TWW3 Khorne Faction on Legendary Difficulty

pdc4930#3270

So I have been watching a few of Legend of Total War's videos lately and I have wondering how the possible future factions of TWW3 might play on legendary difficulty campaign.

in the tabletop, the Monogod Faction of Khorne is a melee focused faction and cannot bring any magic users into combat and they only have one projectile unit, the Bone Cannon. with the currently leadership and melee buffs with legendary difficulty, the Khorne units are going to have a hard time as they will struggle to kill even mid level melee troops. I could see Bloodthirsters doomstacks being the way to go but it will be hell to get to that point.

Am I missing anything? I am just expecting to see a lot of disaster battles/campaigns with this faction.

yolordmcswag#6132

We don't know if they will even add monogods, but Khorne should be fine either way. Warriors of chaos work currently, with a roster full of monsters and heavy melee troops, and no range aside from a cannon.

So if we get monogods, Khorne wil be pretty similiar to warriors of chaos currently. If we get demons undivided, they have access to several ranged units and casters. Either way it's no problem.

DaGangster#8697

There is no way Greater Deamons aren't going to be Lords, they were on TT, so no doomstacks of them. They aren't going to do monogods anyway.

CaesarSahlertz

Monogod factions were, remains and will forever be a stupid idea...

Helhound#7332

Nothing wrong with the idea of Monogod factions, but I don't see them coming in as such. We do however, need a way of defining the key differences between the four gods and what they bring to the table. It's a large part of what gives the WoC their respective identity. Easily the faction with the most customization on TT and none of that is here right now.

To answer the OP on how Khorne would work at higher difficulties, the exact same way Beastmen make do on higher difficulties. Overwhelming force, inflicting as many casualties as fast as possible in the effort to drop morale. Less speed, more violence than the Beastmen though. The myth exists that the AI buffs make melee combat sub-optimal at higher difficulties, and while somewhat true, it can be overcome. Morale does still break, they still have the same health pool, and getting flanked still punishes.

Current WoC have no problem what so ever overwhelming their opponent on Legendary. That won't get any harder when you can gear them up with the Mark of Khorne en mass and/or have units with even higher base offensive stats.

PTree#4895

I like the monogods idea. Would prefer it. But would be happy if it's one faction, but the lord's journey gives advantages for becoming one or two god specific. that way you'd have variety in arms. Combined arms approach across all demon factions. Plus god specialists, where it's heavy in one area. Lords should eventually become DP's, or Greater demons too.
As for the OP quesiton... I think Khone have anti magic anti missle resist built in as a gift from khone.

Draxynnic#3149

DaGangster said:

There is no way Greater Deamons aren't going to be Lords, they were on TT, so no doomstacks of them. They aren't going to do monogods anyway.

It's possible they could be both. On tabletop, you could have multiple Lords with an overall army size that is fairly small by TWW standards (even on minimum unit sizes). Greater Demons as units would reflect the reality that while Greater Demons are rare, they don't seem to be "one every twenty units" rare.

Similar principle to, say, dragons for High Elves.

Or, I guess, they could take the Bretonnian approach and not have supply lines so you can bring additional Greater Demons as reinforcements.

DeathsDayOff

He'll have toys to use to make it possible, but it's not like there isn't a lot of factions that really get **** over by making melee stats trash

yolordmcswag#6132

Draxynnic said:

DaGangster said:

There is no way Greater Deamons aren't going to be Lords, they were on TT, so no doomstacks of them. They aren't going to do monogods anyway.

It's possible they could be both. On tabletop, you could have multiple Lords with an overall army size that is fairly small by TWW standards (even on minimum unit sizes). Greater Demons as units would reflect the reality that while Greater Demons are rare, they don't seem to be "one every twenty units" rare.

Similar principle to, say, dragons for High Elves.

Or, I guess, they could take the Bretonnian approach and not have supply lines so you can bring additional Greater Demons as reinforcements.

While they could use this approach, I think greater demons should be rarer than other lords. On TT a greater demon cost so much that in a typical army of 2500 points, you could only field a single one. Compared to this, it was common for many other races to have both a caster lord and a warrior lord in one army, who combined would cost around the same as a greater demon.

About dragons, I think this was a big mistake by CA, as they have made dragons far too common and as a result they feel too weak aswell. Besides, being a lord(or at least hero) is a requirement for taking items and skills. Dragons themselves could never take much in options, only their riders. Greater demons on the other hand could all have upgrades like demonic gifts, wizard levels and magic items, so it would be wrong to make any of them units IMO.

Draxynnic#3149

yolordmcswag said:

Draxynnic said:

DaGangster said:

There is no way Greater Deamons aren't going to be Lords, they were on TT, so no doomstacks of them. They aren't going to do monogods anyway.

It's possible they could be both. On tabletop, you could have multiple Lords with an overall army size that is fairly small by TWW standards (even on minimum unit sizes). Greater Demons as units would reflect the reality that while Greater Demons are rare, they don't seem to be "one every twenty units" rare.

Similar principle to, say, dragons for High Elves.

Or, I guess, they could take the Bretonnian approach and not have supply lines so you can bring additional Greater Demons as reinforcements.

While they could use this approach, I think greater demons should be rarer than other lords. On TT a greater demon cost so much that in a typical army of 2500 points, you could only field a single one. Compared to this, it was common for many other races to have both a caster lord and a warrior lord in one army, who combined would cost around the same as a greater demon.

About dragons, I think this was a big mistake by CA, as they have made dragons far too common and as a result they feel too weak aswell. Besides, being a lord(or at least hero) is a requirement for taking items and skills. Dragons themselves could never take much in options, only their riders. Greater demons on the other hand could all have upgrades like demonic gifts, wizard levels and magic items, so it would be wrong to make any of them units IMO.

Requiring a lord (or arguably even hero) to have a dragon would, conversely, make them far too rare, especially for High Elves, though. Particularly since in campaign you need a fairly high-level character for such a mount. Personally, I've generally taken the approach that there should be some form of soft limit on how many dragons can be taken as units, but having the option available was the right move.

