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.

Well, it's true. Half of the old daemons from the original Realm of Chaos books didn't have rules representing them. I'm sure I'll be facing the same situation soon with my WHFB Chaos army. I'm a bit annoyed, but frankly it gives me the excuse I've been looking for to pick up some models I'd always wanted. I couldn't justify it with the 4000 points I already owned. The fact that I can now use my daemons in 40K without having to buy a bunch of spikey marines is nice.

Gawd, I am SUCH a fanboy!

Isn't it amazing how everyone's opinions on demons change so dramatically when they can't move + assault on the turn they get summoned or deepstrike in.

Pariah Press wrote:The fact that I can now use my daemons in 40K without having to buy a bunch of spikey marines is nice.

You know, you're absolutely right! With the old Chaos Codex, with its limitless options, vast armory, and countless unit entries, I just felt so compelled to do things like taking both Demons and Marines in the same army. Now, with two books with far fewer options each, I'm free to choose, err, forced to field only one force at a time!

gorgon wrote:IMO, GW completely misread their daemons sales data.
- are separate all-daemon armies really what 40K players want?
- Are generic, non-marked lesser daemons the only alternative and an acceptable substitute in CSM armies?
- Do 40K players want an army that looks almost identical to a WFB army?
- A new "daemonbomb" may be the only design route given that the units and miniatures have already been dictated to them, but can the designers balance an all-deep striking army?
- Jervis tends to err on the side of caution, but will a daemon army that's even slightly underpowered take root?

No, they read their sales data correctly: (inexpensive 40k Rending) Daemonettes and (underpriced 40k PW) Bloodletters sell *very* well, well enough to be done in plastic.

- Nobody knows if all-Daemon armies are what's wanted until they become available as an option. Certainly, the old Daemonbomb armies hint this to be the case for Daemonettes and/or Bloodletters when grossly underpriced for their stats and abilities.

- Yes, generic Daemons are the only appropriate solution within a CSM army that intends to keep the focus on the CSM instead of having the Daemons overshadow them. By design, Daemons need to be less sexy than a basic CSM, so that stupid, stupid thick as a plank 40k players understand that focus is on the CSM.

- from the beginning, 40k armies have looked similar to WFB armies. Hence, Space Elves (Eldar), Space Orcs, and Space Dwarves (Squats). Not to mention the tremendous overlap when 40k was created as a Fantasy offshoot. Thankfully, 40k has developed to differentiate itself.

- I'm pretty sure the new Daemonbomb will play as the designers intended, with the power level that was intended, given their experience with C: CSM.

- Whether players like it is another thing. I'm sure most ex-CSM players will throw their arms up, how they've been nerfed into oblivion, etc. Cooler heads will probably be fine with it. Particularly once 40k5 and C: SM are released.

Techboss wrote:My guess is the marketing people looked at Chaos army comps and decided that since they had demons and CSM, that they could split the army giving/forcing the player to have two armies.

As an example, my Khorne army is roughly 50/50 demons and CSM at 2000 points. By splitting the force, I now have two 1000 point armies.

4 - Build up both sides

Even though lesser demons are junk, I can still put them on the table and won't "loose" the models. CSM are also much more versitile in tactics and I like the models. Therefore Demons gets pushed to the points "filler" role for my army.

I would be surprised if marketing was behind the split in the Chaos Codices. I believe that this was primarily driven by the designers seeing that the 40k4 Codices had gotten out of control, and that they were running out of ways to take the game forward for players like Jervis' kid. Being able to split Chaos into CSM and Daemons to sell a 2nd Codex upfront, followed by 4 more Codices was just convenient smoke to blow up management's skirt.

In your case, you have a 2000 pt Khorne force. There is no need for you to split it.

GW would *love* for you to build this up into a 2000 pt CSM army backed by a 2000 pt Daemon army. Do it!

And this is the typical reaction for those who aren't made of money. Perhaps you aren't GW's target market?

Tho really, at the prices for the new Daemons, there's no excuse not to bulk up Daemonettes and Bloodletters like crazy. Wood Elves pay $35 for 12 Dryads ($3 each). GW could have charged $35 ($5 less than current) for 10 plastic Daemonettes or Bloodletters and still done fine. But the new pricing is $22 for 10 Daemons ($2 each). Any way you look at it, Daemon armies will be cheap if you use the "correct" cheap, plastic Daemons and avoid the expensive, crappy-looking Tzeentch and Nurgle stuff.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:Isn't it amazing how everyone's opinions on demons change so dramatically when they can't move + assault on the turn they get summoned or deepstrike in.

Yep!

(They suck, like I've been trying to say.)

It must be awfully terrible for Demon users to actually have to work to get their units into assault without getting shot to pieces first...just like the rest of us.

I think 5th will give them more of a chance, being able to screen daemonettes and bloodletters behind plaguebearers will help a great deal.

The codex has a lot of beast/calvary units, so having that much speed is still quite nice. You can take a safer route and try to deepstrike on a flank or out of LOS and be able to get a charge off the next turn.

