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.

Any news is news!

Even if he personally thinks they are fake, that doesn't automatically make them fake. Time will tell.

 Shandara wrote:
Any news is news!

Even if he personally thinks they are fake, that doesn't automatically make them fake. Time will tell.

Exactly, this is where information is pooled. He didn't make the rumors he just shared them.

Bloodletter weapons have always been called Hellblades, why would they rename them to blood swords? That just seems completely uninspired. Bloodthirster regaining wounds on a 4+? 4+ FNP?

What absolute drivel. If these turn out to be true I will buy a collection of hats and eat them all one by one.

Weren't WHFB Demons an overpowered mess?

Maybe they are trying to one up themselves

I'm interested how this turns out, I've been thinking about some allied demons for my CSM for some time now.

In 2nd ed Bloodletters had regen. I could see something similar coming back.

As it stands, each troops choice needs to be unique.

Bloodletters are MEQ killers.
Plague Bearers are Tough objective keepers and can put some hurt on monsters.
Horrors are ranged.
Daemonettes are horde killers.

Now imo, I don't think a simple points reduction will suffice for some of these units. They need to be made more powerful like in the lore, but not op.

My solution would be...

Give Bloodletters AP2 weapons - it doesn't matter if they are AP2, considering they would have to get to combat first.

Give Plague Bearers a 4+ fnp save.

Make Horrors cheaper - I think they are good as they are.

Keep Daemonettes as they are - nothing wrong with them.

 Malthor wrote:
Weren't WHFB Demons an overpowered mess?

Maybe they are trying to one up themselves

I'm interested how this turns out, I've been thinking about some allied demons for my CSM for some time now.

No

The codex creep was really bad in 7th ed fantasy, so bad 90% of a competitive tournament would be vampire or deamon players.

Deamons were so ridiculously overpowering in 7th ed that experienced players would refuse to play any deamon player including new players or 40k converts thinking of trying out fantasy with their 40k deamons.

As a result deamon sales were actually in the dump. They were a frustrating army to play in 40k, fantasy players would scorn deamon players as a no skilled hack, few players used deamons outside the tournament scene, and deamon tournament armies were one of the least expensive armies available in the game when it comes to giving gw money.

GW saw that the creep was killing the game, and the 8th ed rules brought overpowered armies down while buffing underpowered armies.

All hard backed 8th ed books have been very well balanced (by GW standards)

I don't see Deamons breaking the trend.

Bleh, every time this post gets bumped, I think we have pictures...

I'm also going to call baloney on those BloodThrister and GUO stats. They don't look right at all. Seems kind of strange that he posted it, after they "Were Confirmed" for release.

All I want for demonic troops is for pinkies to split into a pair of blues.

 schadenfreude wrote:

 Malthor wrote:
Weren't WHFB Demons an overpowered mess?

Maybe they are trying to one up themselves

I'm interested how this turns out, I've been thinking about some allied demons for my CSM for some time now.

No

The codex creep was really bad in 7th ed fantasy, so bad 90% of a competitive tournament would be vampire or deamon players.

Deamons were so ridiculously overpowering in 7th ed that experienced players would refuse to play any deamon player including new players or 40k converts thinking of trying out fantasy with their 40k deamons.

As a result deamon sales were actually in the dump. They were a frustrating army to play in 40k, fantasy players would scorn deamon players as a no skilled hack, few players used deamons outside the tournament scene, and deamon tournament armies were one of the least expensive armies available in the game when it comes to giving gw money.

GW saw that the creep was killing the game, and the 8th ed rules brought overpowered armies down while buffing underpowered armies.

All hard backed 8th ed books have been very well balanced (by GW standards)

I don't see Deamons breaking the trend.

Thanks for the insight, I have almost no experience with WHFB, was just something I've heard.

Bleh, every time this post gets bumped, I think we have pictures...

Same here

Personally, I think the stats could be real, but all the special rules listed will be (if they exist at all in that form) buyable upgrades.

 schadenfreude wrote:

 Malthor wrote:
Weren't WHFB Demons an overpowered mess?

