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.

So, I'm assembling Wrath and Rapture set and carefully reading their assembling guide where are their rules in both universes. From them I get the impression that these demons are better in Age of Sigmar. Their stats and abilities seem to be more generous in that universe, especially considering that you are dealing with quite fragile creatures in one game where ranged firepower is more of an exception, afterthought or some secondary threat and in another it is all, but dakka dakka. Remember that I have only basic units from that set. I had purchased Soul Wars, but those don't synergize together. I have Dark Imperium set so maybe I could squeeze them there. I do not know, combined army list which I read wasn't clear on a matter. What are the rules about combining various Chaos forces? Also, is it true what I said about them? Should I consider playing them primarily in Age of Sigmar while I have them in such bare bone fashion?

Your Daemons run perfectly fine in AoS, 40K and Kill-Team. You don't need to build specifically for any one system.

As for power, I don't know, I've never played AoS. I know my 2,250pt Slaanesh Daemon army is about 2,800 in AoS, but what that means I couldn't say.

In most Matched Play games you're going to be limited to three Detachments, but you (nominally) have four Factions; Death Guard, Adeptus Astartes, Khorne Daemons and Slaanesh Daemons. The easiest and most obvious split is to have a <CHAOS> army composed of the Death Guard and the Daemons, all in their own Detachments. But yeah, that won't all play together very well.

I would advise that you lean heavily on Slaanesh Daemons and ditch the stinky and the brutish, but I am very biased.

EDIT - AFAIK, Heretic Astartes can still take Plague Marines, so you could also, theoretically, make a Heretic Astartes Detachment from converted Primaris and the Death Guard.

Hedonites of Slaanesh is one of the strongest armies in AoS these days. Pure Khorne Daemon is decent but is always served better by adding some mortals. Disciples of Tzeentch has been decent and is getting a new tome today. Maggotkin(Nurgle) is probably the weakest, but also now one of the oldest tomes.

Personally I've found more use out of Daemons in AoS than 40k. The lack of firepower means your melee units have a chance to actually charge and do something whereas in 40k they can be wiped off the table.

Khorne, Slaanesh, and Tzeentch are all very strong in AoS, Nurgle is due for an update and will be at least equal to Tzeentch in AoS after the update. All daemons are for sure viable to win tournaments if you wanted to go that route. But also has enough units to play for fun and still be good.

As for 40k? They are still one of the better armies, but are very limited viable daemon models (compare to vehicles and heroes, like Knights, Lord D, etc..) so if you like Daemon models, AoS will be better. but if you like just chaos and you like shooting then 40k.

My impression is that AoS armies are more expensive in points compared to 40K, which translates to them using slightly fewer models on the table in comparison. Which somewhat makes sense as AoS, whilst technically an "old" game in that it evolved from the Old World game; is still a newer game than 40K for many of its gamers. So they won't have as extensive a collection thus there's less pressure for more models.

This might well make them appear more powerful when comparing stats because you will be putting fewer of them on the table.


For cross building I believe that things like Seekers use the "bike" base for 40K which is thinner than their cavalry base for AoS.
Otherwise the base sizes are pretty much identical between the two games so you'd not have to do anything else special to play them in both systems.


As for alliances and such its a bit different and there's a few approaches:

1) Pure Demonic armies. In AoS each of the four gods has their own demonic army that they can field. Complete with its own Battletome (its like a codex) and racial abilities and such. This also restricts who they can take as allies.

2) Pure army with allies. As noted the Battletome dictates who can take allies. Slaanesh ,for example, cannot take Khorne as allies (and vis versa). In addition you'll note that the potential allies are all within the same "Grand Alliance" as each other.
Allies in AoS can only be up to 1/4 of the points value and 1/4 of the model count of your army. These restrictions mean that you don't lose the "purity" of your core army.

Allies also can't (unless they gain specific key words when becoming an ally) use abilties and racial traits nor spell and equipment lists within the host army battletome, and they do not get to bring their own from their own Tome. so for the most part allies are just what is on their warscroll (model profile) and nothing else.