When it comes to greater demons - I think it's reasonable to say that not all greater demons are equal. You're going to get some that are the bog-standard, relatively common Greater Demons, and then you've got the ones that are special, and they get the character options. In practice, the former would be potential units, while the latter would be the lords. Broadly speaking, I think demons should have access to some form of large monstrous unit, and I'd prefer there to be alternatives to the 40K expy for that role.

Wyvax#7456

Draxynnic said:

yolordmcswag said:

Draxynnic said:

DaGangster said:

There is no way Greater Deamons aren't going to be Lords, they were on TT, so no doomstacks of them. They aren't going to do monogods anyway.

It's possible they could be both. On tabletop, you could have multiple Lords with an overall army size that is fairly small by TWW standards (even on minimum unit sizes). Greater Demons as units would reflect the reality that while Greater Demons are rare, they don't seem to be "one every twenty units" rare.

Similar principle to, say, dragons for High Elves.

Or, I guess, they could take the Bretonnian approach and not have supply lines so you can bring additional Greater Demons as reinforcements.

While they could use this approach, I think greater demons should be rarer than other lords. On TT a greater demon cost so much that in a typical army of 2500 points, you could only field a single one. Compared to this, it was common for many other races to have both a caster lord and a warrior lord in one army, who combined would cost around the same as a greater demon.

About dragons, I think this was a big mistake by CA, as they have made dragons far too common and as a result they feel too weak aswell. Besides, being a lord(or at least hero) is a requirement for taking items and skills. Dragons themselves could never take much in options, only their riders. Greater demons on the other hand could all have upgrades like demonic gifts, wizard levels and magic items, so it would be wrong to make any of them units IMO.

Requiring a lord (or arguably even hero) to have a dragon would, conversely, make them far too rare, especially for High Elves, though. Particularly since in campaign you need a fairly high-level character for such a mount. Personally, I've generally taken the approach that there should be some form of soft limit on how many dragons can be taken as units, but having the option available was the right move.

When it comes to greater demons - I think it's reasonable to say that not all greater demons are equal. You're going to get some that are the bog-standard, relatively common Greater Demons, and then you've got the ones that are special, and they get the character options. In practice, the former would be potential units, while the latter would be the lords. Broadly speaking, I think demons should have access to some form of large monstrous unit, and I'd prefer there to be alternatives to the 40K expy for that role.

Greater daemons should be more on par with Slaan than dragons though, in fact recruiting them via the same or similar means sounds about right. And the Soul Grinder can be remodeled to fit the faction aesthetic better, like they've done with certain other units already like Kroxigors; on TT and in the art they were just oversized Saurus really, but in TW they're hulking alligator men. Just change the mechanical apparatus of the Soul Grinders to a more cast iron exoskeleton look like Juggernauts of Khorne look and they'll fit visually.

yolordmcswag#6132

Draxynnic said:

yolordmcswag said:

Draxynnic said:

DaGangster said:

There is no way Greater Deamons aren't going to be Lords, they were on TT, so no doomstacks of them. They aren't going to do monogods anyway.

It's possible they could be both. On tabletop, you could have multiple Lords with an overall army size that is fairly small by TWW standards (even on minimum unit sizes). Greater Demons as units would reflect the reality that while Greater Demons are rare, they don't seem to be "one every twenty units" rare.

Similar principle to, say, dragons for High Elves.

Or, I guess, they could take the Bretonnian approach and not have supply lines so you can bring additional Greater Demons as reinforcements.

While they could use this approach, I think greater demons should be rarer than other lords. On TT a greater demon cost so much that in a typical army of 2500 points, you could only field a single one. Compared to this, it was common for many other races to have both a caster lord and a warrior lord in one army, who combined would cost around the same as a greater demon.

About dragons, I think this was a big mistake by CA, as they have made dragons far too common and as a result they feel too weak aswell. Besides, being a lord(or at least hero) is a requirement for taking items and skills. Dragons themselves could never take much in options, only their riders. Greater demons on the other hand could all have upgrades like demonic gifts, wizard levels and magic items, so it would be wrong to make any of them units IMO.

Requiring a lord (or arguably even hero) to have a dragon would, conversely, make them far too rare, especially for High Elves, though. Particularly since in campaign you need a fairly high-level character for such a mount. Personally, I've generally taken the approach that there should be some form of soft limit on how many dragons can be taken as units, but having the option available was the right move.

When it comes to greater demons - I think it's reasonable to say that not all greater demons are equal. You're going to get some that are the bog-standard, relatively common Greater Demons, and then you've got the ones that are special, and they get the character options. In practice, the former would be potential units, while the latter would be the lords. Broadly speaking, I think demons should have access to some form of large monstrous unit, and I'd prefer there to be alternatives to the 40K expy for that role.

Even a bog-standard greater demon is still stronger than a dragon and/or has access to a number of spells and abilites that a dragon does not. My prefferred approach with demons would be that greater demons were the strongest of all generic lords, really having the feeling of unstoppable monstrosities, the way Kholek and Durthu feel currently. Making them a unit, even as a strong tier 5 one, would a disservice to them IMO. My impression of them was always "The most dangerous kind of being you can face within the setting", I felt that their rules represented this aswell.

I do see your point about demons and monsters though, it's something they should have given their feel of being eldritch abominations. I don't have a good solution myself. The best IMO would be to use the soulgrinder, but CA would redesign it to fit better into fantasy. With rot flies, beasts of nurgle, fiends of Slaneesh, exalted flamers and bloodcrushers, the demons still have access to a lot of monstrous units though.

Labria#2848

Chaos gods races have huge potential, this is not just WoC in four colors. I hope Khorne will be core race in game 3. I would like to play Khorne and Slaanesh races without disgusting Nurgle stuff or weird Tzeentch stuff. I don't like Nurgle and Tzeentch.
Khorne race is only way how add many cool Khorne characters like Skulltaker, Skarbrand, Valkia, Arbaal the Undefeated, Scyla Anfingrimm, Egil Styrbjorn, Haargroth the Blooded One and Skarr Bloodwrath. Also, It will be challenge to play chaos race without magic.

