the cost of a Daemon Lord, but without recourse to D, any of the all-powerful Daemon Lords would struggle with these more common, cheaper Super Heavies and Gargantuan Creatures. In light of the direction that standard Warhammer 40k has taken in the last two years, will the mighty Daemon Lords ever receive an update for any type of D attacks?
 

Thank you for your time

 

 

[Forté]

Nicely done and we'll await an update.

And it helps if I follow...

[Khornestar]

Your skills in diplomacy are commendable, because I would have phrased things a lot differently and probably never gotten a well-considered answer as a result. I simply have no patience for their nonsense rules and inability to release a FAQ or erratum.

 

I sure hope we get an answer!

 

I think it should be acknowledged that at least FW will give us answers! You can write to GW day after day and still get the same customer service answer about how they'll pass along your concerns to the appropriate party, and then nothing ever comes of it.

[Lagrath]

Here is FW's reply:

 

 

Thank you for your email.  When the rules restrictions were placed, the idea was that these names Daemon Lords only make appearances in very large games.  Plus in Unbound armies it doesn't apply.
With regards to the examples of the Daemonkin book and the new Eldar codex and the power of their attacks, both of these books were released after IA13, so, with regards to both of these issues, you may see some amendments in any FAQs we release.

 

So it's a disapointment, but it looks like the reason they put in the 25% restriction is for the usual "Forgeworld forge the narrative" thing and not balance. That does go in line with what they told me about some of the design choices for the Renegades and Heretics armies.

 

On the plus side, it's nice that they are at least open to the idea of revisiting changes to 40k and D attacks in the future. I guess if Daemon Lords are only intended for huge points casual games, Unbound, and Apocalypse, they should at least be intimidating. And if anyone in your area was being stubborn and arguing that the Unbound rule somehow didn't apply to Daemon Lords, at least FW has given an answer on that now to remove any doubt.

[Strazhakov]

Balance aside I see nothing wrong with their answer. I mean the Daemon Lords aren't nobodys and have no place in small games. Besides 3000 pts isn't that large imho.

 

It's not their fault someone spiked the water supply at GW when they were writing the new El-D-ar codex.

 

I agree on the needed D Axe for Angrath though. It's just embarrasing elsewise.

[gwarsh41]

Honestly, the slaanesh and nurgle daemon lords could use some more oomph in CC as well. Scabby really should have the bale sword, the one he has is laughable. 

I also messaged FW about the brass scorpion. They stated that when the FAQ is released it will have a daemons stamp.

 

Also, why doesn't it matter in unbound? is it the way the rule is worded? I am fine with giving up ObjSec to play around with scabby in fun games.