Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
And yet, the models are sufficient in quantity to make entirely separate army books in Age of Sigmar. The Sigmar Slaanesh book was considered one of the most powerful in the game for many months, and has exactly one unit more than the 40k Slaanesh Daemons range (Hellstriders).

Oops, looks like it has nothing to do with the models and is, in fact, a rules design problem.

As others have touched on, AoS has all the mortal and daemon options in the same book, and markables can be included as well. The analogy in 40k would be DoN, Death Guard, and all MoN CSM units to build an army with. For someone looking to build mono-God the current philosophy is mixing mortal and daemon units in that way. Bar Slaanesh, which is in a unique spot, going with just Daemons of X in AoS results in a significant power drop for the army.

This is how it has always been: going mono-god mono-daemons has been a sacrifice of tabletop potency in the name of theme, making it a somewhat exclusive superfan option. To change that without making the larger mixed faction OP would require something like a large bonus for having the whole army as daemons of X. Perhaps we'll see it in Engine War.

Yeah, just like how now, going mono-chapter is always a sacrifice in tabletop potency in the name of theme when compared to mixing chapters of space marines.

Maybe in some theoretical world, you could find some way to thread that needle, but as of today, soup is just always 100% the best option over having some kind of theme-first only Iron Hands space marine fluff list.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
And yet, the models are sufficient in quantity to make entirely separate army books in Age of Sigmar. The Sigmar Slaanesh book was considered one of the most powerful in the game for many months, and has exactly one unit more than the 40k Slaanesh Daemons range (Hellstriders).

Oops, looks like it has nothing to do with the models and is, in fact, a rules design problem.

As others have touched on, AoS has all the mortal and daemon options in the same book, and markables can be included as well. The analogy in 40k would be DoN, Death Guard, and all MoN CSM units to build an army with. For someone looking to build mono-God the current philosophy is mixing mortal and daemon units in that way. Bar Slaanesh, which is in a unique spot, going with just Daemons of X in AoS results in a significant power drop for the army.

This is how it has always been: going mono-god mono-daemons has been a sacrifice of tabletop potency in the name of theme, making it a somewhat exclusive superfan option. To change that without making the larger mixed faction OP would require something like a large bonus for having the whole army as daemons of X. Perhaps we'll see it in Engine War.

Your ignorance of Slaanesh in AOS is showing. The Hedonites of Slaanesh book includes 0 markable units and only 2 mortal units coming from 1 model kit. The closest analogy in 40k is a Mono Slaanesh Daemons army.

There are two mortal units in the Hedonites of Slaanesh book, and they come from the same model kit. So the 40k Slaanesh Daemons range is exactly one model kit smaller than the AOS Hedonites of Slaanesh range. From this range, the AOS rules design team was able to make a compelling and even overpowered book, and the two mortal units (Hellstriders) are uncommon because the Daemons are so much better. So the singular model kit difference didn't matter one lick.

Therefore, this disproves the argument that the model range isn't large enough to make a compelling single-army out of, because it's exactly the same as a model range that has a compelling single army in a very similar game.

EDIT:
Just to cite my sources, GW says there are 18 warscrolls for units in the book (https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Battletome-Hedonites-of-Slaanesh-EN-2019)
GW also has 11 model kits to support these warscrolls (https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Warhammer-Age-of-Sigmar?N=2070689437+3100048979&Nr=AND(sku.siteId%3AUS_gw%2Cproduct.locale%3Aen_US_gw)&Nrs=collection()%2Frecord[product.startDate+%3C%3D+1589799240000+and+product.endDate+%3E%3D+1589799240000]&view=all) ignoring terrain, endless spells, and boxed sets that are just combinations of these units
GW's Slaanesh 40k range uses 10 of those model kits (7 are at https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Warhammer-40-000?N=2562756967+1587477599+1026809784&Nr=AND%28sku.siteId%3AUS_gw%2Cproduct.locale%3Aen_US_gw%29&Nrs=collection%28%29%2Frecord%5Bproduct.startDate+%3C%3D+1589799420000+and+product.endDate+%3E%3D+1589799420000%5D, but that for some reason doesn't grab the Contorted Epitome, the Chariot, or Seekers of Slaanesh despite those all having warscrolls in 40k CA2019)

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Your ignorance of Slaanesh in AOS is showing. The Hedonites of Slaanesh book includes 0 markable units and only 2 mortal units coming from 1 model kit. The closest analogy in 40k is a Mono Slaanesh Daemons army.