Red_Dox#2328

PdcGunner said:

So I have been watching a few of Legend of Total War's videos lately and I have wondering how the possible future factions of TWW3 might play on legendary difficulty campaign.

in the tabletop, the Monogod Faction of Khorne is a melee focused faction and cannot bring any magic users into combat and they only have one projectile unit, the Bone Cannon. with the currently leadership and melee buffs with legendary difficulty, the Khorne units are going to have a hard time as they will struggle to kill even mid level melee troops. I could see Bloodthirsters doomstacks being the way to go but it will be hell to get to that point.

Am I missing anything? I am just expecting to see a lot of disaster battles/campaigns with this faction.

Yeah, you are obviously missing how god damn good some of the Khorne units actually are in TT. I guess you never played it yourself? I would further assume that you don't get the full picture of TT units available for Khorne only, so this might prove helpful


So while you fear that you can't slaughter the AI proper, I on the other hand rather fear the future of the AI with certain doomstacks. Like Skulltaker on chariot with 19 Skullcannons. For those that actually don't get why this would make fabled Surtha Ek look like a pansy: the Skullcannon is a regular cannon on a chariot. With burning ammunition to better kill regenerating stuff or things that burn easy. And the chariot itself, which of course has the demonic wardsave, will regenerate life through impact hits.
So this will not be 19 Necrofex Colossi bad, but...hey, for that we have the Soulgrinder.

A Soulgrinder can carry one shooty option. Either a flamecannon, a stonethrower or a boltthrower proxy. While he still has his melee capabilities, paired with the demonic wardsave+mark. Oh joy.
Or, you know, we just make a mixed army. You think Demigryphs are good cav? Just wait for Bloodcrushers. You think the standard infantry is bad? Bloodletters have scaly skins for armor save and the usual demonic wardsave. Strength 5 and a magical weapon giving them "killing blow".

You think Fleshhounds are just the same like all those other pansy hounds/wolves elsewhere? Wrong. They have more life, more and stronger attacks, are way tougher and of course also are blessed with a demonic wardsave.

I still assume that while DoC will be rather portrayed as "undivided", so we can mix as we want, CA might hand out certain buffs for "monogod" armies to toughen them up since they lose their diversity in the process. So who knows, a pure Khorne stack might get extra resilient against magic. Will not make them immune but weakend spell damage still helps along. And while "Legendary" will buff enemy troops more, nobody forces you to play on Legendary. A balance debate around that difficulty is ludicrous at best. Even while feeling **** enough to play on Legendary, my Noctilus+19 Colossi stack is autoresolving decisive wins against three enemy stacks. So while there might be a problem early on, as is for every race, with lategame units as the mentioned Soulgrinders or even multiple Bloodthirsters in a single army, I have my doubts that we need to worry about AI buffs for Khorne-only DoC.

------Red Dox

Captain_Rex#1635

A monogod race Mixing DoC and WoC won’t happen, period.
DoC will be an undivided race just like in their armybook. It should definitely be possible to use units from different gods together in one army.

Warriors of Khorne on the other hand would be absolutely epic and I would pay good money for such a DLC!

Making 4 unique god aligned WoC races would also solve the problem that WoC can’t get more stuff as a poor DLC race.

Labria#2848

ArneSo said:

A monogod race Mixing DoC and WoC won’t happen, period.
DoC will be an undivided race just like in their armybook. It should definitely be possible to use units from different gods together in one army.

Warriors of Khorne on the other hand would be absolutely epic and I would pay good money for such a DLC!

Making 4 unique god aligned WoC races would also solve the problem that WoC can’t get more stuff as a poor DLC race.

If we get only Deamon of Chaos. What will left for DLC in game 3? Races without official rosters?
It is strange we don't have Daemon of Chaos race in old Russian leak but only: Khorne, Nurgle, Tzeentch and Slaanesh. I doubt CA will cut four races and only one race instead of four races.
http://totalwars.ru/index.php/total-war-warhammer-news/2576-total-war-warhammer-fb-dlc-and-expansion-pack-plans.html
If CA plan to make Khorne, Nurgle, Tzeentch, Slaanesh, Chaos Dwarfs, Ogre Kingdoms. They need only add 1-2 new human races in game 3 like Kislev or Southern Realms for better sales.

I think something like this most sense for game 3:

• Preorder bonus: Southern Realms race with Dogs of War roster
  
• Core races: Kislev, Ogre Kingdoms, Khorne and Nurgle
  
• DLC: Chaos Dwarfs, Slaanesh and Tzeentch
  

CaesarSahlertz

Monogod armies are the WORST possible representation of how Chaos functions... Warbands entirely devoted to the worship of a single god is incredibly rare, so having entire factions devoted this way would be braindead...

Captain_Rex#1635

Labria said:

ArneSo said:

A monogod race Mixing DoC and WoC won’t happen, period.
DoC will be an undivided race just like in their armybook. It should definitely be possible to use units from different gods together in one army.

Warriors of Khorne on the other hand would be absolutely epic and I would pay good money for such a DLC!

Making 4 unique god aligned WoC races would also solve the problem that WoC can’t get more stuff as a poor DLC race.

If we get only Deamon of Chaos. What will left for DLC in game 3? Races without official rosters?
It is strange we don't have Daemon of Chaos race in old Russian leak but only: Khorne, Nurgle, Tzeentch and Slaanesh. I doubt CA will cut four races and only one race instead of four races.
http://totalwars.ru/index.php/total-war-warhammer-news/2576-total-war-warhammer-fb-dlc-and-expansion-pack-plans.html
If CA plan to make Khorne, Nurgle, Tzeentch, Slaanesh, Chaos Dwarfs, Ogre Kingdoms. They need only add 1-2 new human races in game 3 like Kislev or Southern Realms for better sales.

