Well i would perhabs go to actual Greater Daemons which are AV level if translated properly from Wh40k. The Epic Greater Daemons are the power level of the FW Daemon Lords.
But then there is the Eldar Avatar.....

Quote from me froman older thread:

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

You guys might reread this thread as well:

viewtopic.php?f=82&t=17512

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

I still fail to see how a unit in another force cannot be different (regardless of the name) in regards to summoning points.

That Character that gives +1 just is not Epic IMO. I really do not wish to create another character just for this purpose in any list. When you play a game you play the particular army, not the unit. The units should be effected by the army, not the other way around.

Summoning? Again? Truly we have been led to a land overflowing with sidetracks and long-resolved issues...

The current system may not be perfect, however it is more or less balanced, implemented, accepted and working, if you guys are determined to aim for perfection, I´ll watch and wait. IMO you are wasting your time.

Sorry to be negative, but I am actually surprised no one has said as much before.

Irondeath

If we adopted your view, the game would go nowhere and nothing would change.

Contributing to a discussion (rather than 'watching and waiting') no matter what the view is a good thing as it is a process of discussion.

Have you played the summoning rule?
Do you purchase G.Daemons for your force?
What has been your experiences?

What are you actually contributing to this discussion other than an opinion to close off the thread?

The major issue I find is those that 'watch and wait' are the ones that only contribute after others have moved on to finalise discussions and lists. That then becomes disruptive rather than helpful. It may or may not happen. Who Knows? Yet as the Chaos lists are getting the attention now, it is now that we have to open up and discuss the various ideas before moving ahead.

What happens if a new idea does come up? Are we merely to remain silent at the fear of disturbing those that merely 'watch and wait' like Overlords who would judge us? There are those that do, and those that don't. That is fine, as long as those that don't do not try and stifle discussions by being somehow 'put out' by some discussion they frankly have no intention of joining.

The current one? Plenty, IMO it obviously works ok.


Sometimes 1 GD, summoned mainly as Bloodthirster in "sledgehammer" Terminator formations for BL or with LatD as a Lord of Change to add to shooty covens.

I never play Slaanesh and in my experience the Great Unclean One is so short-ranged that one should be assaulting not sustaining when that close. Possibly a formation with Griffons and/or Hellhounds might benefit, but these always get ridiculously expensive. have not tried that.



If no one says anything in favour of the current systems the impression might take hold that it is not working and needs to be changed. I disagree and have written as much. IMHO that is a contribution. YMMV.

And btw, "my view" is not to leave everything cast in stone but specifically that Daemon Summoning does not need reworking.

Don´t fix it if it ain´t broken, never change a running system etc.

I often wonder just how often newer players are thought of during these discussions. It's already complicated enough to sift through all the FAQs, netERC, handbook, and goodness knows what else when it comes to playing the game, let alone proposing to change rules which actually work well enough to begin with.

Frogbear: Unless you can categorically demonstrate why the existing summoning rule is badly flawed, then I cannot agree with any proposal to change it. Change for the sake of change is bad in my opinion, and I haven't seen anything in this thread which suggests to me that the current summoning rules are so very poor.

I'm sure that they are not perfect, but daemon summoning is a difficult rule to implement and balance, and I don't see how your proposals are going to be a change for the better I'm afraid.

I'm all in favour of change where it is needed, but this is just akin to shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic to prevent it from sinking, so I suggest leaving the rules well alone.

_________________

I have nothing against the Daemon Summoning Rule

I am not even calling for an overhaul - where are people getting these ideas?

I am seeking a way to make Greater Daemons worth a selection or even a thought in Chaos Marine lists.

The original post was an idea to 'fling' around. That's all it was.

Unless someone can show that G.Daemons are a consideration when they take a Chaos Marine list, then why even have them as a selection?

Rather than remove them, why not make them a 'juicier' choice?

Then why propose adding an extra tier of maths to it? Your statement here just indicates to me that there is no real reason to change the rules, so my original concern still stands.



You're changing the design concept of what a pool is, which, in my view, is a significant change, even if it is not a complete overhaul.





You are not taking sufficient account of LatD lists in my view, and this is problem. Any change you make to daemon summoning has an impact on two lists, not just one, and I took two Greater Daemons in my first LatD list, and I had no issues with getting them into play and to pose a threat.

_________________

Irisado

In the recent Emperor's Children list I decreased the cost of the character for augment summoning to 25 points
The Greater Daemon is 75 points
The summoning cost is 7 points

This has all been done in the hope of encouraging my opponent to even consider a G.Daemon. I what way has that effected the LatD list?

Hena

It was an idea - a big change yes, but at the end of the day, just another idea for consideration.

As for LatD, it is not a good comparison. Why do you keep going back to a IG type force when I keep mentioning Marines?

They are separate forces. Just because they share a rule does not mean they need to share costs.

It's how it would affect the LatD list if it were to become a universal rule for summoning daemons, which I believe was your intention behind the rule, or have I misinterpreted you?

Also, as much as you may wish to dismiss LatD, you cannot do so because they share the same daemon summoning rules as the Chaos Marine armies, so you have to balance the rules for both armies, and this is why I feel your suggested change is simply not going to work, and is not necessary. You cannot just change the rules on the basis that there are more players who play Chaos Marines than LatD, which appears to be part of the reasoning underpinning your argument.

_________________