I still look forward to getting the codex and using them, but I am wary about the constant deepstrike, especially with the rumored 5th mishap table, but I suppose it'll make it more interesting, if not frustrating at times.

The 5th Edition Mishap Table only applies when you scatter off the table, or onto a piece of impassable terrain (When the unit would normally be destroyed).

On a 1, the unit is destroyed, as normal.

On a 2-3, the unit does not deploy during the game, but only counts as under half strength for victory points purposes.

On a 4-6, the player not controlling the deep-striking unit chooses where to deploy them, and does not roll for scatter. Dangerous terrain tests must be taken if the unit is placed into difficult/dangerous terrain.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:It must be awfully terrible for Demon users to actually have to work to get their units into assault without getting shot to pieces first...just like the rest of us.

While technically accurate, the sarcasm is uncalled for. Most deepstriking lists at the moment (trying to think of one that doesn't) have the ability to blast away when they deepstrike in. It sounds as if the demon forces will not have that ability (which also contrasts with how it works on Codex Renegadez). Except for Tzeentch and who cares about them? They don't have two wounds and really don't have a lot going for them...

The option to assault on deepstirking was a nice middle ground. Frankly it should have been carried forward into the demon codex. That and the option that 1/2 could actually start on the board. I see an all deepstriking only list as potentially getting tedious (and will keep my Nid counts as option for non-tourney games which are all my games at this point).

JohnHwangDD wrote:No, they read their sales data correctly: (inexpensive 40k Rending) Daemonettes and (underpriced 40k PW) Bloodletters sell *very* well, well enough to be done in plastic.

- Nobody knows if all-Daemon armies are what's wanted until they become available as an option. Certainly, the old Daemonbomb armies hint this to be the case for Daemonettes and/or Bloodletters when grossly underpriced for their stats and abilities.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:Isn't it amazing how everyone's opinions on demons change so dramatically when they can't move + assault on the turn they get summoned or deepstrike in.

That's kind of my point. I think the popularity of this new codex will likely be dictated by the power level of the army. Certainly it's always a factor, but I can't shake the feeling that this one is going to be boom or bust, depending. But again, it may be that any 40K sales for this release are just gravy to GW anyway. *shrug*

Yes, generic Daemons are the only appropriate solution within a CSM army that intends to keep the focus on the CSM instead of having the Daemons overshadow them. By design, Daemons need to be less sexy than a basic CSM, so that stupid, stupid thick as a plank 40k players understand that focus is on the CSM.

I think simply granting the basic marks (+1A, +1T, etc.) and having lesser summoned daemons of Khorne, Nurgle, etc. would have ruffled fewer feathers, kept the focus on CSMs and not unbalanced anything. Obviously, they were going to make some wholesale changes to the CSM codex and upset some players. I think that particular one just went too far and stuck in some players' craws.

from the beginning, 40k armies have looked similar to WFB armies. Hence, Space Elves (Eldar), Space Orcs, and Space Dwarves (Squats). Not to mention the tremendous overlap when 40k was created as a Fantasy offshoot. Thankfully, 40k has developed to differentiate itself.

I agree...but chariots and musicians take it too far for me. I realize they may be magical warp chariot manifestation things, but the overall imagery is just too fantasy-based for me. I'd prefer a little more differentiation and something Daemon-focused but slightly closer to the old Daemonworld list in concept.

Whether players like it is another thing. I'm sure most ex-CSM players will throw their arms up, how they've been nerfed into oblivion, etc. Cooler heads will probably be fine with it. Particularly once 40k5 and C: SM are released.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Daemon book is more attractive to new players than existing CSM players who used daemons.

gorgon wrote:I think the popularity of this new codex will likely be dictated by the power level of the army.

Totally agreed. It is too bad that the Daemon book is being released into a de-powering cycle. It would have been better if 40k5 and C: SM had been released prior to Daemons so that the new, lower power level were standard.

I think simply granting the basic marks (+1A, +1T, etc.) and having lesser summoned daemons of Khorne, Nurgle, etc. would have ruffled fewer feathers,

I would agree. But keep in mind that Marks would have been against Fantasy-like S3 T3 A2 Sv5+ models (because 40k is IG-based), rather than S4 T4 A2 models. Dropping the statline across the board probably wouldn't sit well, either. As it is, Lesser Daemons are CSM with 2 CCWs and an Inv save instead of PA. Not so bad when you think about it.

from the beginning, 40k armies have looked similar to WFB armies.

I agree...but chariots and musicians take it too far for me.

I don't even like the presence of Cavalry in the game.

The bottom line is that GW cannot do anything right.
That isn't toally their fault, it's the fault of the players, too.

NO C:CSM codex would have been universally accepted and people who want to will always find something to b!tch about. The same people here, complaining about the current division would have complained about something with a different C:CSM codex.
Same for Daemons. Not everyone would have been happy with Daemons, regardless of whether they were in the C:CSM 'dex or their own.
Those of you who are complaining COULD NOT have done a BETTER job. You may think you could have... but you couldn't. It's not possible. Your codex would have had JUST as many people complaining... just about different things.