I think something like this most sense for game 3:

• Preorder bonus: Southern Realms race with Dogs of War roster
  
• Core races: Kislev, Ogre Kingdoms, Khorne and Nurgle
  
• DLC: Chaos Dwarfs, Slaanesh and Tzeentch
  

DoC should get their god slingers characters as DLC together with all the units. A Tzeentch vs Khorne Lp would be great.

For DLC races:
DoW
Nagash
Warriors of Khorne
Warriors of Slaanesh
Warriors of Nurgle
Warriors of Tzeentch
Maybe even Hobgoblins

Red_Dox#2328

Labria said:

It is strange we don't have Daemon of Chaos race in old Russian leak but only: Khorne, Nurgle, Tzeentch and Slaanesh. I doubt CA will cut four races and only one race instead of four races.
http://totalwars.ru/index.php/total-war-warhammer-news/2576-total-war-warhammer-fb-dlc-and-expansion-pack-plans.html

And that is a direct CA quote from this very forum.

Also to keep in mind when you want to argue with the dataleak, we also have this

So ask yourself: How well can you really rely on the assumptions you draw from this dataleak, which already went offtrack since it mentions Skaven as DLC there and confirmed as outdated in 2016?

------Red Dox

Labria#2848

ArneSo said:

Labria said:

ArneSo said:

A monogod race Mixing DoC and WoC won’t happen, period.
DoC will be an undivided race just like in their armybook. It should definitely be possible to use units from different gods together in one army.

Warriors of Khorne on the other hand would be absolutely epic and I would pay good money for such a DLC!

Making 4 unique god aligned WoC races would also solve the problem that WoC can’t get more stuff as a poor DLC race.

If we get only Deamon of Chaos. What will left for DLC in game 3? Races without official rosters?
It is strange we don't have Daemon of Chaos race in old Russian leak but only: Khorne, Nurgle, Tzeentch and Slaanesh. I doubt CA will cut four races and only one race instead of four races.
http://totalwars.ru/index.php/total-war-warhammer-news/2576-total-war-warhammer-fb-dlc-and-expansion-pack-plans.html
If CA plan to make Khorne, Nurgle, Tzeentch, Slaanesh, Chaos Dwarfs, Ogre Kingdoms. They need only add 1-2 new human races in game 3 like Kislev or Southern Realms for better sales.

I think something like this most sense for game 3:

• Preorder bonus: Southern Realms race with Dogs of War roster
  
• Core races: Kislev, Ogre Kingdoms, Khorne and Nurgle
  
• DLC: Chaos Dwarfs, Slaanesh and Tzeentch
  

DoC should get their god slingers characters as DLC together with all the units. A Tzeentch vs Khorne Lp would be great.

For DLC races:
DoW
Nagash
Warriors of Khorne
Warriors of Slaanesh
Warriors of Nurgle
Warriors of Tzeentch
Maybe even Hobgoblins

Chaos vs Chaos for Lord pack? Why should buy this any of non-chaos player? It make more sense to make something like Kislev vs Khorne or Nugle vs Empire or something like this.

It make most sense to add Dogs of War/Southern Realms as preoder bonus, playable in game 2.

Nagash? No roster, just mix of Tomb Kings and Vampire Count.
Hobgoblins? This is just second Greenskins race without orcs units. They will be part of Chaos Dwarfs army.
Just warriors for one god? This make no sense. Chaos gods race can only work with own warriors and deamons stuff.

Red_Dox said:

So ask yourself: How well can you really rely on the assumptions you draw from this dataleak, which already went offtrack since it mentions Skaven as DLC there and confirmed as outdated in 2016?

------Red Dox

Sure, CA changed plan and added more races like Vampire Coast or Norsca or change Skaven from DLC to core race.
I just believe that it make no sense to first have plan to make four races and then reduce them to just one race, especially for game 3. Where is not many options for new races. Also, each chaos gods can easy work like own race with own strengths and weaknesses.

Captain_Rex#1635

Labria said:

ArneSo said:

Labria said:

ArneSo said:

A monogod race Mixing DoC and WoC won’t happen, period.
DoC will be an undivided race just like in their armybook. It should definitely be possible to use units from different gods together in one army.

Warriors of Khorne on the other hand would be absolutely epic and I would pay good money for such a DLC!

Making 4 unique god aligned WoC races would also solve the problem that WoC can’t get more stuff as a poor DLC race.

If we get only Deamon of Chaos. What will left for DLC in game 3? Races without official rosters?
It is strange we don't have Daemon of Chaos race in old Russian leak but only: Khorne, Nurgle, Tzeentch and Slaanesh. I doubt CA will cut four races and only one race instead of four races.
http://totalwars.ru/index.php/total-war-warhammer-news/2576-total-war-warhammer-fb-dlc-and-expansion-pack-plans.html
If CA plan to make Khorne, Nurgle, Tzeentch, Slaanesh, Chaos Dwarfs, Ogre Kingdoms. They need only add 1-2 new human races in game 3 like Kislev or Southern Realms for better sales.

I think something like this most sense for game 3:

• Preorder bonus: Southern Realms race with Dogs of War roster
  
• Core races: Kislev, Ogre Kingdoms, Khorne and Nurgle
  
• DLC: Chaos Dwarfs, Slaanesh and Tzeentch
  

DoC should get their god slingers characters as DLC together with all the units. A Tzeentch vs Khorne Lp would be great.

For DLC races:
DoW
Nagash
Warriors of Khorne
Warriors of Slaanesh
Warriors of Nurgle
Warriors of Tzeentch
Maybe even Hobgoblins

Chaos vs Chaos for Lord pack? Why should buy this any of non-chaos player? It make more sense to make something like Kislev vs Khorne or Nugle vs Empire or something like this.

It make most sense to add Dogs of War/Southern Realms as preoder bonus, playable in game 2.

