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.
It's... Mediocre. It feels phoned in. Nurgle is especially notable to me since that's what I play, but just... Eesh. Boring.
Agreed 100%
The book is just unexciting, feels like an after thought to the CSM codex. The 40k writers just seem completely uninterested in some armies and it shows so painfully when they write the books. Orks seem to be written without any idea of how the army is supposed to function, GSC have some interesting ideas in the book but it never really comes together in a functional way, Necrons until recently had a laughably bad "doctrine" ability that even now is just okay and now we have Daemons which just looks so uninspired and boring.
Before anyone just wants to brush off my opinions as nothing but negativity, there are armies that I like. I think that Death Guard are a fairly well designed army but it would definitely be nice to see some more options. I really like the direction they took with the Tyranid codex after so many misses in previous books. Chaos Knights/Imperial Knights, depending on how you feel about super heavies in 40k, are just fine in their design.
The game is just so much worse because you have these same books competing with one another.
I'm still just absolutely mystified that they decided that Dexcessa, Synessa, and the Fane of Slaanesh should stay Age of Sigmar only. They gave Khorne and Nurgle the terrain pieces they use in AoS (yes I know they had access in 40k in the past as well) but for whatever reason giving Slaanesh daemons the Fane in 40k was a line too far. Also dissappointing that GW can't seem to figure out that they could probably find a neat way to incorporate the endless spell minis for khorne/slaanesh/tzeentchi into 40k, potentially as additional terrain features.
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
It's... Mediocre. It feels phoned in. Nurgle is especially notable to me since that's what I play, but just... Eesh. Boring.
I feel like Nurgle got a number of side-grades on profiles that are actually down-grades when you consider the meta.
Plaguebearers are more durable vs small arms fire, but are considerably more vulnerable to all the stuff that kills Space Marines.
Nurglings are slightly more durable (+1 tough, -1 to hit), but can't fill in the compulsory slots.
I'm still unsure about Beasts of Nurgle. They look good in close combat, and due to their regeneration make for good late-game disruptive units, but they are quite expensive.
Plague Drones are a downgrade. They are more durable (+1 tough, +1 wound, better save), but considerably less damage output in combat.
Epidemius is outright worse.
The Heralds are OK, but not enough to carry the army on their own.
I don't particularly have an opinion on the GUO's at this stage.
I think overall, Nurgle is hard countered by speed. And while they can make use of manifestation, I just don't see them having units that put out enough damage to make much stick (and they don't have enough durability to make up for this either)
chaos0xomega wrote: I'm still just absolutely mystified that they decided that Dexcessa, Synessa, and the Fane of Slaanesh should stay Age of Sigmar only.
While I can agree with you on the Fane, I like that they kept the Twins (and Endless Spells) as an AOS-only thing - these are a pair of characters who have only come into being following a specific story event in the AOS setting as part of an ongoing playable campaign, so they don't really have a place in 40k. Every other Daemons character that has made the transition has, as far as I'm aware, been noted as existing in sigh "The World That Was", which has at least a theoretical connection between WHFB and 40k.
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
chaos0xomega wrote: I'm still just absolutely mystified that they decided that Dexcessa, Synessa, and the Fane of Slaanesh should stay Age of Sigmar only.
While I can agree with you on the Fane, I like that they kept the Twins (and Endless Spells) as an AOS-only thing - these are a pair of characters who have only come into being following a specific story event in the AOS setting as part of an ongoing playable campaign, so they don't really have a place in 40k. Every other Daemons character that has made the transition has, as far as I'm aware, been noted as existing in sigh "The World That Was", which has at least a theoretical connection between WHFB and 40k.
With the exception of the Masque, which was there since WFB, and the twins which were added after the second book,
all Slaanesh deamon characters are from the first AoSBT for the Hedonites of Slaanesh.
So if Syll'Esske can be there, basically Dexcessa, Synessa and the Fane could.
chaos0xomega wrote: I'm still just absolutely mystified that they decided that Dexcessa, Synessa, and the Fane of Slaanesh should stay Age of Sigmar only.
While I can agree with you on the Fane, I like that they kept the Twins (and Endless Spells) as an AOS-only thing - these are a pair of characters who have only come into being following a specific story event in the AOS setting as part of an ongoing playable campaign, so they don't really have a place in 40k. Every other Daemons character that has made the transition has, as far as I'm aware, been noted as existing in sigh "The World That Was", which has at least a theoretical connection between WHFB and 40k.