There are two mortal units in the Hedonites of Slaanesh book, and they come from the same model kit. So the 40k Slaanesh Daemons range is exactly one model kit smaller than the AOS Hedonites of Slaanesh range. From this range, the AOS rules design team was able to make a compelling and even overpowered book, and the two mortal units (Hellstriders) are uncommon because the Daemons are so much better. So the singular model kit difference didn't matter one lick.

Therefore, this disproves the argument that the model range isn't large enough to make a compelling single-army out of, because it's exactly the same as a model range that has a compelling single army in a very similar game.

Try reading the post you're quoting...

"As others have touched on, AoS has all the mortal and daemon options in the same book, and markables can be included as well. The analogy in 40k would be DoN, Death Guard, and all MoN CSM units to build an army with. For someone looking to build mono-God the current philosophy is mixing mortal and daemon units in that way. Bar Slaanesh, which is in a unique spot, going with just Daemons of X in AoS results in a significant power drop for the army."

And why SHOULD that be the case? Why SHOULD a mono-god Daemons army be bad?

 JNAProductions wrote:
And why SHOULD that be the case? Why SHOULD a mono-god Daemons army be bad?

Why should any list following a set of self restrictive rules be good? Should mono White Scars terminators be good? How about a list that wants as many units as possible to be in transports or drop pods? Not every theme list will be competitive, just like not every chaos god will be equal.

That's just the reality of the situation and whining about it on a message board won't fix it. If you want results you should get a bunch of daemon players to email GW like the ork players are doing to get clarification about the KFF Big Mek that they aren't sure is working as intended.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
And why SHOULD that be the case? Why SHOULD a mono-god Daemons army be bad?

Why should any list following a set of self restrictive rules be good? Should mono White Scars terminators be good? How about a list that wants as many units as possible to be in transports or drop pods? Not every theme list will be competitive, just like not every chaos god will be equal.

That's just the reality of the situation and whining about it on a message board won't fix it. If you want results you should get a bunch of daemon players to email GW like the ork players are doing to get clarification about the KFF Big Mek that they aren't sure is working as intended.

There's a difference between all White Scars Terminators (five units from a book of 75, including two HQs and three Elites) which isn't even particularly fluffy, and wanting to run an entire subfaction by itself.

I'm not asking for mono-god daemons to be top-tier, grand tournament winners. I would like them to be competent armies.

 JNAProductions wrote:
And why SHOULD that be the case? Why SHOULD a mono-god Daemons army be bad?

If GW wants to sell four different Daemon Codexes that don't interact with each other they shouldn't stick them all in one book and claim you can play a mixed force.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Your ignorance of Slaanesh in AOS is showing. The Hedonites of Slaanesh book includes 0 markable units and only 2 mortal units coming from 1 model kit. The closest analogy in 40k is a Mono Slaanesh Daemons army.

There are two mortal units in the Hedonites of Slaanesh book, and they come from the same model kit. So the 40k Slaanesh Daemons range is exactly one model kit smaller than the AOS Hedonites of Slaanesh range. From this range, the AOS rules design team was able to make a compelling and even overpowered book, and the two mortal units (Hellstriders) are uncommon because the Daemons are so much better. So the singular model kit difference didn't matter one lick.

Therefore, this disproves the argument that the model range isn't large enough to make a compelling single-army out of, because it's exactly the same as a model range that has a compelling single army in a very similar game.

Try reading the post you're quoting...

"As others have touched on, AoS has all the mortal and daemon options in the same book, and markables can be included as well. The analogy in 40k would be DoN, Death Guard, and all MoN CSM units to build an army with. For someone looking to build mono-God the current philosophy is mixing mortal and daemon units in that way. Bar Slaanesh, which is in a unique spot, going with just Daemons of X in AoS results in a significant power drop for the army."