Nagash? No roster, just mix of Tomb Kings and Vampire Count.
Hobgoblins? This is just second Greenskins race without orcs units. They will be part of Chaos Dwarfs army.
Just warriors for one god? This make no sense. Chaos gods race can only work with own warriors and deamons stuff.

Red_Dox said:

So ask yourself: How well can you really rely on the assumptions you draw from this dataleak, which already went offtrack since it mentions Skaven as DLC there and confirmed as outdated in 2016?

------Red Dox

Sure, CA changed plan and added more races like Vampire Coast or Norsca or change Skaven from DLC to core race.
I just believe that it make no sense to plan to make four races and reduce them to just one race, especially for game 3, where is not many options for new races. Also, each chaos gods can easy work like own race with own strengths and weaknesses.

Well it’s a known rivalry but I also agree that DoC vs X race would be better.
DoC are Perfect for crossovers against any kind of race.

DoC vs Empire (Emil Valgeir)
DoC vs LM (Oxyotl/Tetto‘eco)
DoC vs HE (Aislinn)
DoC vs Kislev

All of them are good options for interesting crossovers.

Well DoW could fit for both to be honest so we will see.

Draxynnic#3149

yolordmcswag said:

Draxynnic said:

yolordmcswag said:

Draxynnic said:

DaGangster said:

There is no way Greater Deamons aren't going to be Lords, they were on TT, so no doomstacks of them. They aren't going to do monogods anyway.

It's possible they could be both. On tabletop, you could have multiple Lords with an overall army size that is fairly small by TWW standards (even on minimum unit sizes). Greater Demons as units would reflect the reality that while Greater Demons are rare, they don't seem to be "one every twenty units" rare.

Similar principle to, say, dragons for High Elves.

Or, I guess, they could take the Bretonnian approach and not have supply lines so you can bring additional Greater Demons as reinforcements.

While they could use this approach, I think greater demons should be rarer than other lords. On TT a greater demon cost so much that in a typical army of 2500 points, you could only field a single one. Compared to this, it was common for many other races to have both a caster lord and a warrior lord in one army, who combined would cost around the same as a greater demon.

About dragons, I think this was a big mistake by CA, as they have made dragons far too common and as a result they feel too weak aswell. Besides, being a lord(or at least hero) is a requirement for taking items and skills. Dragons themselves could never take much in options, only their riders. Greater demons on the other hand could all have upgrades like demonic gifts, wizard levels and magic items, so it would be wrong to make any of them units IMO.

Requiring a lord (or arguably even hero) to have a dragon would, conversely, make them far too rare, especially for High Elves, though. Particularly since in campaign you need a fairly high-level character for such a mount. Personally, I've generally taken the approach that there should be some form of soft limit on how many dragons can be taken as units, but having the option available was the right move.

When it comes to greater demons - I think it's reasonable to say that not all greater demons are equal. You're going to get some that are the bog-standard, relatively common Greater Demons, and then you've got the ones that are special, and they get the character options. In practice, the former would be potential units, while the latter would be the lords. Broadly speaking, I think demons should have access to some form of large monstrous unit, and I'd prefer there to be alternatives to the 40K expy for that role.

Even a bog-standard greater demon is still stronger than a dragon and/or has access to a number of spells and abilites that a dragon does not. My prefferred approach with demons would be that greater demons were the strongest of all generic lords, really having the feeling of unstoppable monstrosities, the way Kholek and Durthu feel currently. Making them a unit, even as a strong tier 5 one, would a disservice to them IMO. My impression of them was always "The most dangerous kind of being you can face within the setting", I felt that their rules represented this as well.

I do see your point about demons and monsters though, it's something they should have given their feel of being eldritch abominations. I don't have a good solution myself. The best IMO would be to use the soulgrinder, but CA would redesign it to fit better into fantasy. With rot flies, beasts of nurgle, fiends of Slaneesh, exalted flamers and bloodcrushers, the demons still have access to a lot of monstrous units though.

That's not really true.

Let's consider the bog-standard Bloodthirster, generally considered the best Great Daemon from a non-magical perspective:

M8 WS10 BS10 S6 T6 W5 I9 A6+1 Ld9

5+ armour save (heavy armour)
5+ ward save
+1 S on charge
Other stuff not relevant to the matchup.

Compare to a Star Dragon:
M6 WS7 BS0 S7 T7 W7 I2 A6 Ld9

3+ armour save (scaly skin)
S4 breath weapon
Other stuff not relevant to the matchup.

This doesn't read "clearly better" to me. The Bloodthirster has higher WS, Initiative, and more Attacks. Star Dragon offsets this with more Strength, Toughness, and Wounds.

So let's fight a round of close combat. Assuming that the Bloodthirster didn't get the charge and the Star Dragon has already used it's breath and doesn't get to throw out 2d6 automatic S4 hits, we get:

Bloodthirster opens with seven attacks which hit on 3+, for an expected 4.67 hits. Against Toughness 7, it needs a 5+ to wound, so there's an expected 1.56 wounds. The 3+ save of the Star Dragon is reduced to a 6+ due to the Bloodthirster's S6, which drops it to an expected 1.30 wounds.

(For completeness's sake, if the Bloodthirster charges, this rises to an expected 2.33 wounds on the turn it charges)

Star Dragon now responds with six attacks hitting on 4+, expecting 3 hits. S7 versus T6 means they wound on a 3+, so 2 wounds. The Star Dragon's strength easily goes through the Bloodthirster's 5+ heavy armour, but the 5+ ward save blocks one in three attacks, for an expected 1.33 wounds going through.

(For completeness, if the Star Dragon breathes, this rises to an expected 2.11 wounds on the turn it breathes)

Pretty much a draw in that round of combat, but statistically, the Star Dragons are slightly ahead in the amount of damage they'd be expected to do to the baseline Bloodthirster than vice versa. It also has two more wounds, so if both sides make their Leadership tests and neither side gets an exceptionally good or bad turn, we can expect the Star Dragon to outlast the Bloodthirster. Even if the Bloodthirster charges and the Star Dragon doesn't breathe, this only lets the Bloodthirster get one wound up on the Star Dragon, so the Star Dragon still has one extra wound to lose.