Maybe they are trying to one up themselves

I'm interested how this turns out, I've been thinking about some allied demons for my CSM for some time now.

No

The codex creep was really bad in 7th ed fantasy, so bad 90% of a competitive tournament would be vampire or deamon players.

Deamons were so ridiculously overpowering in 7th ed that experienced players would refuse to play any deamon player including new players or 40k converts thinking of trying out fantasy with their 40k deamons.

As a result deamon sales were actually in the dump. They were a frustrating army to play in 40k, fantasy players would scorn deamon players as a no skilled hack, few players used deamons outside the tournament scene, and deamon tournament armies were one of the least expensive armies available in the game when it comes to giving gw money.

GW saw that the creep was killing the game, and the 8th ed rules brought overpowered armies down while buffing underpowered armies.

All hard backed 8th ed books have been very well balanced (by GW standards)

I don't see Deamons breaking the trend.

This is a great post, and I think you're right... companies are forced to change when it affects their bottom line, and the dominance of Daemons in 7th ed was unmatched by anything I've seen in this hobby.

Also, shouldn't some country have a white dwarf by now

 lordofthegophers wrote:
What absolute drivel. If these turn out to be true I will buy a collection of hats and eat them all one by one.

Mmmmm....hats

How about this collection?

 Shandara wrote:

 Requiem wrote:
Lol those had better be fake xD the BT is absolutely OP, while other units like bloodletters got hit with the nerf hammer again (ap4? seriously? now you can totally forget about bloodletters killing some marines if this is true)

Bloodletters also getting a 6+ save and 2 wounds. That's a pretty radical change.

Read the line again: 2 attacks, 1 wound. The 6+ save is true, but when will that ever matter with a 5++ (very rarely...)

loodletters: 14pts each
WS BS S T W I A LD SV
5 0 5 4 1 4 2 10 6+

sword of a thousand souls: 45pts

If this rumor is true (and I don't buy it), I hope Matt and Trey (South Park creators) sue GW over their theft of the Sword of a Thousand Truths.

Teaser trailers=Flashing seizure inducing concept art.

As was pointed out elsewhere, some of the details (why specify the GUO sword as ap3 when all MC attacks are ap2) and the incredibly stupid names for powers and wargear, not to mention the OP stupidity of the rules, shows this to be so screamingly, obviously fake.

Killjoy00 wrote:
Read the line again: 2 attacks, 1 wound. The 6+ save is true, but when will that ever matter with a 5++ (very rarely...)

loodletters: 14pts each
WS BS S T W I A LD SV
5 0 5 4 1 4 2 10 6+

I really don't try and knee-jerk react, but if that rumor is true bloodletters will be complete garbage.

Seriously, 14 points for a 1 wound T4 model with a STR 5 AP4 weapon. Even with 4 attacks each on the charge, they just are way to fragile to justify that many points.
If they had 2 wounds, they would be decent, but without that their complete and utter garbage.

 schadenfreude wrote:

 Malthor wrote:
Weren't WHFB Demons an overpowered mess?

Maybe they are trying to one up themselves

I'm interested how this turns out, I've been thinking about some allied demons for my CSM for some time now.

No

The codex creep was really bad in 7th ed fantasy, so bad 90% of a competitive tournament would be Dark Elves or deamon players.

Deamons were so ridiculously overpowering in 7th ed that experienced players would refuse to play any deamon player including new players or 40k converts thinking of trying out fantasy with their 40k deamons.

As a result deamon sales were actually in the dump. They were a frustrating army to play in 40k, fantasy players would scorn deamon players as a no skilled hack, few players used deamons outside the tournament scene, and deamon tournament armies were one of the least expensive armies available in the game when it comes to giving gw money.

GW saw that the creep was killing the game, and the 8th ed rules brought overpowered armies down while buffing underpowered armies.

All hard backed 8th ed books have been very well balanced (by GW standards)

I don't see Deamons breaking the trend.

Fixed that for you!

