Here’s my opinions. I’m afraid I just don’t like some of the changes, sorry. This is sort of to be expected – I made the previous version and I was pretty happy with that so any deviation is not going to be to my taste! If it works for you then more power to you especially if you’re getting serious playtime with the list I don’t want to force anyone to play my way but since you asked for feedback...

Mixed formations. Frankly, this would make me simply not play this list. I don’t mean to be throwing my toys out of the pram, and I know I’ve been absent during the formulation of this version, but it would flat out not want to use this list. If I wanted mixed formations I’d be playing Black Legion and there’d be no reason for a dedicated list. I hate the idea of mixed formations in the Death Guard list – all Death Guard are Plague Marines, they’re all infected and there’s no fluff justification for this. Similarly all World Eaters are Bezerkers due to surgery performed on the whole Legion. I opposed this idea from the very first point it was introduced. As for the Emperor’s Children there’s more leeway – certainly not every Emperor’s Child need necessarily be a Noise Marine. That said, I still want an all-Noise Marine army. Again, I want the extreme – sure, there may be Warbands that are more moderate and less sonically insane, but if that’s what I wanted I’d play Slaanesh-themed Black Legion. I want full-on no-holds-barred Noise Marine goodness. I was willing to cater for people who wanted non-noise marine formations before, hence the Legionnaires (which are really just a name for Emperor’s Children Chosen in effect rather than a “new” unit) but the focus should be on the Noise Marines. I’m also not interested in having to differentiate between virtually-identical 6mm models with different small arms within a single formation. Similarly I’m not interested in Havocs (note spelling) with autocannons, when the unit I want for a dedicated list should have blastmasters.

Formation sizes. I want all formations to be 6 units of 6 models to a stand. I’m willing to consider some flexibility (e.g. Terminators) for the sake of playability, but I want 6’s across the board wherever possible. This isn’t possible with some formations in this list.

List breakdown. I’m not sure there was a balance reason for doing this. Was this really required for the additional complexity to the list?

Indomitable. The Mark of Slaanesh has always been some form of Fearless. I think it’s a good rule for the Death Guard or the Bezerkers that are kind-of-fearless-nutters-but-not-really-their-schtick, but the Emperor’s Children deserve real Fearlessness. It’s a sliding scale but that’s my opinion. I don’t believe there is an intrinsic issue with all-Fearless (other than potentially “boring”, which I’m also sceptical of)

I do like many of your name changes (Degenerates, etc). Seekers are probably a good idea... I’d be tempted to just make them better in combat and 2 summoning points a pop, as it doesn’t make sense why they’re worse in combat than the regular daemonettes.

Now I appreciate your dedication to a list I started and I really don’t want to piss on everything you’ve done so I apologise ... but this list has moved away from something I’d want to play – it feels like I might as well be playing Black Legion.

Lord I

I don't mind the feedback and I know where you are coming from, so don't worry about offending me - I am not.

The mixed formations was a directive to bring 3 of the cult lists in line for a year to test it out. After that time they will review it again. Keeping that in mind, playtests and feedback is needed for any changexs in the future. All I ask is that you keep this in mind before refusing to play it - then again, time is so valuable these days that if you do get the time to play, you should play forces that you are happy with.

The majority of formations are 6 in size. As a matter of a fact, I am the sole voice on these forums (it appears) arguing for the sacred numbers to be kept. You will note that with upgrades, all formations should be able to get to 6 in some form or other (possessed are an exception at the moment - +2 Assault walkers?).

The list breakdown works and has been tested extensicvely with the World Eaters. I am open to considering opening it all up, however I know for a fact that this works. I am always concerned over players finding a way to min-max to the detriment of the game. 15 Possessed units is not something I am interested in seeing. I do have an open mind to all this however.