Which is probably to be expected. Star Dragons are only 10 points cheaper than the standard Bloodthirster, after all, and might have a small price rebate due to needing to be taken with an expensive and comparatively squishy character. Meanwhile, more of the Bloodthirster's point budget is going into stuff that doesn't play a part in the matchup, such as Magic Resistance. But when the fluff states "a Star Dragon is so physically powerful that it can battle against even the Greater Daemons of Chaos and prevail"... this isn't hyperbole. The statistics back it up.

Obviously, this is still only the most baseline and thus probably the weakest of Bloodthirsters, but it demonstrates the point - the power level of a baseline Bloodthirster is about that of a Star Dragon.

Other Greater Demons are more complicated since they all have magic at their baseline level, but at baseline it's a relatively small amount of magic - GUOs and KoSs are level 1 wizards baseline, while the baseline LoC is a level 2. That's within the range that would probably be reasonable to give them a certain number of bound spells similar to Sisters of the Thorn... which would probably be comparable in overall impact to breath weapons in TWW.

So yeah, I don't think there's a big difference between a baseline Greater Demon and a Star Dragon.

Greater Demons with all the bells and whistles (and extra Wizard levels for non-Khorne greater demons)? Sure. Then you're looking at the equivalent of a Prince or Archmage on Star Dragon, not the Star Dragon alone.

yolordmcswag#6132

Draxynnic said:

yolordmcswag said:

Draxynnic said:

yolordmcswag said:

Draxynnic said:

DaGangster said:

There is no way Greater Deamons aren't going to be Lords, they were on TT, so no doomstacks of them. They aren't going to do monogods anyway.

It's possible they could be both. On tabletop, you could have multiple Lords with an overall army size that is fairly small by TWW standards (even on minimum unit sizes). Greater Demons as units would reflect the reality that while Greater Demons are rare, they don't seem to be "one every twenty units" rare.

Similar principle to, say, dragons for High Elves.

Or, I guess, they could take the Bretonnian approach and not have supply lines so you can bring additional Greater Demons as reinforcements.

While they could use this approach, I think greater demons should be rarer than other lords. On TT a greater demon cost so much that in a typical army of 2500 points, you could only field a single one. Compared to this, it was common for many other races to have both a caster lord and a warrior lord in one army, who combined would cost around the same as a greater demon.

About dragons, I think this was a big mistake by CA, as they have made dragons far too common and as a result they feel too weak aswell. Besides, being a lord(or at least hero) is a requirement for taking items and skills. Dragons themselves could never take much in options, only their riders. Greater demons on the other hand could all have upgrades like demonic gifts, wizard levels and magic items, so it would be wrong to make any of them units IMO.

Requiring a lord (or arguably even hero) to have a dragon would, conversely, make them far too rare, especially for High Elves, though. Particularly since in campaign you need a fairly high-level character for such a mount. Personally, I've generally taken the approach that there should be some form of soft limit on how many dragons can be taken as units, but having the option available was the right move.

When it comes to greater demons - I think it's reasonable to say that not all greater demons are equal. You're going to get some that are the bog-standard, relatively common Greater Demons, and then you've got the ones that are special, and they get the character options. In practice, the former would be potential units, while the latter would be the lords. Broadly speaking, I think demons should have access to some form of large monstrous unit, and I'd prefer there to be alternatives to the 40K expy for that role.

Even a bog-standard greater demon is still stronger than a dragon and/or has access to a number of spells and abilites that a dragon does not. My prefferred approach with demons would be that greater demons were the strongest of all generic lords, really having the feeling of unstoppable monstrosities, the way Kholek and Durthu feel currently. Making them a unit, even as a strong tier 5 one, would a disservice to them IMO. My impression of them was always "The most dangerous kind of being you can face within the setting", I felt that their rules represented this as well.

I do see your point about demons and monsters though, it's something they should have given their feel of being eldritch abominations. I don't have a good solution myself. The best IMO would be to use the soulgrinder, but CA would redesign it to fit better into fantasy. With rot flies, beasts of nurgle, fiends of Slaneesh, exalted flamers and bloodcrushers, the demons still have access to a lot of monstrous units though.

That's not really true.

Let's consider the bog-standard Bloodthirster, generally considered the best Great Daemon from a non-magical perspective:

M8 WS10 BS10 S6 T6 W5 I9 A6+1 Ld9

5+ armour save (heavy armour)
5+ ward save
+1 S on charge
Other stuff not relevant to the matchup.

Compare to a Star Dragon:
M6 WS7 BS0 S7 T7 W7 I2 A6 Ld9

3+ armour save (scaly skin)
S4 breath weapon
Other stuff not relevant to the matchup.

This doesn't read "clearly better" to me. The Bloodthirster has higher WS, Initiative, and more Attacks. Star Dragon offsets this with more Strength, Toughness, and Wounds.

So let's fight a round of close combat. Assuming that the Bloodthirster didn't get the charge and the Star Dragon has already used it's breath and doesn't get to throw out 2d6 automatic S4 hits, we get:

Bloodthirster opens with seven attacks which hit on 3+, for an expected 4.67 hits. Against Toughness 7, it needs a 5+ to wound, so there's an expected 1.56 wounds. The 3+ save of the Star Dragon is reduced to a 6+ due to the Bloodthirster's S6, which drops it to an expected 1.30 wounds.

(For completeness's sake, if the Bloodthirster charges, this rises to an expected 2.33 wounds on the turn it charges)

Star Dragon now responds with six attacks hitting on 4+, expecting 3 hits. S7 versus T6 means they wound on a 3+, so 2 wounds. The Star Dragon's strength easily goes through the Bloodthirster's 5+ heavy armour, but the 5+ ward save blocks one in three attacks, for an expected 1.33 wounds going through.