All I'm reading here is that "GW could do it, but doesn't because reasons."

We're saying "wtb reasons, paying well" and getting "you can't do it!"... and then I prove that they can do it. And then I get told they can't do it, except when they can, and then I just facepalm. "They can't, except when they can" is the substance of the argument. So why don't they?

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
And why SHOULD that be the case? Why SHOULD a mono-god Daemons army be bad?

Why should any list following a set of self restrictive rules be good? Should mono White Scars terminators be good? How about a list that wants as many units as possible to be in transports or drop pods? Not every theme list will be competitive, just like not every chaos god will be equal.

That's just the reality of the situation and whining about it on a message board won't fix it. If you want results you should get a bunch of daemon players to email GW like the ork players are doing to get clarification about the KFF Big Mek that they aren't sure is working as intended.

The only daemon lists that have actually functioned in competitive play have almost all been mono-god. Specifically mono-nurgle. They're one of the very few times in 8th that there have been lists based around durability skew to outlast and out-score opponents which have not been absolutely nuked from orbit by GW with special errata rules (See: Flyer spam lists, culexus screen lists, brimstone horror spam lists, conscript spam lists). They just got naturally outpaced by the ever-increasing deadliness of 8th.

People are doing a lot of intentionalizing here. The daemon codex isn't bad because "It's intended to be an allied force". Mono god lists are not bad because "it's like taking all white scars terminators!" (though I am incredibly amused that you seemingly got halfway into your example and had to add "terminators" to make it outrageous, because it's perfectly fine to "limit" yourself to one space marine chapter and it makes your army massively more OP now...)

They're bad because GW rushed out a whole gak ton of codexes early in the run of 8th, most of them were pretty sloppy and uninspired, and the only thing GW really had to push with the new daemon book was the new nurgle stuff. So nurgle ended up solid, and everything else was from the very beginning trash tier. And it has remained trash tier. 6-7pt infantry troops with T3 and a 5++, weak ranged capabilities, no native deep strike and no transport options are not a thing that works in 8th edition 40k. Plaguebearers and Nurglings (and old brims) worked because they didn't have that issue - all they have to do is be cheap and die slow. That fits one of the two viable troop types in 8th: chumps that are nothing more than a body that take more points to destroy than they do to exist, and champs who are indistinguishable from what used to be Elite or Heavy Support units in previous editions of the game.

Daemons are bad now because they're one of the codexes that has seen the least attention over time. They've had next to zero rules content since they dropped, and very very little changed for them between the index and the codex, while most of what's changed for them overall has been nerfs to powerful units like daemon princes and brims. Playing daemons vs new marines, you're a couple stratagems away from playing an index army against an army with the most content and special rules of any army in the history of 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
And why SHOULD that be the case? Why SHOULD a mono-god Daemons army be bad?

If GW wants to sell four different Daemon Codexes that don't interact with each other they shouldn't stick them all in one book and claim you can play a mixed force.

^this guy right here has the right idea.

Signed, Drukhari players.

It's as if they took the space marine codex and decided that the "Techno-Adepts" the "Scout Conclaves", the "first company elites" and the "Tacticus Division" were different factions and if you wanted to field a unit of vanvets or a vendread you'd have to bring a battalion with 2 Chapter Masters and 3 units of Terminators or to get any tanks you needed to bring them with 2 techmarines and 3 rhinos or razorbacks if you wanted your army to have any chapter tactics.

the_scotsman wrote:
The only daemon lists that have actually functioned in competitive play have almost all been mono-god. Specifically mono-nurgle. They're one of the very few times in 8th that there have been lists based around durability skew to outlast and out-score opponents which have not been absolutely nuked from orbit by GW with special errata rules (See: Flyer spam lists, culexus screen lists, brimstone horror spam lists, conscript spam lists). They just got naturally outpaced by the ever-increasing deadliness of 8th.