You stated yourself that you like the extreme and that on another point it could be boring (although you are unconvinced). Making the force uinteresting for both the player and opponent is what is important to me. I have a consistent playgroup who I gather feedback from with many playtests of forces. I will state as a fact that an all Fearless army is boring to play, takes away fairness and fun from the opponent, and is generally an unexciting game. If that is what you like, then that is your perogative. My goal is having people play the list beyond the first 1-2 games.

Indomitable: The first agreed move away from Fearless. I am afraid that any talk of 'all fearless' armies is going to fall on deaf ears with me. I have a particular issue with the fun aspect of the game and anything that takes away from that (Fearless) has to be correctly managed. This and the World Eater list, along with Hena's Death Guard, are hopefully the right move towards this goal.

Name Changes: Yeah, I do like making things fluffy

Seekers: I do have alot of fun and crazy ideas for these guys myself as well. One of the KISS options was 2 summoning points as you stated. It was decided to keep it as simple as possible for now till we either get to the freeze, or consider it after the freeze. So there will obviously be an ongoing review with these

Lord I. I would ask you to at least give the list a chance. I was in the same boat with the World Eaters. If the Chaos Champ has a vision to test the lists for a year under a particular format, then I am going to support the umpire's decision - hence the World Eaters have also changed yet are still to be released. Once it has been given a chance, then the talk of changes (if required) can begin. The initial post was to gain feedback on the list in general (such as the concern over a group of 6 hellknights or the list restrictions).

So in all, if you have feedback, do not hold back. Happy to accept it. Although as a co-designer I have my 'pets', the overall picture is what is important and the only way we will get it right is to invite the feedback rather than ignore or rebut it at every approach

Cheers dude

Just a couple of points, from my own perspective. Last things first, IMO, from practical examples, there's nothing potential about the level of boring playing against an all fearless army. I think Fearless as a non-character related ability is incredibly abusive, and detracts from some of the more tactical concepts of the game. Others throughout the Forums have pointed out how important Assaults are. Fearless formations detract from this. Entire Fearless armies, moreso. At least when it's restricted to small numbers/individuals, "routing forwards" isn't a huge issue. The ability to block off large sections of territory even when broken (due to Fearless formations not forfeiting ZoC, not being forced to move when broken, and not being wiped out on a further assault) is something I've tired of seeing.

I think it's telling that one of the few races where I could see Fearless being an army-wide trait (Tyranids), don't.

From the first, regards all-Noise, no mixed. I'd be all for an all Noise Marine army. I'm not particularly opposed to 6 man Tacticals with Sonic Blasters. But as the Black Legion Cult Marines don't seem to be being changed, and there seems to be a directive that the Noise Marines be included as is, I am opposed to them being an entire unit. Hena (I think?) proposed the solution to this with mixed formations in his Death Guard list, and it's one I see as being a very good compromise. Unless Steve54 is willing to change the Cult Marines, I can't see another solution. The differentiation issue I don't see being one, given that it's never seemed to be a factor in other lists. The Sonic Retinue, for example, can't have any other troop upgrades. How is differentiation there, any different from Cult Marines or Havoks in a Black Legion Retinue?

Finally, the removal of BlastMasters from the Havoks, that's kinda my fault. I pushed for that, mainly because IMO, Disrupt should be the spice of the army. Not the main course. Any time a singular special ability, whether it be Fearless or Macro-Weapon or Reinforced Armor becomes excessively used, it detracts from the game as a whole. Emperor's Children should have the highest access to Disrupt weaponry. And they do. Doesn't mean it should be all Disrupt.

I do understand your direction of thought. But these four Cult Lists are looking at being accepted as 'standards' moving forward. I'd rather see them being built with an eye towards playability and balance first. There's nothing to stop a more dedicated list in a specific situation, that breaks with the standard approach (example, IG Elysian Drop army making Valkyries part of a core formation, or Nalsaran Necrons). But as a standard list I'd be expected to play against, I'm vehemently opposed to an all-Fearless all-Disrupt army.