Remember though, once the DE book hit, VC's got hosed by both them & Daemons and were left playing the invo-spam game to try and simply out last their opposition.

DE's on the other hand could actually go toe-to-toe with some competitive Daemon lists thanks to their ASF 'Shadestar' combined alongside dual undercosted Hydras + the 'unkillable Dreadlord' on his dark pegasus who'd hold up something nasty almost indefinately. (The Slaanesh Ld-bomb however was still 99.9% unbeatable except by other Daemons!)

WoC, Lizzies & Skaven also trumed VC towards the tail end of 7th edition as well.



These latest "rumors" are almost certainly just made-up gak by some troll with nothing better to do.
Unless GW were downright stupid enough to give the books back to Mr.Ward, I can't see Daemons becoming anything more than a strong middle-of-the-pack army like the new 8th VC's or DA's in 40k.

Well I am waiting with baited breath to see what is going to happen for my WFB DOC. As long as core units are still solid I'll be happy. I've been running with like 50% core amies and doing amazing.

The things that worries me the most are the changes to horror casting, and tzeentch herald MOS.

While an excellent valuie I've always felt that having a loremaster lvl 2 was a fair deal for not being able to get a lvl4 for under 550. If the greater Daemons come down in cost by 100+ points then it would change.

 Acardia wrote:
Well I am waiting with baited breath to see what is going to happen for my WFB DOC. As long as core units are still solid I'll be happy. I've been running with like 50% core amies and doing amazing.

The things that worries me the most are the changes to horror casting, and tzeentch herald MOS.

While an excellent valuie I've always felt that having a loremaster lvl 2 was a fair deal for not being able to get a lvl4 for under 550. If the greater Daemons come down in cost by 100+ points then it would change.

I'm willing to bet that Master of Sorcery either goes up to 50+ pts, or else no longer grants outright 'Loremaster' but becomes just like the VC vampire power that gives access to a BRB lore.

I'd also be willing to bet that Daemon Princes will finally become viable choices too!

Experiment 626 wrote:

 Acardia wrote:
Well I am waiting with baited breath to see what is going to happen for my WFB DOC. As long as core units are still solid I'll be happy. I've been running with like 50% core amies and doing amazing.

The things that worries me the most are the changes to horror casting, and tzeentch herald MOS.

While an excellent valuie I've always felt that having a loremaster lvl 2 was a fair deal for not being able to get a lvl4 for under 550. If the greater Daemons come down in cost by 100+ points then it would change.

I'm willing to bet that Master of Sorcery either goes up to 50+ pts, or else no longer grants outright 'Loremaster' but becomes just like the VC vampire power that gives access to a BRB lore.

I'd also be willing to bet that Daemon Princes will finally become viable choices too!

I'd think that tzeentch would get the lvl2 abulity to choose or loremaster for 50. Having loremaster and scroll was a bit over the top. Hope I can still take gifts and bsb.

 labmouse42 wrote:

Killjoy00 wrote:
Read the line again: 2 attacks, 1 wound. The 6+ save is true, but when will that ever matter with a 5++ (very rarely...)

loodletters: 14pts each
WS BS S T W I A LD SV
5 0 5 4 1 4 2 10 6+

I really don't try and knee-jerk react, but if that rumor is true bloodletters will be complete garbage.

Seriously, 14 points for a 1 wound T4 model with a STR 5 AP4 weapon. Even with 4 attacks each on the charge, they just are way to fragile to justify that many points.
If they had 2 wounds, they would be decent, but without that their complete and utter garbage.

When you run the numbers, they take a hit vs MEq, no doubt. Eight of the new ones tally almost 6 MEqs on the charge, compared to 7 of the old ones racking up over 9 on the charge. But versus GEq, the new ones score almost 18 kills on the charge versus less than 12 for the old. And S5/6 allows them to present more of a threat to higher Ts and AVs. So the rumored bloodletters seem to be designed to be more of an all-arounder than an elite anti-MEq unit. That statline might be good enough...the most important and unanswered question is how they'll get there.

