Good fluff doesn't necessarily make a good game. It gets followed until such time as it makes us create bad game decisions and then it gets ignored.

Losing a command stand in Epic because a 40K mechanic requires the loss of a *single* model is not necessarily a good decision to make

_________________
Guns don't break formations. Blast Markers break formations.

Well if the GD has Leader and Inspiring it is.

_________________
Fear is for the enemy, fear and bullets.
-James O'Barr, the Crow

The current system is based on a lack of predictability on the part of the chaos player and his opponents.

Pulling off a stand and then getting a GD in return has none of those characteristics.

One of the better points of the original sacrifice system was that you never knew how many sacrifices the Chaos player would spend and how good his dice were going to be. The Chaos player had to made an informed decision and then roll and hope they got enough points to summon the GD.

Sometimes it worked. Sometimes it didn't.

This made for some fun games.

"Replace a Chaos Lord with a Greater Daemon" is boring. An utterly predictable. No fun.

My main complaint about the new system is that it is fiddly but it is also not as much fun as it used to be

The balance is better though.

_________________
Guns don't break formations. Blast Markers break formations.

Noone's saying that it need be as bland as that. It could be that sacrificing a stand gave a bonus (perhaps it represents the whole squad engaging in the summoning ritual?) or is done in addition to a roll.

The summoning system and a sacrifice system are not mutually exclusive.

Are you referring to the old Sacrifice system or this "remove a stand" idea?

I have to say I like the idea of a bonus after removing a stand even less.

I don't know that we really need any new ideas. We had a very fun system that just had some "meat shield" issues and we now have a fairly balanced but fiddly and "no fun" system.

I think the simplest thing to do is work within the known systems we have already played and perhaps try to put some of the balancing work that went into the Daemon Pool (Neal and Audrey's work mostly) and try to inject that balance into the old system and we'd have a winner (IMNSHO).

_________________
Guns don't break formations. Blast Markers break formations.

Elegant, simple, workable.


About GD: If assault is whole game of 40K, then in one "epic turn" they are going to get GD around if they want, and because nowdays it does not need to be specific Aspiring Champion who gets to be host, pay x points for GD and as part of its activation formation can summon GD. You just attach GD to that formation, GD stays around until killed or formation gets broken, when GD returns to warp, never to return (in that game).

In 40K it does not need to be any Chaos Lord or Chaos Sorcerer to act as host for GD, and Epic does not care about Aspiring Champions, so no need to sacrifice any units.

_________________
Eradication of Earth's
Population loves Polaris

And a bit predictable.

Sorry but the Sacrifice system was a heck of a lot of fun and I don't really see the point of doing something that isn't just as much fun as that was.

_________________
Guns don't break formations. Blast Markers break formations.

I don`t see what is predictable if you as the opponent doesn't know in which formation the Greater Daemon will appear.

Ow will you say that the summoning of the Avatar is predictable?

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

Yes! I love this idea!
I haven't used the old sacrifice rules (they sound like fun, and I'll have to persuade an opponent to let me use them) but the current system is fairly uninteresting (and strongly discourages buying GDs).

With something like this in place, you would have to 'earn' your demons. None of this "I pluck a mob of demons out of nowhere and storm the bunker" type stuff. If you want the option of demons next turn, you'd better kill something this turn....

It has about the right amount of uncertainty: your opponent knows how many demons you can summmon, and with who, next turn. They can't be sure which ones you will actually use.

They know you have one and they know it will be present on the table at some point which is considerably more predictable than the Sacrifice system. The current system is slightly more predictable (I have one but I might not be able to summon it) but your suggestion only has the element of which formation it will come from as a variable and that isn't really variable in a lot of cases since its most likely to be the formation setting up to assault something and not the formation guarding your table edge objective. :-)

_________________
Guns don't break formations. Blast Markers break formations.

While I really like the idea of "Earning" the summoning points, I think it may just be a little impractical:-

• Do the summoning points get pooled, or are they associated with the specific formation in some way?
• Over what time period are they earned - one activation, a turn or the entire game?
• At what point does summoning take place - on achieving sufficient kills, or at a fixed point in the turn?
• How to summon daemons at the start of turn #1 where there have been no kills?
• etc

I also think that similar problems may exist with the "sacrificial" approach - though again I really like the principle

• What can be sacrificed?
  - Can you sacrifice vehicles as well as people?
  - Do you have to sacrifice particular specially purchased stands?
  - Do the sacrificed stands have to be from the formation that will test to summon the Daemons?
• How to get round the probable balance issues between those lists that denude themselves to gain daemons and others that just rely on shere numbers
  
• How to add the choice of sacrificing greater numbers to gain more summoning certainty without causing balance issues

Finally, are are people considering these mechanisms for all summoning, or as a more viable means of getting the GD into play?

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Not sure what LI intended but I assume that he just wants ideas so post whatever ideas you come up with.

I think the focus on the GD speaks volumes though :-)

_________________
Guns don't break formations. Blast Markers break formations.

So?

Its also Predictable that Terminators will show up to crossfire you, of that an Avatar is going to assault you. Or Deathstrikes are going to die ASAP.

Its also predictable that 10 Leman Russes have 10 battle cannons.

Its a game about tactical choices, if those can't be reasonably predicted they stop being tactical ans start being meaningless since you can't form a strategy when you have no idea if you can use a unit in the game despite having paid for it.

In that case we may as well just play 40k.

_________________
Fear is for the enemy, fear and bullets.
-James O'Barr, the Crow

- - - or Chess

However, we use dice to add that degree of uncertainty about the results of our strategies - so the Terminators may miss their cross-fire. I guess the question is really how to add that little bit of uncertainty into spawning to make it more challenging, without it becoming a complete lottery.

From what I am hearing, LD spawning is 'predicable' and so a bit dull, while GD is never used because it is too 'un-predicable'.

OK. A completely different approach to this might be to make the spawning of the GD more predicatble, but then give daemon equiped troops a higher initiative rating so they have a slightly greater chance of failing to obey their orders (well would you want to be fighting near any Daemon??). So including other discussions:-

1) Keep the current spawning process for lesser Daemons
2) Allow the 'sacrifice' of Icon bearers or Chaos Champion for a GD
3) Fomations with Daemons in get a +1 modifier to their initiative test
4) The GD remains on the table until the formation it is with is broken

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Absolutely, all and any ideas welcome. We'll laugh and point at them later.