Most mono-god lists would do better to include elements of codex CSM as well because of just how tightly knit the Chaos forces are with one another. Unlike forces such as say IG and SM which never shared a codex, daemons and CSM started out in a single book. If any two separate forces were ever meant to ally it's CSM and daemons.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
The only daemon lists that have actually functioned in competitive play have almost all been mono-god. Specifically mono-nurgle. They're one of the very few times in 8th that there have been lists based around durability skew to outlast and out-score opponents which have not been absolutely nuked from orbit by GW with special errata rules (See: Flyer spam lists, culexus screen lists, brimstone horror spam lists, conscript spam lists). They just got naturally outpaced by the ever-increasing deadliness of 8th.

Most mono-god lists would do better to include elements of codex CSM as well because of just how tightly knit the Chaos forces are with one another. Unlike forces such as say IG and SM which never shared a codex, daemons and CSM started out in a single book. If any two separate forces were ever meant to ally it's CSM and daemons.

Ah, yes, the old "buy and play a different army" argument rears its ugly head once again. Do we really need to re-engage on the wrongness of this? "Play another army" has never been and will never be the appropriate answer to "my army needs better rules support".

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
And yet, the models are sufficient in quantity to make entirely separate army books in Age of Sigmar. The Sigmar Slaanesh book was considered one of the most powerful in the game for many months, and has exactly one unit more than the 40k Slaanesh Daemons range (Hellstriders).

Oops, looks like it has nothing to do with the models and is, in fact, a rules design problem.

As others have touched on, AoS has all the mortal and daemon options in the same book, and markables can be included as well. The analogy in 40k would be DoN, Death Guard, and all MoN CSM units to build an army with. For someone looking to build mono-God the current philosophy is mixing mortal and daemon units in that way. Bar Slaanesh, which is in a unique spot, going with just Daemons of X in AoS results in a significant power drop for the army.

This is how it has always been: going mono-god mono-daemons has been a sacrifice of tabletop potency in the name of theme, making it a somewhat exclusive superfan option. To change that without making the larger mixed faction OP would require something like a large bonus for having the whole army as daemons of X. Perhaps we'll see it in Engine War.

Your ignorance of Slaanesh in AOS is showing.

Please read the entirety of my post before responding, certainly before leveling insults like that.

The Hedonites of Slaanesh book includes 0 markable units

And please at least understand what you are talking about; the markable units are in Slaves to Darkness.

Therefore, this disproves the argument that the model range isn't large enough to make a compelling single-army out of

Which was never an argument I made.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
And why SHOULD that be the case? Why SHOULD a mono-god Daemons army be bad?

On a unit-rules basis making the dataslates strong enough to stand on their own would then make the corresponding soup overpowered. The solution is mono-faction bonuses where someone taking just, say, Daemons of Nurgle, gets a number of powerful buffs to offset the lack of unit diversity. That is largely how it works in AoS; in order to soup one must give up the powerful benefits of going mono-faction. This in turn ties into the larger discussion of souping in 40k and how making even a reasonably fluffy army pales in comparison to having three different hive fleets show up for the same battle.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
The only daemon lists that have actually functioned in competitive play have almost all been mono-god. Specifically mono-nurgle. They're one of the very few times in 8th that there have been lists based around durability skew to outlast and out-score opponents which have not been absolutely nuked from orbit by GW with special errata rules (See: Flyer spam lists, culexus screen lists, brimstone horror spam lists, conscript spam lists). They just got naturally outpaced by the ever-increasing deadliness of 8th.

Most mono-god lists would do better to include elements of codex CSM as well because of just how tightly knit the Chaos forces are with one another. Unlike forces such as say IG and SM which never shared a codex, daemons and CSM started out in a single book. If any two separate forces were ever meant to ally it's CSM and daemons.

Ah, yes, the old "buy and play a different army" argument rears its ugly head once again. Do we really need to re-engage on the wrongness of this? "Play another army" has never been and will never be the appropriate answer to "my army needs better rules support".

Daemons literally spent most of 40k in the same codex as CSM. We have Chaos players on this very forum arguing that they never should have split into their own codex. Anybody who played Chaos pre 5th probably already has CSM to play with their daemons and if not GW would love for you to buy a new model or two.

"It's tradition, therefore it's good."

Not a solid argument.

 JNAProductions wrote:
"It's tradition, therefore it's good."