I don't buy the statlines. Having a FMC rocking a 2+ save in addition to so much other crap is a stretch.

The Troops statlines are also so bad it's painful. Two melee specialists without grenades, crappy saves, lackluster weapons, expected to slog openly across the board, more expensive than a DA tactical. If true, GW already deserves 2013's "Achivement in Trolling" award.

I wonder if they are going to be lazy and have Chaos Daemons and CSM share psychic tables, though.

 Sephyr wrote:
I wonder if they are going to be lazy and have Chaos Daemons and CSM share psychic tables, though.

The authour will probably rename them and rewrite the descriptions. They did it in the first Codex: Chaos Daemons.

 Sephyr wrote:

I don't buy the statlines. Having a FMC rocking a 2+ save in addition to so much other crap is a stretch.

The Troops statlines are also so bad it's painful. Two melee specialists without grenades, crappy saves, lackluster weapons, expected to slog openly across the board, more expensive than a DA tactical. If true, GW already deserves 2013's "Achivement in Trolling" award.

I wonder if they are going to be lazy and have Chaos Daemons and CSM share psychic tables, though.

+1 to the Troops being awfultastic in these so-called "rumors".

Having to deploy normally means our 'Letters & 'Nettes won't likely see an assault until Turn 3. (Daemonettes could possibly assault Turn 2 if they got a lucky 'run' roll...)
At 14pts/model, you'd have to take a unit of 15-20 'Letters to have them survive slogging into the enemy's guns, meaning you're still going to spend 300 or so pts for a unit that'll get one charge off, (maybe), perhaps kill one unit and then get wiped by return fire.

Daemonettes will simply die even faster due to T3.

Daemon Troops have no transports and should be kept that way! But, without our Deep Strike deployment that makes-up for the lack of transports, our Troops would outright need to be priced down to GEQ Horde types to be even remotely viable.



As for the psychic powers/Daemonic Gifts...

H&H or Avian mentioned that Daemons share 1 power with CSM's per god discipline, but no word on if it's a strait copy-paste or simply a 'same name, slightly different effect'.

I only pray to lord Tzeentch that we keep Gift of Chaos!
Simply because I recently turned my buddy's Belial into a spawn and I've got a wickedly cool conversion in the planning stages to forever remind of it!

I don't think Bloodletters will be AP4. It would be a bad joke, and they wouldn't even get played in fluffy games.

I am expecting an AP2 option on Bloodletters and Bloodcrushers.

Experiment 626 wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
The heralds are so cheap anyway I dont mind losing ew on them, I'm looking toward to rocking my slaanesh deamons again...please please give me some decent looking fiends though, there bloody awful looking

You could always try bitz ordering the current plastic steeds of slaanesh and slapping a pair of the chaos spawn crab claw arms onto them and then filing off the saddle?

This is what I did. They look pretty damn good.

 matphat wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
The heralds are so cheap anyway I dont mind losing ew on them, I'm looking toward to rocking my slaanesh deamons again...please please give me some decent looking fiends though, there bloody awful looking

You could always try bitz ordering the current plastic steeds of slaanesh and slapping a pair of the chaos spawn crab claw arms onto them and then filing off the saddle?

This is what I did. They look pretty damn good.

Can you show them off? I'm curious.

Sure, I'll take some pics tonight and put them on the gallery.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

sword of a thousand souls: 45pts

If this rumor is true (and I don't buy it), I hope Matt and Trey (South Park creators) sue GW over their theft of the Sword of a Thousand Truths.

Ha totally thought the same thing when I saw the rumor post.

I too think these are fake with obvious mistakes like the GUO having an AP3 sword, 6+ saves, etc. I hear people calling these rumors as true because hey, who makes up things as detailed as stats? But I remember back in the blood angel rumor days people actually came out with a freakin 'leaked' dex so my BS meter is quite high with those actual stats posted.

I too think the leak with the stats are fake, but I'll say this, if GW bumped the toughness of a GUO to 8, I would start using them.