It should be noted that some armies, such as Slaves to Darkness, can take on new key-words when using allies which can confer some or all of the racial abilities for allies. This varies a lot but Chaos in general is more generous with this than other alliances.

3) Grand Alliance Army. This is an army which can take units from ANY army within the Grand Alliance without penalty. Of course the Grand Alliance itself has its own racial profile and abilities - though right now they are somewhat out of date and are not "as good" as the pure armies (or pure with allies). This tends to mean that AoS isn't as rife with "souped" lists as 40K is for forces like Marines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Khorne, Slaanesh, and Tzeentch are all very strong in AoS, Nurgle is due for an update and will be at least equal to Tzeentch in AoS after the update.

Far as I'm aware Nurgle has a 2.0 Battletome. So whilst they do have room for things like Endless Spells being added, Nurgle isn't in line for a new Tome at any point. At least there's nothing to suggest that they'll get one before any other army. The only army left right now (as of today) that doesn't have a 2.0 Battletome is Seraphon. All the others are 2.0 battletomes and running full 2.0 rules.

Daemons are significantly better in AoS than 40k, especially tzeentch and slaanesh which are top tier.

 Overread wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Khorne, Slaanesh, and Tzeentch are all very strong in AoS, Nurgle is due for an update and will be at least equal to Tzeentch in AoS after the update.

Far as I'm aware Nurgle has a 2.0 Battletome. So whilst they do have room for things like Endless Spells being added, Nurgle isn't in line for a new Tome at any point. At least there's nothing to suggest that they'll get one before any other army. The only army left right now (as of today) that doesn't have a 2.0 Battletome is Seraphon. All the others are 2.0 battletomes and running full 2.0 rules.

MoN is a 2.0 for sure, but its also for sure going to be one of the first few to get a campaign update that i am assuming they are starting 3rd/4th quarter of this year. The might not be the first set or two b.c SCE and Death are always first, and maybe IDK with Teclis/Tyrion stepping into the game soon, but after that the yy be the first Chaos to get an update. The only 1.0 book that is still not updated is Seraphon.

Primortus wrote:
Daemons are significantly better in AoS than 40k, especially tzeentch and slaanesh which are top tier.

Khrone is actually doing better than Tzeentch, but with the new DoT tome out that might change, Khorne is stupidly strong, its just easy to counter for some armies, but now that Slaanesh has been heavily nerfed, Khorne and Tzentch are now equal to Slaanesh. Khorne being able to take the new Khorne DP also has improved them, it is a charge counter to Orruks, Slaanesh, StD, and FS. (1/2 charges) and with Fight twice and first on 2 units, it a good time to be khorne.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
I do what to add, 40k you can combine WAY MORE units/armies together than in AoS.

So if you have a lot of different chaos units, 40k might be easier to play with your current models.

40k you can take any amount of points from 3 different armies, where in AoS you are limited to only 20% of your army can by from an ally (So out of a 2k army, you must take 1600 points from the same army and 400pts from other armies) and not all armies ally with each other too, its only if you can ally.

So i would really look at what models you want to play with and check the ally charts for AoS (they are free and easy to look up).

AOS daemons are infinitely superior. Their rules are MUCH more interesting, much more impactful, and just generally better all-around. If I could have rules half as cool in 40k as AOS I'd buy far more tzeentch daemons, at this point they're just so damn boring I can't be bothered.

the_scotsman wrote:
AOS daemons are infinitely superior. Their rules are MUCH more interesting, much more impactful, and just generally better all-around. If I could have rules half as cool in 40k as AOS I'd buy far more tzeentch daemons, at this point they're just so damn boring I can't be bothered.

I think another part to this is that in 40K demons are one army whilst in AoS they are four armies. When you take an army that operates with 4 times as many models and shatter it into four segments then each segment has to do MORE which means that, where GW hasn't increased that segments army size, the individual models often have to be better in general to overcome the reduction in diversity and specialists.

I think that the answer is fairly unambiguous. In 40k, the Daemons really compete are:

Plaguebearers
Bloodletters
Pink Horrors

Certain HQs are then taken in support of these, but would not be were it not for the quality of these troops. Perhaps only the Khorne Daemon Prince would be preferable to their 1kS/DG alternatives for the relic axe. Even the troops, bar Plaguebearers, can't really fill a battalion. No one is taking more than one unit of Bloodletters or Horrors besides the bomb.