Not a solid argument.

Its not even tradition at this point.
Daemons got their own codex in 2008. About 12 years ago - and about 12 years after the 1996 2nd edition Codex Chaos.

I don't know - its a disease. This thread is generating a desire to put together a Tzeentch Daemons list I sort of cast to the void circa 2014~.

Problem I think is the one-dimensionality. Which is what I don't like about DE. I could put together a list of 2k points... but barring major CA changes, its going to be that list forever and ever - with no real opportunity to change out of it. Which is going to get dull for me and my usual opponents quite quickly.

TBH saying that Demons, a fantasy army, works better as mono demon armies in Fantasy than in 40k is actually proving right those that said Demons should not be a 40k army all together and just some units to add up or summon as chaos marines.

I mean. Of course a full mele army works better in a game were shoting is normally max 18" range and much less relevant.

I'm of the opinion that whatever book GW sells rules for, it should be usable and competitive. That doesnt mean ANY kind of list should be competitive, but that all units should have some kind of use. Is clear, nonetheless, than Chaos as right now is a faction designed to play as soup, the amount of inter codex sinergies are just too big to ignore, and even in the fluff they have always played like that, theres no other way.
Yeah GW could give all armies mono rules like sisters, marines or grey knights but they didn't. So we can work with what we have or we can cry to the wind and hope for change.

They didn't give mono rules... yet. There is a lot they could do there both to improve the game and to add cool stuff. Like, what if the default CP for being battle forged was based on the faction keyword used? Chaos or Imperium offer X CP, Nurgle or Tyranid grants 2X CP, Tzeentch Daemons or <Legion> grants 3X CP...

That is just a simple off-the-top idea, the point being that the way 40k manages armies/factions right now is a bit rough around the edges (to put it politely) and could benefit tremendously from some refinement.

 JNAProductions wrote:
"It's tradition, therefore it's good."

Not a solid argument.

Chopping the Chaos books up and sticking them back together into a book for each Chaos God is one of Age of Sigmar's better decisions. GW doesn't seem to have any interest in giving Daemons any cross-allegiance abilities, or expanding each of the four out into standalone armies, and if they're doomed to be a tiny auxiliary force that they assume you're going to use as allies writing one "Tzeentch" book with the Thousand Sons and the Daemons in it means you're going to have to buy fewer army books and jump through fewer organizational hoops to use the models. Especially given that the existence of CSM units with the Daemon keyword means that Daemon characters have more synergy with stuff from outside their own book than other gods' Daemons right now.

It isn't the only solution to the issue, and it might not even be the best one (I'm a big fan of the 30k Ruinstorm rules), but it lines up better with how GW chooses to write the Daemons than keeping them in their own army book. It's just another n00b-trap right now.

Canadian 5th wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
7th Edition, 6th Edition, hell even 5th edition.
Top of the competetive charts or more competetive than going Undivided? No, but certainly a lot better off than mono or even duo god these days.

That's distinctly not the question I asked. I didn't ask how good they were, I asked if they were ever given the type of treatment that would suggest that mono-god, daemons only was the intended way to play chaos daemons.

Canadian 5th wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

Spoiler:

7th Editions formations, most of which were mono-god.
8th Edition detachment bonuses.
8th Edition making use of keywords so that daemon can only buff other daemons of the same god?
8th Edition, where daemons can't summon daemons of other gods.
There's an arguement that the 6th (& 7th) Edition warp storm table punished you for taking multiple gods, as it meant you were more likely to roll a result that could nuke some of your daemons.
Heralds have never been able to join the units of other gods to my memory with Independant Character.

Also not sure if this was ever the case in 40k (I believe it probably was in eariler editions, but I'm not 100% sure), but at the very least in WHFB daemons used to have animosity rules that caused daemonic units that got to close to each other to either refuse to move or even attack each other.

It's not like mono was ever "the" indented way, (otherwise daemons wouldn't be able to be anything but mono-god) but it certainly is "an" intended way.

I'm sure you're going to post examples of those lists and show that they never took any codex CSM units to fill gaps in capability, right?

I thought how good they were didn't matter.




