How would you cost this daemonhost?

[Zmyeevich]

In the coarce of a friendly campaign, my chaos Terminator Lord Tarquinius have gotten his hands on a scroll that enables him to bind and use daemonhosts. The daemonhosts in C:GK however are patheticly bad, so we made up some new rules for them, for use in our campaign. The rules for it are as follows:

number of daemonhosts = 0-2, Elite choice



WS

BS

S

T

I

W

A

Ld

save



4

4

4

4

5

3

3

10

-




Special rules:
4++ invulnerable save, fear, independent character (may only join Tarquinius or a unit of 10 chaos cultist, or walk alone).

Repossession
If joining a unit of chaos cultist, the daemonhost can reposses a cultist instead of dying on a 2+. The chaos cultist is then removed, and the daemonhost replaces him with 1 W remaining. This cannot be used, when death is a result of a failed leadership test (from "the fickle nature of the daemon")

The fickle nature of the daemon
The daemonhost always passes fear, pinning and morale checks.
If the daemonhost loses an assault, it must take a leadership test, including any modifiers.


If the test is passed normaly nothing happens, the deamonhost remains locked in combat.
If the test is passed with double 1’s, the daemonhost regains all wounds lost in that fight subfase.
If the test is failed, the daemon is released from the host and the daemonhost is removed as a casualty.
If the test is failed by a double 6’s, the daemonhost is released and takes vengeance upon it’s master. The daemonhost makes a a shooting attacks towards the nearest friendly unit with both of it’s shooting profiles before being removed as a casualty.


Power of the daemonhost
In each phase (movement, shooting and assault) choose one power from the table of that phase. The same power cannot be used in two consecutive turns. Powers can only be activated in the controling players trin and only lasts for that playerturn.

Powers of Movement


Teleport, 24” scatter d6.
Move through cover
Rebind form. If the daemonhost remains staionary in the movement fase, it may attempt to regenerate a wound lost earlier in the battle. This happens on a 4+ roll made instead of moving


Powers of Shooting


fleet
S5 AP5 Assault 4 range 18
S8 AP1 Heavy 1 range 18


Powers of Melee combat


the daemonhost may lower it’s S by 1 & increase T by 1 or lower it’s T by one & incrase S by 1. Only in that fight subfase
Attacks made by the daemonhost ignore armour saves
For each wound saved by the daemonhost in close combat, the unit that caused the wound suffers a S3 AP4 hit


How should such a unit be costet in your oppinion?

[MajorWesJanson]

The Repossesion rule is quite powerful, as you can have him tank for a unit of cultists then if he goes down, get back up on a 2+.

He is basically a Chaos lord with a sigil of corruption, so 90 points. -2 WS, -1 WS, no armor save. -20 points for that. - frag, krak, bolter, bolt pistol. -5 points. 75 points
Fear +5 points
Movement chart call it +20 points
Shooting is basically a burst cannon or fusion gun from codex tau. so +10, +15. No melta on the fusion shot, but plus fleet, so call that a wash.
Close combat abilities are like a stronger, choosable vessels of chaos rule from posessed, especially the ignores armor/AP2 call it +25
The Repossesion rule is quite powerful, as you can have him tank for a unit of cultists then if he goes down, get back up on a 2+. If it stays at a 2+ to regrow from cultists (who are dirt cheap) I'd say +40 from this rule. If you drop it to a 4+ to regrow instead, I'd say maybe +25.
T4 no eternal warrior, so maybe -15.

So somewhere in the range of 160 to 180.

[Zmyeevich]

Thank you, Wes, for that thorough respons. I'll change the repossession roll to a 4+ and put the cost at 160 pts.

[Baaltor]

I just thought I'd chime in. I like Wes's analysis, and I think he erred on the side of caution, so you should be safe with his numbers.

If I might make a suggestion though: the GK's rules are a little bland on purpose so that they can cover all the bases of 'wats a demon'. You might find it more rewarding to eliminate most of the powers or at least a good chunk, and keep a handful that define its role/what it IS. Speaking of what it is, I find that working from rules backwards is a losing process that blandinates the thing you made. At least personally I have a hard time resisting to make a WTFBBQ overpowered unit with all the trimmings unless I start from a concept.

e.g:

Possessed of Jabbyr'wck: lesser daemons that manifest as ghostly foetus-like dragon spectres wreathed in precipitating ectoplasm. Only their heads appear as solid objects, and are vividly coloured.

Incorporeal: The host can walk through walls and anything else. In combat it can phase slightly out to make it more difficult to hurt.
-Move through cover
-the daemonhost may lower it’s S by 1 & increase T by 1 or lower it’s T by one & incrase S by 1. Only in that fight subfase

Aethyr-bathed: The daemon's aura is charged with tangible vapours that carry the baleful powers of chaos.
-For each wound saved by the daemonhost in close combat, the unit that caused the wound suffers a S3 AP4 hit
-Rebind form. If the daemonhost remains staionary in the movement fase, it may attempt to regenerate a wound lost earlier in the battle. This happens on a 4+ roll made instead of moving
-The daemon has soulburn in close combat

So yeah, if you trim out the fat you might find you can get something that does whatever you wanted it to do, and more efficiently. If you have it able to do everything, it'll have to be priced out the nose, and it's a lot harder to get it to do satisfying work. Of course having a variety of abilities is a role itself, and having penalties to performing it is a totally chaosy thing, so sticking with what you have's fine if you like it.

A couple other things: Isn't a daemonhost just a possessed if it's chaos? Daemonhosts are more imperial, and usually are bound with crap that chaos servants don't need to ensure obedience, or don't care about. Also I reccomend just giving it the Daemon rule, and unless its' got a good reason for 4++, keep it at 5++. Then there's the instability thing, I don't think it makes sense on a daemonhost, because the host anchors them the material universe, so they don't need to worry about being swept away in a storm of chaos.

[aim]

What would a daemonhost cost you? Your soul and reputation within the ordo.... Sorry, couldn't resist.

[hobojebus]

Thank you, Wes, for that thorough respons. I'll change the repossession roll to a 4+ and put the cost at 160 pts.

I think that's a good place to start then after a few games you can look at the performance and either increase or decrease it's costs.

[Dr.Clock]

While I respect all the thought that went into this, as well as the desire to have 'beefy' dudes leading your cultists, this unit seems OTT not in terms of power, but rule-glut.

Simply put, having to remember all the different things its doing in all the different phases could get pretty crazy-making for both you and your opponent.

This depends, of course, on the scale of game... This could be a great thing to try out in smaller, more narrative missions - say three or so cultist units lead by these guys taking on 750-1000 points of some enemy... This way, the craziness of 'hosts is pretty much the only 'craziness' on your side of the table, and the micromanaging of their abilities becomes your 'core mechanic'.

For larger games, however, I'd consider trying to find existing units from other codecies, and working them into your force at the expense of some other option, or for a price premium.

To my mind, simply throwing Daemon Heralds into your list as Independent Characters that can join cultist units could be pretty awesome, and would be more or less fine from my perspective. There are any number of ways you could 'pay' for this ability - the first that springs to mind is having your Lord have a 'special' warlord trait that allows it - so it's just a cut and dried 'port over from the other codex and the cost is only that you have no other warlord trait, and the opportunity cost of not having access to another HQ (I think they'd work best in that slot - but you could have up to 4). You'd have more control over their battlefield role, and end up with the same kind of 'hero-centric' approach without necessarily forcing yourself to remember who has what rules in every part of every turn.

All this is to say that I like the idea, and to a certain extent to rules you've come up with, but I'd be cautious about the context in which I choose to use them.

Cheers,

The Good Doctor.