Morgan Vening

Frogbear: No one said your list was "confusing." The problem is your list is full of unnecessary micro-management. That's not confusing. It's just a hassle.

All by itself "you'll get used to it" is not a defense. It is, at best, a mitigating factor, e.g. "I know this is a bit fiddly, but we've found that in practice people quickly get used to it." There still needs to be a reason for the complexity, a reason that you should have to get used to it.

Also, "it works" is not a justification. Only when functionality is an issue does that matter. When there are multiple workable options to choose from you need to get into the reasons behind the choice beyond functionality.

For example, the tiered army list structure "works" for WE and DG because both of those lists are intended to be infantry-based forces. They have specific justifications for that - DG is about limiting total vehicle access based on legion doctrine and WE is about their desire for hand-to-hand because they are nutters. What is the justification for forcing the EC to center on infantry? If there's not a flavor reason, then there are lots of army list structures that work and which have benefits that the multi-tiered approach does not.

Neal

Micro-management? From what? I am not trying to be difficult, I just in all honesty, have no idea what you are going on about.

If it is to open up the list to buy everything, then I can start to understand what you are stating. Please advise if this is the case. I would ask that if it were to happen, what are your thoughts on a 15 formation Possessed army be? That is really all that I have an issue with in opening up the whole list.

Apart from that, is there anything in the list that appeals to you?

Coming soon....




2500 point game

Just going back over some of these after a bit of a break:



I feel it represents the Emperor's Children quite well, especially after the wide scale removal of Fearless. It helps them stand out against the other cults and is still true to their 'fluff' so I am inclined to keep it till playtests prove otherwise.



I can look at this.



The possessed are staying as they fill a role that is existent in the current GW world above all other considerations (which do not exist). In effect, their inclusion is actually keeping them current rather than having the list have 'made up' formations. I fail to see an issue with their combined stats. Chaos is an army that requires a person to model and/or scratch build their forces (starts with the Black Legion). Many formations in lists are 'just like these guys only better'. I could give the Decadents a ranged weapon, however it may change a dynamic and I like the CC factor of the units supporting the Noise Marine units. A Decadent (a being that lives for sensations) with a ranged weapon just seems wrong. Picture Lucius and you will see where I am coming from. If it 'aint a Sonic Blaster or a Blastmaster, it isn't worth taking for these guys IMO.



This is a possible option for me to consider. Let's see how some playtests go.




This will be an issue with any Chaos Cult list. Scratch, Model or paint your Marine minis differently. Isn't that what everyone else does. It is not an issue (stated as fact)




As stated previously, this is a consideration.

Part of the reason for cutting Fearless was to reduce the average per-unit cost in the army because the overall unit count was so low that it caused problems. If you add in another special ability to replace Fearless and boost the remaining Fearless units even more you increase the per-unit cost and reintroduce the problem.


The first problem is that you have units with radically different battlefield roles in one stat line with multiple "if/then" statements for the person trying to look up the stats quickly in the middle of a game. It slows down the game and causes possible confusion. The second problem is that there is no distinction for these radically different units when they are referenced in the rules which means you introduce combinations which aren't intended, e.g. jump packs in transport, or which require more special notations that they don't apply, e.g. "if you choose jump packs, the units cannot be transported in X, Y or Z." The third problem is that you have two radically different core units in the same formation with the same price. That means you cannot tweak point costs individually and instead have to try to adjust the stats. We've seen how well that works with Aspect Warriors.

Individually, none of those is especially problematic but in combination it's just a bunch of unnecessary stuff to keep up with.


You're missing the point. I don't have any issue with your concept of the army list. My problem is with the execution. It can be done much more elegantly, making it easier on players in-game and with respect to modeling the army.

You say you like Decadents + Noise Marines. Why? What is it you like? The formation is just a general purpose CSM formation - low-moderate firepower and a mix of CC/FF that averages out to being pretty good. It's only modestly different in play than 6 Noise Marines. So far the only justification you've provided is that the idea of it is cool - not that it's needed in game, not that it creates in-game flavor, just that it creates a mental image that's neat.