Do I really need to go back through 12 years worth of lists when I even conceded that mono-god usually hasn't been the most competetive thing around, just that they have been in a better spot than now (whether in power or how fun they are to play as)?
How would I even go about producing non-top tier lists do show such a thing?

 Galas wrote:
TBH saying that Demons, a fantasy army, works better as mono demon armies in Fantasy than in 40k is actually proving right those that said Demons should not be a 40k army all together and just some units to add up or summon as chaos marines.

I mean. Of course a full mele army works better in a game were shoting is normally max 18" range and much less relevant.

I'm of the opinion that whatever book GW sells rules for, it should be usable and competitive. That doesnt mean ANY kind of list should be competitive, but that all units should have some kind of use. Is clear, nonetheless, than Chaos as right now is a faction designed to play as soup, the amount of inter codex sinergies are just too big to ignore, and even in the fluff they have always played like that, theres no other way.
Yeah GW could give all armies mono rules like sisters, marines or grey knights but they didn't. So we can work with what we have or we can cry to the wind and hope for change.

Heyyyy, we did it everyone! We reached the last step in the narcissists prayer of responding to "gosh, my army isnt great I wish it were better" threads!

"No, your army is perfectly good
If it is actually bad, my army is worse
If my army is better, you need to play a different army
If you dont want to play a different army, your army should not exist anyway."




Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think ive literally seen that last argument for every army in 40k

Knights: SH army should not exist
GSC Harlies Custodes Admech Inquisition: these tiny factions should not exist except as an elite entry in another codex
Space Marines of whatever type: what are we doing, consolidate these guys? Waaay too much focus on them, squat them
Eldar/Tau: pfff these guys dont fit the classic grimdark aesthetic of 40k.
Orks: we dont need stupid comic relief BS in our serious game!
Necrons: tomb kings in space yaaaawn if I cant have my vastly superior soulless personalityless space robots just squat them
Daemons: get yer fantasy right outta my 40k or so help me (so help me)
Dark Eldar/Sisters: oh so we're just making armies for three perverts now? If there was demand there woild be support obviously squat them.

I think if folks on this forum had their way 40k would be SM, CSM, Nids and Guard.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
I thought how good they were didn't matter.

I never asked you to prove they were god, I simply asked if those lists were mono-god mixed with CSM or if they were daemon only and mono god. I suspect that playing Daemon + CSM has tended to be the most common way to play daemons, and given you were bring up examples of lists that were 'good' I figured you'd be able to actually show a list.

the_scotsman wrote:
...Heyyyy, we did it everyone! We reached the last step in the narcissists prayer of responding to "gosh, my army isnt great I wish it were better" threads!

"No, your army is perfectly good
If it is actually bad, my army is worse
If my army is better, you need to play a different army
If you dont want to play a different army, your army should not exist anyway."...

Whether or not an army should exist is independent of whether GW has a long history of acting like it shouldn't exist.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Galas wrote:
TBH saying that Demons, a fantasy army, works better as mono demon armies in Fantasy than in 40k is actually proving right those that said Demons should not be a 40k army all together and just some units to add up or summon as chaos marines.

I mean. Of course a full mele army works better in a game were shoting is normally max 18" range and much less relevant.

I'm of the opinion that whatever book GW sells rules for, it should be usable and competitive. That doesnt mean ANY kind of list should be competitive, but that all units should have some kind of use. Is clear, nonetheless, than Chaos as right now is a faction designed to play as soup, the amount of inter codex sinergies are just too big to ignore, and even in the fluff they have always played like that, theres no other way.
Yeah GW could give all armies mono rules like sisters, marines or grey knights but they didn't. So we can work with what we have or we can cry to the wind and hope for change.

Heyyyy, we did it everyone! We reached the last step in the narcissists prayer of responding to "gosh, my army isnt great I wish it were better" threads!

What? I literally said I think GW should make Demons usable as a core faction because they have a book. After that I just stated how things are now in relation to Chaos , at least with how GW has been writting them this past 3 years. That has no relation with my opinion on the subject.
I don't think demons should not exist in 40k because they are a fantasy army like folks as Peregrine said. But I believe they should have many more shooting based 40k units. Dooms demons look absolutely warhammery. GW did it on the past with the sould grinder (Before making it also a fantasy unit. And it looks like ass in fantasy, not that much in aos), making specific shooting units for 40k demons. They should do it more, but I doubt they will.