Chaos Daemons as a force, then, are in a pitiful state, and as aa mono-codex are only outstripped in dearth of quality by GK. We even lack the usual array of excellent HQ options that populate almost every other codex. The terrible state of our codex is less evident than many others, however, due to the confusing fact that 'Chaos Daemons' are frequently counted among the top armies. However, this all comes from the ability of 60-90 Plaguebearers not to die while Tzeentch psykers do the real work.

The issue here follows from the fact that Chaos Daemons are 'one army' that really work as 4, and yet together get the support of only one codex. Each force, then, has only 3 stratagems, 3-4 relics, and some warlord traits to their name. They're an old codex, and they evidently had no idea what to do with them. Perhaps PA will improve the situation, but given the results for other non-C:SM armies, that doesn't look likely.

In short, Daemons are infinitely more usable in AoS, and make up an important part of their respective armies. Chaos Daemons in 40k are all about Plaguebearers, and the odd Bloodletter/Horror bomb.

Thank you. I had brought Wrath and Rapture box solely as a starting point to play any of those games. I have Grim Imperium and I now can enhance my chaos army with support of either Khorne or Slaanesh demons from what I understood here. I can't put them as allies in AoS, because Soul Wars starter set includes armies of order and death. Also, I can't play with Slaanesh and Khorne together.

I liked Khorne Bloodbound gameplay during demo, but probably it can't get Slaanesh demon attachment as allies. Should I buy Slaves to Darkness next as flexible addition to my demon army? I want to use my units from Khorne or Slaanesh as allies. I do not want to build whole army, I just want cheap way to make my Wrath and Rapture set playable in bigger games. What about beasts or Skaven? There are so many faction boxes out there that I do not what I should buy. I want to add single faction box, start collecting bundle or anything cheap. Then I would use that core to add my Khorne or Slaanesh demons as allies and finish collecting my chaos army for now.

If you want to use Khorne and Slaanesh at the same time I'd say Slaves to Darkness would be the perfect addition. Though do have a check of the rules (read a store copy/ask around) as I've not got a copy of the Tome so I can't say exactly how demon allies and bringing in things "works" within the army itself.

Check it out and see how things add up.



Skaven are Grand Alliance Chaos but are very much their own thing and cannot take any allies. Except if you take a Skaven Pestilens army then you can ally in Nurgle units only.

Beasts of Chaos are quite widely used, but more bringing them into other armies rather than bringing demons into them (at least from what I've seen).

The "natural" place to put combined demons is Slaves to Darkness.

Thank you, I like Slaves to Darkness a lot aesthetically. I will just wait, maybe others could give me more insight into how good those factions are and if I could take something else.

It is not necessary to mix Khorne and Slaanesh at the same time. I could take one God one time and another later. I would like if someone could say for sure if I can officially mix Khorne and Slaanesh together? I had played with Start Collecting! Khorne Bloodbound - Goreblade Warband starter kit during my demo and I quite liked them. I do wonder if I could legally mix Slaanesh into them (though doubtfully). Also, there are a lot of cabals. Like Iron Golem or Corvus Cabal. Are they any good?

 TonyH122 wrote:
...They're an old codex, and they evidently had no idea what to do with them. Perhaps PA will improve the situation, but given the results for other non-C:SM armies, that doesn't look likely...

At the risk of beating a pile of gibblets that used to be a dead horse; I don't think that necessarily follows provided you believe the rumor that the PA writers and the Codex: Marines 2.0 writers weren't talking to each other.

You can make the argument that Marine-based armies got boosts while non-marine armies only got side-grades because GW hates everyone but the poster-boys, but you can also make the argument that the trash- and bottom-tier armies got boosts while armies that were at least making a showing on the tournament scene got side-grades and it just happens that there was a lot of overlap between "marine-based armies" and "trash- and bottom-tier armies".

Either position makes sense if the PA writers didn't know that Marine 2.0pocalype was coming.