I don't have any objection to that. On-paper feel is important. However, when you're creating on-paper feel without corresponding in-game result it's value is reduced. In this case it also increases the number of things you have to keep track of. That is a negative, so the question is whether the hassle is worth the on-paper feel.

I'd say look at the roles you want in the army list and build from there.

You want a Noise Marine flavor? You have NM units but they are effectively elites. So, make an elite NM formation. Fairly shooty but shorter ranged, good FF, Fearless. It has a clear battlefield role. It is elite and expensive so it is self-limiting and you can leave it in the core. Units are readily modeled from NM models. CSM Havocs could easily be mixed in instead if someone is cheap or used as a base for NM conversions if someone is ambitious.

You need a cheaper general purpose line formation? You like the idea of NMs supported by Decadents? Make a "legionnaire" unit (name it whatever you like) that takes into account a mix of NMs and Decadents. Say... infantry, 4+, 4+, 4+, Blastmaster, Indomitable. That's basically a general purpose CSM unit with a Noise Marine flavor to it. Readily modeled with CSM and NMs.

Fast CC? Bikes are/were iconically EC. It won't hurt to do Raptors/flying Possessed as well but they are duplicative with respect to battlefield roles and if it comes down to trimming the list, I'd cut the jump pack troops first. Readily modeled from SM units.

Scouts? Possessed/Scout stats - no heavy weapons.

The only thing missing is a fire support infantry formation which, as you noted, isn't all that EC-like to begin with.

Typical infantry roles are covered. The formations retain just as much EC flavor. All formations are homogenous. All units are easily modeled and identified at a distance (lots of heavy weapons = NM, 1-2 = legionnaires, none = scouts).

I don't care about the specifics. I think that accomplishes everything that your list seems to be attempting but if there's something I missed, fine. Put it in. The idea is just cleaner and sleeker.


Combined stat lines require deciphering. Formations with multiple similar-looking minis means figuring out which units are which. Multiple types of firepower means jockeying units around to manipulate suppression rules, range and so on. Multiple tiers of formation selection rules mean checking and double checking army composition for you and your opponent.

There's always some of that sort of thing with any army and game but there is just seemingly so much of it in this list.


I didn't suggest a full open selection like BL or SM. I said it could be reduced to core/support instead of multi-tiered. You seem to like the idea of the infantry/CSM-heavy legion lists, so if you put something like 2 infantry units and bikes in as the core units that would still make it very likely that most lists would include a substantial portion of infantry without making more exotic compositions completely impossible.

That said, I seriously doubt that 15 formations of Possessed, without any sort of ranged fire would be overpowered. They are too single-purpose to make a good popcorn list. If the Possessed army turned out to be a problem then I would think that meant they are inherently overpowered based on the stats/price, not the army list structure.


Yes. I like your stated goals and I agree with what you are trying to accomplish. I think the general flavor is pretty good.

I would not play the list in its current state due to the fiddly factor. More to the point, even if I were willing as the EC player to keep up with everything I would be uncomfortable asking someone else to play against it. I don't think it's fair to force that level of attention to detail on an opponent.

In regards to mixed formations - this is what I was asked to do, and that is why it exists.

After such discussions, if Steve54 thinks you have a point, then we could move to that. In the meantime, I have to bring the list in line with the DG and World Eaters.

Seeing that is one thing I cannot effect, I will look at the others.



Now that's a bit unfair. If I think it is balanced and the opponent has had the list for at least a week now (since this was posted), I think that is fair. It is a lot more fairer than making them play against any other list that they do not know about or haven't looked at.

The only Change is the MV stat and whether they have Scout or Jump Pack. What 'look up the stats' are you going on about? Don't you think this is a bit weak for a reason for removal? A slow down of the game? Sorry, I cannot take that seriously. They either have jump pack or scout. The models would be modeled to show the difference.