Goddam the ranting about doom demons has pissed me off when daemon engines, possessed, obliterators etc have really strong synergy with daemons. ~If you want shooting, build daemonkin style. Heck, Slaanesh Daemons actually provide a pretty strong buff with move/advance/charge for daemon engines which would require a specialist detatchment otherwise, and in general mixing in daemonkin units to an army can fill in a lot of gaps whilst still being mono god.

Different styles of lists are going to have different strengths and weaknesses, so being mad that you built a list in a specific style, and it having weaknesses, is kind of bizarre. I played heavy kdk in 7th, so i see nothing wrong with merging god factions into a warpy mortal/daemon mess

 JNAProductions wrote:
"It's tradition, therefore it's good."

Not a solid argument.

It's better than "I demand to be competitive using only 25% of my codex."

 WinterLantern wrote:
Goddam the ranting about doom demons has pissed me off when daemon engines, possessed, obliterators etc have really strong synergy with daemons. ~If you want shooting, build daemonkin style. Heck, Slaanesh Daemons actually provide a pretty strong buff with move/advance/charge for daemon engines which would require a specialist detatchment otherwise, and in general mixing in daemonkin units to an army can fill in a lot of gaps whilst still being mono god.

Different styles of lists are going to have different strengths and weaknesses, so being mad that you built a list in a specific style, and it having weaknesses, is kind of bizarre. I played heavy kdk in 7th, so i see nothing wrong with merging god factions into a warpy mortal/daemon mess

The problem with the Daemons Codex is that it's a n00b trap. You can't play it standalone, you have to pick a quarter of it and then soup in a subset of the CSM book to play a Daemons army, so why is it a standalone Codex?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 WinterLantern wrote:
Goddam the ranting about doom demons has pissed me off when daemon engines, possessed, obliterators etc have really strong synergy with daemons. ~If you want shooting, build daemonkin style. Heck, Slaanesh Daemons actually provide a pretty strong buff with move/advance/charge for daemon engines which would require a specialist detatchment otherwise, and in general mixing in daemonkin units to an army can fill in a lot of gaps whilst still being mono god.

Different styles of lists are going to have different strengths and weaknesses, so being mad that you built a list in a specific style, and it having weaknesses, is kind of bizarre. I played heavy kdk in 7th, so i see nothing wrong with merging god factions into a warpy mortal/daemon mess

The problem with the Daemons Codex is that it's a n00b trap. You can't play it standalone, you have to pick a quarter of it and then soup in a subset of the CSM book to play a Daemons army, so why is it a standalone Codex?

I mean it can work, it's just that going monogod opens up heavy weaknesses due to god play styles, which you've then got to double down on, which doesn't really work for khorne or tzeentch. Having different detatchments as deamons can give you a working daemon army- khorne and nurgle can work as hammer and anvil style, or tzeentch gets thrown in to clear chaff etc. Use different gods to fulfill different roles, like bloodletter bombs, plague bearer blobs/nurglings, contorted epitomes. The daemon codex in it's base form is made to be played as a mix of daemon detatchments fulfilling different niches.

I play heavy slaanesh daemonkin, but i have found success with pure slaanesh, and have seen strong pure nurgle lists too. Slaanesh can work pretty well with the new units added and really suits a mobile aggressive play style that focuses on dictating movement.

 WinterLantern wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 WinterLantern wrote:
Goddam the ranting about doom demons has pissed me off when daemon engines, possessed, obliterators etc have really strong synergy with daemons. ~If you want shooting, build daemonkin style. Heck, Slaanesh Daemons actually provide a pretty strong buff with move/advance/charge for daemon engines which would require a specialist detatchment otherwise, and in general mixing in daemonkin units to an army can fill in a lot of gaps whilst still being mono god.