(For completeness, if the Star Dragon breathes, this rises to an expected 2.11 wounds on the turn it breathes)

Pretty much a draw in that round of combat, but statistically, the Star Dragons are slightly ahead in the amount of damage they'd be expected to do to the baseline Bloodthirster than vice versa. It also has two more wounds, so if both sides make their Leadership tests and neither side gets an exceptionally good or bad turn, we can expect the Star Dragon to outlast the Bloodthirster. Even if the Bloodthirster charges and the Star Dragon doesn't breathe, this only lets the Bloodthirster get one wound up on the Star Dragon, so the Star Dragon still has one extra wound to lose.

Which is probably to be expected. Star Dragons are only 10 points cheaper than the standard Bloodthirster, after all, and might have a small price rebate due to needing to be taken with an expensive and comparatively squishy character. Meanwhile, more of the Bloodthirster's point budget is going into stuff that doesn't play a part in the matchup, such as Magic Resistance. But when the fluff states "a Star Dragon is so physically powerful that it can battle against even the Greater Daemons of Chaos and prevail"... this isn't hyperbole. The statistics back it up.

Obviously, this is still only the most baseline and thus probably the weakest of Bloodthirsters, but it demonstrates the point - the power level of a baseline Bloodthirster is about that of a Star Dragon.

Other Greater Demons are more complicated since they all have magic at their baseline level, but at baseline it's a relatively small amount of magic - GUOs and KoSs are level 1 wizards baseline, while the baseline LoC is a level 2. That's within the range that would probably be reasonable to give them a certain number of bound spells similar to Sisters of the Thorn... which would probably be comparable in overall impact to breath weapons in TWW.

So yeah, I don't think there's a big difference between a baseline Greater Demon and a Star Dragon.

Greater Demons with all the bells and whistles (and extra Wizard levels for non-Khorne greater demons)? Sure. Then you're looking at the equivalent of a Prince or Archmage on Star Dragon, not the Star Dragon alone.

First off, a star dragon is the strongest dragon in the basic TT (not counting storm of magic and the likes), black dragons, chaos dragons, forest dragons, zombie dragons, sun/moon dragons are all a lot weaker than a star dragon. It is true that a star dragon is on par or stronger than a basic greater demon, but also notice that a greater demon is the measurement of it's strength. Greater demons are seen as the "apex predators" of the setting so to speak, they would not be fit as units.

About being a baseline wizard, there is a difference between even lvl 1 wizards and an ability like a breath weapon. Being a wizard gives you access to the whole magic phase, just like not having a wizard in total war makes all your winds of magic power wasted. A greater demon could serve as your general, your wizard and a melee beast at the same time. Dragons, while really powerful, only filled the role as a monster on their own, and dragons are too commonplace in total war IMO.

As such, the main reason I think greater demons should be lords is because they are characters, they get skills, abilities and items. Making them a unit would be a disservice to what they are, it would be like making Slann an artillery unit. It takes away their personality, and fails to show them as more than "big monster smash".

CaesarSahlertz

Star Dragons are Dragons that are famous because THEY can contest Greater Daemons. Star Dragons are rare. A better comparison would be a Sun Dragon vs a Greater Daemon...

Abbreviated version: The Sun Dragon gets demolished.

Draxynnic#3149

yolordmcswag said:

First off, a star dragon is the strongest dragon in the basic TT (not counting storm of magic and the likes), black dragons, chaos dragons, forest dragons, zombie dragons, sun/moon dragons are all a lot weaker than a star dragon. It is true that a star dragon is on par or stronger than a basic greater demon, but also notice that a greater demon is the measurement of it's strength. Greater demons are seen as the "apex predators" of the setting so to speak, they would not be fit as units.

And Star Dragons and things of similar scale are available as units, right?

To put it in terms of straight points: a Star Dragon is 390 points. Baseline Greater Demons range from 375 (GUO, KoS) to 400 (LoC, BT). According to Games Workshop's balancing metric, they're on about the same power level. The Dread Saurian was 450 points, and the War Mammoth was a whopping 550 points, and that's the feral version - adding a howdah or warshrine costs more.

If you're talking about an Exalted Greater Demon or one with Chaos Gifts and extra magic levels, sure, but the baseline Greater Demon taken straight out of the army book with no extra options taken? That's on about the same power level.

yolordmcswag said:

About being a baseline wizard, there is a difference between even lvl 1 wizards and an ability like a breath weapon. Being a wizard gives you access to the whole magic phase, just like not having a wizard in total war makes all your winds of magic power wasted. A greater demon could serve as your general, your wizard and a melee beast at the same time. Dragons, while really powerful, only filled the role as a monster on their own, and dragons are too commonplace in total war IMO.

Except... that there's already precedent for units of spellcasters to be treated in the way I described. Sisters of the Thorn and Doomfire Warlocks don't access the Winds of Magic directly - they have a specific pair of bound spells. Greater Demons as units could use the same system. Heck, for Slaanesh and Nurgle, just give them the signature spell for their lore. Lords of Change are more complicated since as a level 2 wizard they'd have two spells, but not much more complicated, just give them two bound spells and it's done. Maybe the baseline Lord of Change could have both pink and blue fire.

They're already going to need to do something for Pink Horrors, so I don't think this is as big a stretch as you seem to be making out.

yolordmcswag said:

As such, the main reason I think greater demons should be lords is because they are characters, they get skills, abilities and items. Making them a unit would be a disservice to what they are, it would be like making Slann an artillery unit. It takes away their personality, and fails to show them as more than "big monster smash".

And you can have Greater Demons who are characters, have magic items, learn spells beyond the baseline signature spells, and act as leaders among their kind. And Greater Demons that are units, representing that there are more Greater Demons than you'd see if you could only have one per army. It's not one or the other, and let's be realistic here, often enough un-named Greater Demons are presented simply as a big monster to smash or be smashed.

yolordmcswag#6132

Draxynnic said:

yolordmcswag said:

First off, a star dragon is the strongest dragon in the basic TT (not counting storm of magic and the likes), black dragons, chaos dragons, forest dragons, zombie dragons, sun/moon dragons are all a lot weaker than a star dragon. It is true that a star dragon is on par or stronger than a basic greater demon, but also notice that a greater demon is the measurement of it's strength. Greater demons are seen as the "apex predators" of the setting so to speak, they would not be fit as units.