Personally, I hated the new C:CSM codex when it came out. Despised it.
I almost sold my Chaos army.

After playing a couple games with it, I realized how wrong I was. I like the changes (mostly).
I refuse to rule out Codexaemons until I've played it a few times.

So, we can't merge the 2, outside Apoc. Boo hoo.

Some people should be a little more introspective.
If everyone you encounter seems like an idiot... maybe THEY aren't the ones with the problems.
If everything that OTHERS do is wrong... Maybe they aren't the wrong ones.

Eric

I just miss my furies. Will someone think of the furies!?

MinMax wrote:The 5th Edition Mishap Table only applies when you scatter off the table, or onto a piece of impassable terrain (When the unit would normally be destroyed).

On a 1, the unit is destroyed, as normal.

On a 2-3, the unit does not deploy during the game, but only counts as under half strength for victory points purposes.

On a 4-6, the player not controlling the deep-striking unit chooses where to deploy them, and does not roll for scatter. Dangerous terrain tests must be taken if the unit is placed into difficult/dangerous terrain.

Don't forget that both enemy and friendly units are 'impassable terrain'.

So a mishap occurs often.

It's been subject to alot of abuse, really.

Huh? The 5th Ed rule is far more generous than destroying for full VPs every time. There is much less abuse this way.

No, I meant abuse by opponents.

I deep strike.

I place myself 1" away from you.

I miss. Darn.

Now I scatter into impassable terrain.

Here's hoping I get a unit in a corner!

So what I mean is, it makes for far more brazen deep strike play, since it's so much less likely to cost you a unit. From players who I'd normally call 'conservative' all of a sudden they're placing units willy nilly, without a care.

Tactic, or rule abuse? I only say it's rule abuse as I've never seen certain players place SW flamers in a spot where only 1 guy will live. Or a meltagun. It encourages risky behaviour. Problem is, it used to be if you had the balls you'd get into risk vs reward. Now, it's all reward as even if you scatter...who cares? I lose half a unit, or it goes into the trees on my back 9. Big woop.

See?

JohnHwangDD wrote:Huh? The 5th Ed rule is far more generous than destroying for full VPs every time. There is much less abuse this way.

I didn't realize there was something to abuse with the 4th edition deepstrike rules. Did I miss something?

Perhaps the table will be corrected:

1 destroyed for double VPs
2-4 destroyed for full VPs
5 destroyed for half VPs
6 opponent places anywhere on the board; all models take armor save vs Instant Death; survivors are Entangled.

The Deep-Striking 'fix' is, of course, designed to make sure Daemons aren't screwed if they scatter. An all Deep-Striking army practically requires a safer kind of Deep-Striking, at least in the minds of some.

As long as my bloodthirster and skulltaker hit home, it wont really matter how many marines their are.....

JohnHwangDD wrote:

gorgon wrote:

But the new pricing is $22 for 10 Daemons ($2 each).

Anyone else confused how you get $2 out of 22/10? Maybe I'm the only one...

VermGho5t wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
But the new pricing is $22 for 10 Daemons ($2 each).

Anyone else confused how you get $2 out of 22/10? Maybe I'm the only one...

Um, simple division and rounding?

Y'know ... math.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:Isn't it amazing how everyone's opinions on demons change so dramatically when they can't move + assault on the turn they get summoned or deepstrike in.

Assault Troops that have to Deep Strike that can't Assault after landing are not useful, not as single choices within armies, and especially not as entire armies.

BYE

Pariah Press wrote: Well, it's true. Half of the old daemons from the original Realm of Chaos books didn't have rules representing them.

Such as?

BYE

so how does daemonic summoning work? can they DS, move, and assault like in the past, or DS and just assault, or just DS and be sitting ducks?

DS + shooting gallery.

Pretty much.

BYE

The codex has a lot of interesting options. We were looking at it today and throwing out ideas for lists. Several people were interested in trying out a list with 2 bloodthirsters and 3 demon princes of khorne. My personal favorite is an all nurgle list with the Tallyman. After a couple of turns and a few kills, I want to assault a carnifex with 3 stands of nurglings and kill it in one round. 12 attacks, hitting on 4's, wounding on 2's, no armor save = 5 wounds.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
I'm sure Daemons will be more attractive to new players, same as how the current CSM book is attractive to players who haven't depended on the crutches of brokenness in the previous book.

John... this blows my mind that you would post this with (probably) a straight face consider that in the time I've known you.. you've bounced between suckling at the Eldar teat to suckling at the Spayce Marienz (hurr!) teat...

Blackie, at this point, I have so little hobby time, I wouldn't care if the rules were simplified to the point that the whole thing were written on a paper napkin - as long as they were clear and didn't get in the way of me making an army or playing a game.