Different styles of lists are going to have different strengths and weaknesses, so being mad that you built a list in a specific style, and it having weaknesses, is kind of bizarre. I played heavy kdk in 7th, so i see nothing wrong with merging god factions into a warpy mortal/daemon mess

The problem with the Daemons Codex is that it's a n00b trap. You can't play it standalone, you have to pick a quarter of it and then soup in a subset of the CSM book to play a Daemons army, so why is it a standalone Codex?

I mean it can work, it's just that going monogod opens up heavy weaknesses due to god play styles, which you've then got to double down on, which doesn't really work for khorne or tzeentch. Having different detatchments as deamons can give you a working daemon army- khorne and nurgle can work as hammer and anvil style, or tzeentch gets thrown in to clear chaff etc. Use different gods to fulfill different roles, like bloodletter bombs, plague bearer blobs/nurglings, contorted epitomes. The daemon codex in it's base form is made to be played as a mix of daemon detatchments fulfilling different niches.

I play heavy slaanesh daemonkin, but i have found success with pure slaanesh, and have seen strong pure nurgle lists too. Slaanesh can work pretty well with the new units added and really suits a mobile aggressive play style that focuses on dictating movement.

Where, o where are these highly competitive daemon lists piloted by galaxy brains who use the whole codex?

Chaos lists are 95% multicodex soup, 5% pure nurgle.

Weird, because those nurgle lists somehow usr obly 25% of the codex.

Almost like almost every competitive list uses a vanishingly tiny fraction of their codex.

@ Op Nurge just aren't gong to be very good at shooting... They are good at being disgustingly resiliant.

In theory they can have shooty stuff. But you cant force it to be good. You options are to soup and stop being mono nurgle deamons or do a shooty nurgle army that just wont be very good in most match ups.

I cant say I will make an entire army of aspect warriors because I want to be an aspect host army and then complain how its not very good because I also want them to be good at being resiliant and tough. They just aint.

the_scotsman wrote:

 WinterLantern wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 WinterLantern wrote:
Goddam the ranting about doom demons has pissed me off when daemon engines, possessed, obliterators etc have really strong synergy with daemons. ~If you want shooting, build daemonkin style. Heck, Slaanesh Daemons actually provide a pretty strong buff with move/advance/charge for daemon engines which would require a specialist detatchment otherwise, and in general mixing in daemonkin units to an army can fill in a lot of gaps whilst still being mono god.

Different styles of lists are going to have different strengths and weaknesses, so being mad that you built a list in a specific style, and it having weaknesses, is kind of bizarre. I played heavy kdk in 7th, so i see nothing wrong with merging god factions into a warpy mortal/daemon mess

The problem with the Daemons Codex is that it's a n00b trap. You can't play it standalone, you have to pick a quarter of it and then soup in a subset of the CSM book to play a Daemons army, so why is it a standalone Codex?

I mean it can work, it's just that going monogod opens up heavy weaknesses due to god play styles, which you've then got to double down on, which doesn't really work for khorne or tzeentch. Having different detatchments as deamons can give you a working daemon army- khorne and nurgle can work as hammer and anvil style, or tzeentch gets thrown in to clear chaff etc. Use different gods to fulfill different roles, like bloodletter bombs, plague bearer blobs/nurglings, contorted epitomes. The daemon codex in it's base form is made to be played as a mix of daemon detatchments fulfilling different niches.

I play heavy slaanesh daemonkin, but i have found success with pure slaanesh, and have seen strong pure nurgle lists too. Slaanesh can work pretty well with the new units added and really suits a mobile aggressive play style that focuses on dictating movement.

Where, o where are these highly competitive daemon lists piloted by galaxy brains who use the whole codex?

Chaos lists are 95% multicodex soup, 5% pure nurgle.

Weird, because those nurgle lists somehow usr obly 25% of the codex.

Almost like almost every competitive list uses a vanishingly tiny fraction of their codex.

There are vanishingly few lists that get to dominate the itc meta. Meta dominating god tier lists aren't the standard really and doesn't mean it's completely useless, so i'm not sure what ya getting at or the hostility at pure daemons being playable, regardless of soup being better. It can be competitive but of course it isn't pre nerf iron hands, and frankly i'm kind of glad it's not that absurd.