And Star Dragons and things of similar scale are available as units, right?

To put it in terms of straight points: a Star Dragon is 390 points. Baseline Greater Demons range from 375 (GUO, KoS) to 400 (LoC, BT). According to Games Workshop's balancing metric, they're on about the same power level. The Dread Saurian was 450 points, and the War Mammoth was a whopping 550 points, and that's the feral version - adding a howdah or warshrine costs more.

If you're talking about an Exalted Greater Demon or one with Chaos Gifts and extra magic levels, sure, but the baseline Greater Demon taken straight out of the army book with no extra options taken? That's on about the same power level.

yolordmcswag said:

About being a baseline wizard, there is a difference between even lvl 1 wizards and an ability like a breath weapon. Being a wizard gives you access to the whole magic phase, just like not having a wizard in total war makes all your winds of magic power wasted. A greater demon could serve as your general, your wizard and a melee beast at the same time. Dragons, while really powerful, only filled the role as a monster on their own, and dragons are too commonplace in total war IMO.

Except... that there's already precedent for units of spellcasters to be treated in the way I described. Sisters of the Thorn and Doomfire Warlocks don't access the Winds of Magic directly - they have a specific pair of bound spells. Greater Demons as units could use the same system. Heck, for Slaanesh and Nurgle, just give them the signature spell for their lore. Lords of Change are more complicated since as a level 2 wizard they'd have two spells, but not much more complicated, just give them two bound spells and it's done. Maybe the baseline Lord of Change could have both pink and blue fire.

They're already going to need to do something for Pink Horrors, so I don't think this is as big a stretch as you seem to be making out.

yolordmcswag said:

As such, the main reason I think greater demons should be lords is because they are characters, they get skills, abilities and items. Making them a unit would be a disservice to what they are, it would be like making Slann an artillery unit. It takes away their personality, and fails to show them as more than "big monster smash".

And you can have Greater Demons who are characters, have magic items, learn spells beyond the baseline signature spells, and act as leaders among their kind. And Greater Demons that are units, representing that there are more Greater Demons than you'd see if you could only have one per army. It's not one or the other, and let's be realistic here, often enough un-named Greater Demons are presented simply as a big monster to smash or be smashed.

Of course we could have them as units, I'm arguing for why I think it's a bad idea. We could have vampire lords as units, and chaos lords, and slann regiments with 160 models per unit, but I don't think either would be a good idea.

I don't agree with the "more than one per army argument". A typical battle on TT was 2500 points, given the 25% lord limit you could only field a single greater demon in such an army. For larger armies you could have more, but in total war you can bring several armies and as such you would still be able to have 4 greater demons in a single battle.

Greater demons were some of the more limited lords in terms of how many you would bring, so unless they make you able to have a brettonnian lord and a prophetess, a dreadlord and a supreme sorceress, a dwarf lord and a runelord I don't see the argument for 2+ greater demons, as all of above would be far more common.

Also, if we are using TT as an argument, I don't even need any arguments for why greater demons should not be units. On TT they are lords, and only lords. The type of lords that leads armies too, so green knight/lord Kroak arguments don't apply either. Instead, I would need arguments for why they should even be considered as units, since this is the change that is being made, not the other way around. Why take a lord and turn it into a standard unit?

So far you have said that otherwise the demons are a bit lacking in terms of monsters. I agree that it is in their character to have a bunch of monsters in their army, but making greater demons a unit is a bad idea for the reasons I have given above. I think the soulgrinders could work well if CA just edited them a little, getting rid of the too obvious pistons and such and making them look a bit more "living armour" and less robot. Soulgrinders are massive and intimidating, and fit the big smash monster quite well, while the greater demons will then stand out as generals and leaders.

SerPus#7395

yolordmcswag said:

getting rid of the too obvious pistons

Why? Juggernauts have them but no one seems to care.

mightygloin#2446

Bloodthirsters doomstacks

Dude what

CaesarSahlertz said:

Star Dragons are Dragons that are famous because THEY can contest Greater Daemons. Star Dragons are rare.

Rare how? You can spam them like you have a dragon farm in campaign no?

Captain_Rex#1635

mightygloin said:

Bloodthirsters doomstacks

Dude what

CaesarSahlertz said:

Star Dragons are Dragons that are famous because THEY can contest Greater Daemons. Star Dragons are rare.

Rare how? You can spam them like you have a dragon farm in campaign no?

That’s why dragon should have caps like Dreadsaurians.

RonNL#9690

ArneSo said:

mightygloin said:

Bloodthirsters doomstacks

Dude what

CaesarSahlertz said:

Star Dragons are Dragons that are famous because THEY can contest Greater Daemons. Star Dragons are rare.

Rare how? You can spam them like you have a dragon farm in campaign no?

That’s why dragon should have caps like Dreadsaurians.

Imo all tier 4&5 units should have caps.

Captain_Rex#1635

ron1404nl said:

ArneSo said:

mightygloin said:

Bloodthirsters doomstacks

Dude what

CaesarSahlertz said:

Star Dragons are Dragons that are famous because THEY can contest Greater Daemons. Star Dragons are rare.

Rare how? You can spam them like you have a dragon farm in campaign no?

That’s why dragon should have caps like Dreadsaurians.

Imo all tier 4&5 units should have caps.

Totally agree. Stuff like Necrofex-Colossi, Steam Tanks, Hydras and Dragons should be extremely rare and something special.

The Dread Saurian System is perfect in my opinion. Each pyramid of Sotek let’s you recruit 1 more Dread Saurian, so the player is still able to recruit enough of them.