With the exception of the Masque, which was there since WFB, and the twins which were added after the second book,
all Slaanesh deamon characters are from the first AoSBT for the Hedonites of Slaanesh.
So if Syll'Esske can be there, basically Dexcessa, Synessa and the Fane could.
Yeah, Syll'Esske looks way too "Medieval" for me to be in 40k. While the twins just look like greater demons.
Plus let's never forget: it's models > rules > lore. If GW wants a mini in either game, they'll write it in. No matter the difficulty.
What mortar_crew said. Syll'Esske, Horticulous Slimux, the Infernal Enrapturess, Rotigus, Shalaxi Hexbane, Spoilpox Scrivener, and Sloppity Bilepiper are all AoS era additions to the game and fluff. Several of them have differing backgrounds between their 40k and AoS incarnations - also IIRC every one of those models "originated" on the Age of Sigmar side of the fence.
Also, its the same warp in both settings - Age of Sigmar is a continuation of WHFB, if WHFB was linked to 40k via the warp then so is AoS (indeed theres various references to 40k in AoS lore). Now factor in that time doesn't exist in the warp and theres an easy way to explain Dexcessa and Synessa as Slaaneshes offspring from a future past or whatever.
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
Krull wrote: I wanted to start daemons some timebago, but restricted myself untill the new codex came out
So i've got the book....
Mono god doesn't give you anything?
A god keyword doesn't give you a thing?
Just 3 warp storm stuff to choose from?
Undivided is only if you take more than 1 god?
Cant have the undivided and you god warpstormvstuff?
But you do have access to all stratas then?
So they are saying take all gods, doesnt matter if you khorne hq goes with daemonets, they just don't buff...
Must say i'm losing interest in daemons.
Also nothing new
I hoped a few new units
Where does it say you loose the undivided warpstorm abilities if you go mono-god? All I see is rules about gaining the extra three for your chosen god.
And where does it say you get access to undivided WS while you are mono god.
Mono god is not undivided... so imo you don't have access to it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BomBomHotdog wrote: The book is bland. Warpstorm is where all your flavor is and its an OK mechanic at best. On average you will get 4 Warpstorm points for a whole game turn. None of the abilities feel over the top, which is good. The book pushes you to use at least 2 gods as there is no real incentive to play mono-god. The problem here is you need to pay for Detachments of gods. You can, of course, play Disciples of Be'lakor but that comes with its own set of issues.
What I haven't seen anyone mention is that this is the only codex with no faction secondary objectives.
It feels more like "Here's an ally codex for CSM. Have fun." It just feels...meh.
I will say the book layout is fantastic though. Crusade AFTER all the unit entries and each god getting their own section was a wonderful idea.
Why do you need to pay for detachments of gods?
You can mix differents god in 1 detachment right?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/09/05 07:10:39
At least here on dakka, BRB matched play is just as popular as Nephilim.
It's understandable that GW doesn't care about that though, from their point of view BRB matched play is a deprecated version which is no longer supported.
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
Why do you need to pay for detachments of gods?
You can mix differents god in 1 detachment right?
You can mix in detachments but you only get access to the god options if you have a detachment of only that god. Doesn't count Auxiliary Support, SHAD, or Fortification Detachments. The Undivided table has no restrictions other then playing only Deamons.
Having spent a day thinking on this I've come to a conclusion on how GW might be envisioning army building. Excluding the AoR, players either build Undivided in a single detachment or would build out small Detachments of pure gods to gain access to their Warpstorm options at the cost of CP. You can, of course, go mono-god but there is no real incentive for it which is why I said multiple detachments. They want you to play at least 2 gods.
I know that there are rules in place about allying in daemons with CSM, but what about the other way around? I was thinking that it might be cool to have a CSM patrol detachment allied to a daemon battalion.
ArcaneHorror wrote: I know that there are rules in place about allying in daemons with CSM, but what about the other way around? I was thinking that it might be cool to have a CSM patrol detachment allied to a daemon battalion.
Nope.
Daemons have a rule that allows for them to gain the AGENTS OF CHAOS keyword, but CSM do not. However, you could ally a Chaos Knight Dreadblade to Daemons.
She/Her
"There are no problems that cannot be solved with cannons." - Chief Engineer Boris Krauss of Nuln
Kid_Kyoto wrote:"Don't be a dick" and "This is a family wargame" are good rules of thumb.