This is easily handled by their exclusion in the vehicle's transport rules. This is the same in just about every other list (terminators and rhinos?). Once again, I fail to see an issue here. No unit has their transport restrictions listed under their own rules.



This is possibly the only argument that carries any weight. It is only important if you value one above the other. At present I value Scout just as highly as Jump Packs for their role. How is one better than the other?




They are priced at Fearless prices at the moment. The special rule is negligible against the Indomitable units. Once again, this will be a final decision for Steve54.

I would ask that you keep in mind the mentality that the below two areas are not changing for an immediate future:
1. Mixed formations (due to the directive of the list)
2. Possessed (unconvinced that they should not be a standard unit - especially without any playtests outside of what I have done which have proved them to be a very iconic and useful unit)

************************************

I have to come back with an opinion on whether the list is an 'all troop' army. Initially I would think that EC should be troop based - I will give it another 'once over'.

One area that I am prepared to look at is the list structure. Looking at the list, concerns I would have, (not attributed to power ratings - but rather theme), are armies made up entirely of Defiler Engines and Daemon Knights. I just do not wish to see such armies for any list I am responsible for (one for the look and theme, and two for the access to such models). In this case, I feel that there has to be some structure to the list. I can see the following units (as they stand atm) being part of an 'open' selection:

- sonic retinue (no change)
- Havocs (no change)
- Terminators


Some I have a mild concern with as I feel that full armies of them (rather than small inclusions) will detract from the 'theme' of what I am going for:
- Armoured Support - Initially I have an issue with this unit being part of the open list as at one point EC were limited in their vehicles
- Bike Retinue
- Possessed


Concerns for an open selection
- Defiler Engines
- Daemon Knights


So what are people's thoughts mainly on the last two areas (Mild Concern and Concern) being part of the open selection within the list? How does it effect your vision for Emperor's Children.

So, it's not your choice and you don't feel empowered to change it? Fair enough. In that case, Steve needs to answer the question of what purpose it serves to force the list to mirror those.

I don't think mixed formations and tiered structure are great ideas in either of those lists but they have specific goals and issues that are sort of supported by it. Those are not present with the concepts in the EC.


I don't think it's at all unfair. I can put a SM chapter list or an Eldar craftworld list in front of someone and they know everything they need to know in seconds. They won't have the unit stats memorized and may not grasp the full implications with regards to strategy, but they know the list rules enough to spot anything hinky. I do not think that is true if you hand this list to someone who knows the Black Legion list.


Possessed - I stated explicitly that the problem was not with the minor individual issues but with the aggregate nuisance effect they create. Breaking them down point by point is not a counter-argument. It's missing the point.

I agree they are mostly piddly problems. Why not fix them anyway? What benefit is gained by the combined stat line that makes breaking it out onerous?

Why are bikes a concern? If anyone is going to rival the Speed Freeks' obsession with sensations of high speed, it's going to be the EC. They had a special character who was a biker for a couple of editions. Even though that's gone, it still fits the current flavor of the force.

I'm with you on the rest, which is why I think a standard core/support is the way to go.

I would challenge this theory. With many of the lists being produced at the moment, I daresay that there is alot more need to have 2 lists on hand (one for each opponent) just to make sure both are reading the stats correctly. Even the players of 'said' lists are playing stats and abilities wrong in our experiences.

In effect, playing a cult list is going to have different options - otherwise you may as well play a BL list with god-specific icons and marks. They have to be different to justify their existance and make people want to play them. That is why I accept divergent formations in all the cult lists and my main concern goes back to how each plays and 'feels'.

Until people stop trying to mirror 40K on every minute detail, and in my view, start to accept a more general approach and effect to units, then you will always have both players and opponents needing to look at both lists of a force. For Cult lists, this is a given. From experience, my opponents knew the World Eater formations from sight after a few games. These then became the norm. This is to be expected of such lists IMO.

Gotta get back to doing work now