40k daemons is a very confused book imo, they want you running monongod detachments, but without making it particularly easy to do so (ala dark eldar patrol cp bonus).

Theres few strats, tzeentch psykers suck for no real reason, khorne rely on their troops to do the lifting, same for nurgle although they fare better. Can't comment too much in slaanesh since the updates.

The Newman wrote:

Either position makes sense if the PA writers didn't know that Marine 2.0pocalype was coming.

Neither position makes sense unless you believe that a handful of guys in the same building never talk or brag about the cool stuff they're working on.

The Newman wrote:

 TonyH122 wrote:
...They're an old codex, and they evidently had no idea what to do with them. Perhaps PA will improve the situation, but given the results for other non-C:SM armies, that doesn't look likely...

At the risk of beating a pile of gibblets that used to be a dead horse; I don't think that necessarily follows provided you believe the rumor that the PA writers and the Codex: Marines 2.0 writers weren't talking to each other.

You can make the argument that Marine-based armies got boosts while non-marine armies only got side-grades because GW hates everyone but the poster-boys, but you can also make the argument that the trash- and bottom-tier armies got boosts while armies that were at least making a showing on the tournament scene got side-grades and it just happens that there was a lot of overlap between "marine-based armies" and "trash- and bottom-tier armies".

Either position makes sense if the PA writers didn't know that Marine 2.0pocalype was coming.

The whole "they didn't talk to each other " argument falls apart when you realize that the majority of the pa stuff so far has been dedicated to bringing the non codex chapters and bt up to codex marine levels. The pa writers couldn't have written those rules if they didn't know what was in c:sm 2.0.

I don't know how to explain the uneven treatment gw has been giving the non sm factions in pa compared to sm but that ain't it.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

The Newman wrote:

 TonyH122 wrote:
...They're an old codex, and they evidently had no idea what to do with them. Perhaps PA will improve the situation, but given the results for other non-C:SM armies, that doesn't look likely...

At the risk of beating a pile of gibblets that used to be a dead horse; I don't think that necessarily follows provided you believe the rumor that the PA writers and the Codex: Marines 2.0 writers weren't talking to each other.

You can make the argument that Marine-based armies got boosts while non-marine armies only got side-grades because GW hates everyone but the poster-boys, but you can also make the argument that the trash- and bottom-tier armies got boosts while armies that were at least making a showing on the tournament scene got side-grades and it just happens that there was a lot of overlap between "marine-based armies" and "trash- and bottom-tier armies".

Either position makes sense if the PA writers didn't know that Marine 2.0pocalype was coming.

The whole "they didn't talk to each other " argument falls apart when you realize that the majority of the pa stuff so far has been dedicated to bringing the non codex chapters and bt up to codex marine levels. The pa writers couldn't have written those rules if they didn't know what was in c:sm 2.0.

I don't know how to explain the uneven treatment gw has been giving the non sm factions in pa compared to sm but that ain't it.

That would hold slightly more weight if most of the people playing the non-codex marine chapters and BTs didn't seem to agree that post-PA BA and BT clearly aren't up to SM 2.0 standars and neither are Chaos Marines.

I'll agree you might have a point though.

I've always felt daemon armies were an afterthought in 40k. In AoS, they are serious business. I love my Disciples of Tzeentch (mostly daemon) army.

 John Prins wrote:
I've always felt daemon armies were an afterthought in 40k. In AoS, they are serious business. I love my Disciples of Tzeentch (mostly daemon) army.

They kind of were in 40k. They were part of Chaos before they got split into their own, which is why their 4th edition dex when they split the two has never felt cohesive since it was meant to be used with CSM.

I don't play AoS, nor do I play Daemons in 40K anymore. But I used to play Daemons in 40K and Fantasy at the same time.
Based on that alone, I guarantee there are some units that are good in one system, but trash in the other, with very few units that are good, much less GREAT in both

My advice would be to get a small force of the models you like, play a bunch of games and figure out which units work in both. Then you either decide if you want to build the best lists for either game, which will most likely have different models, or what compromises you are ok with in both games to be able to play the same(ish) list in both.

-