ArcaneHorror wrote: I know that there are rules in place about allying in daemons with CSM, but what about the other way around? I was thinking that it might be cool to have a CSM patrol detachment allied to a daemon battalion.
Nope.
Daemons have a rule that allows for them to gain the AGENTS OF CHAOS keyword, but CSM do not. However, you could ally a Chaos Knight Dreadblade to Daemons.
That's a shame. It would be cool to run a fluffy army being led by the Bloodthirster, with an allied detachment of Khorne Berserkers painted in the scheme of the Wrath warband, as they worship a Bloodthirster. I really wish full daemonkin lists were possible.
ArcaneHorror wrote: I know that there are rules in place about allying in daemons with CSM, but what about the other way around? I was thinking that it might be cool to have a CSM patrol detachment allied to a daemon battalion.
Nope.
Daemons have a rule that allows for them to gain the AGENTS OF CHAOS keyword, but CSM do not. However, you could ally a Chaos Knight Dreadblade to Daemons.
That's a shame. It would be cool to run a fluffy army being led by the Bloodthirster, with an allied detachment of Khorne Berserkers painted in the scheme of the Wrath warband, as they worship a Bloodthirster. I really wish full daemonkin lists were possible.
Well the Daemon detachment could have your warlord in it so technically the CSM's would be the allies, its just your army would be at least 75% allies.
ArcaneHorror wrote: I know that there are rules in place about allying in daemons with CSM, but what about the other way around? I was thinking that it might be cool to have a CSM patrol detachment allied to a daemon battalion.
Nope.
Daemons have a rule that allows for them to gain the AGENTS OF CHAOS keyword, but CSM do not. However, you could ally a Chaos Knight Dreadblade to Daemons.
That's a shame. It would be cool to run a fluffy army being led by the Bloodthirster, with an allied detachment of Khorne Berserkers painted in the scheme of the Wrath warband, as they worship a Bloodthirster. I really wish full daemonkin lists were possible.
Well the Daemon detachment could have your warlord in it so technically the CSM's would be the allies, its just your army would be at least 75% allies.
So, is there anything interesting on the fluff side in this Codex? 8th edition had some example armies and a Hierarchy for every god or something similar. It wasn't much but at least it was something new unlike most other stuff that’s usually copy&paste since 3rd Edition.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: So, is there anything interesting on the fluff side in this Codex? 8th edition had some example armies and a Hierarchy for every god or something similar. It wasn't much but at least it was something new unlike most other stuff that’s usually copy&paste since 3rd Edition.
The Crusade rules letting you mess with the Great Game are kinda neat.
She/Her
"There are no problems that cannot be solved with cannons." - Chief Engineer Boris Krauss of Nuln
Kid_Kyoto wrote:"Don't be a dick" and "This is a family wargame" are good rules of thumb.
chaos0xomega wrote: Isn't there an army of renown or whatever for the poxwalker horde?
It doesn't do away with the 1-1 poxwalkers to marine units requirement.
Daemons play testing question - have people been deepstriking as close to 50% of their army as possible or playing "the old way" by starting most units on the board?
Noticed daemons have super cool crusade trick. Hero fails out of action and you can bind it to greater daemon's weapon. Fun!
Overall while probably not tournament winning level book i find this book design style more fun for me than previous bazillion bonuses from multiple sources.
Hopefully 10e codexes are more to this style. Hate n+1 bonus rules muddying datasheet power style.
Having noticed my aos khorne provided sc box short of 2k tomorrow 1st game with daemons. Blood for the bloodgod!
Why do you need to pay for detachments of gods?
You can mix differents god in 1 detachment right?
You can mix in detachments but you only get access to the god options if you have a detachment of only that god. Doesn't count Auxiliary Support, SHAD, or Fortification Detachments. The Undivided table has no restrictions other then playing only Deamons.
Having spent a day thinking on this I've come to a conclusion on how GW might be envisioning army building. Excluding the AoR, players either build Undivided in a single detachment or would build out small Detachments of pure gods to gain access to their Warpstorm options at the cost of CP. You can, of course, go mono-god but there is no real incentive for it which is why I said multiple detachments. They want you to play at least 2 gods.
If you take Bel'akor in a SupCom, you then gain access to all the god specific warpstorm. This helps alleviate the problem, but I admit I am a bit annoyed if I want access to those tables I'm forced to take Bel'akor or pure mono-god.
4000+
6000+ Order. Unity. Obedience.