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.

Grey Knights and Thousand Sons got their exceptions to Smite Spam due to their codexes having too many units with Smite as part of their abilities. Every non-vehicle Grey Knight and proper Thousand Sons unit (excluding vehicles and Tzanngors) is a Psycher. They also only had one list of Psychic powers, so that limited that aspect of the units also. It would be impossible to properly balance an army that gets progressively worst the more units you take.

Daemons don't have that problem. While many of the characters are Psychers, not all them are. Only one unit is a Psycher, with a bad Smite ability.

 alextroy wrote:
Grey Knights and Thousand Sons got their exceptions to Smite Spam due to their codexes having too many units with Smite as part of their abilities. Every non-vehicle Grey Knight and proper Thousand Sons unit (excluding vehicles and Tzanngors) is a Psycher. They also only had one list of Psychic powers, so that limited that aspect of the units also. It would be impossible to properly balance an army that gets progressively worst the more units you take.

Daemons don't have that problem. While many of the characters are Psychers, not all them are. Only one unit is a Psycher, with a bad Smite ability.

What? Every Slaanesh daemon character is a psyker except one and one special character, iirc off the top of my head.

They're talking about a non-Character unit. Namely, Horrors.

 JNAProductions wrote:
They're talking about a non-Character unit. Namely, Horrors.

Oh, I see, I can parse it now, thanks.

 alextroy wrote:
Grey Knights and Thousand Sons got their exceptions to Smite Spam due to their codexes having too many units with Smite as part of their abilities. Every non-vehicle Grey Knight and proper Thousand Sons unit (excluding vehicles and Tzanngors) is a Psycher. They also only had one list of Psychic powers, so that limited that aspect of the units also. It would be impossible to properly balance an army that gets progressively worst the more units you take.

Daemons don't have that problem. While many of the characters are Psychers, not all them are. Only one unit is a Psycher, with a bad Smite ability.

A bad smite ability made almost redundant by the rule.
But yeah - I was thinking about the characters.

Clearly it depends on how you build your army. Khorne obviously doesn't have a problem. Quite a few of the Nurgle characters are not psykers.
But if you have a reasonable number of Tzeentch and Slaanesh characters, which you need to unlock detachments, you can easily be pushing half a dozen plus options to smite.

I guess you can say that's a personal problem, just limit yourself, but it seems like a design flaw.

In a unified Chaos Daemons Army, you will have 2-3 lores worth of Psychic powers to divide amongst your various characters. At the time Grey Knights had one lore to share amongst the character and units, while Thousand Sons had one lore for non-daemon units, which included both Rubric Marines and Scarab Occult Terminators, and shared the Tzeetch Lore with Daemons. It didn't take much to drive you to just having Smite available to cast.

Not that this isn't a design flaw, but that they have been slowly correcting it.

In a Slaanesh daemons army, you get one lore.

I know that running a single God is totally insane and beyond the bounds of rationality (even though Guard can run a single regiment and Tyranids can run a single hivefleet and Tau can run a single Sept and Orks can run a single culture and Eldar can run a single craftworld and CSM can run as single legion just fine) but it is worth mentioning.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
In a Slaanesh daemons army, you get one lore.

I know that running a single God is totally insane and beyond the bounds of rationality (even though Guard can run a single regiment and Tyranids can run a single hivefleet and Tau can run a single Sept and Orks can run a single culture and Eldar can run a single craftworld and CSM can run as single legion just fine) but it is worth mentioning.

Guard lose access to a few characters when they run single Regiment.
Tau lose access to a few characters when they run a single Sept.
Orks lose access to a few characters when they run a single Kulture.
Eldar lose access to a few characters when they run a single Craftworld.
CSM lose access to a few characters when they run a single Legion.
Chaos Daemons lose access to at least 2/3rds of the units in the Codex when they use only one Chaos god.

It is simply not the same thing. It's more like a Tau player complaining about the lack of available units if he only runs battlesuits in his army. Or a CSM player complaining about the lack of unit options if he requires all his CSM units to have the Daemon keyword. These things can be done, but don't expect these self-imposed limitations on the units selected to be as good as using the full Codex.

While there can be a lot of thematic allure to playing an army based around such a limitation, there are not enough Chaos Daemon units of any single allegiance to make an well-rounded army. That is a fact of models, not some GW plot to make your army bad.

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.

We seem to be swinging from "an issue" to "being bad".

The lament is that if you go full Tzeentch or full Slaanesh, you will quite easily find yourself with 8+ psychic powers. Now some of those are on models who can cast 2 spells etc, so its not 8 smites - but its still an issue. Saying you should bring 2 Slaanesh characters and 2 Tzeentch character seems a bit of a cop out.

But then maybe the new book will have another lore in it for each faction, or some random generic Daemon lore. (Wouldn't bet much on it tbh, but yolo.)

Tbh Slaanesh is probably borderline viable anyway. GK revival might scupper it - but I think 3-4 keeper of secrets (+character) is solid even if the follow up can be a bit lacking. Maybe I'm missing something - but it seems daft that a KOS is 210/220 points, while a Lord of Change is 250+. Now one LOC when fully tooled up can be reasonably "tough" for the points (although there are limits) but he has about half the melee offensive output and what, a slightly boosted ability on smite?. GUO is in a similar boat (although there you combined weak offensive output, with lol movement.)

Happy for someone to show I'm wrong though.

 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.

Doesn't the Hedonites of Slaanesh book include 56 units? Yes, only some are daemons, but the book has much more variety than that. And if the daemon only army was the most effective, that was because the Battletome was actually designed to support an all daemon army.

So it wasn't a design problem that Codex Chaos Daemons is not designed to support single allegiance armies. It was a choice.They chose to design the army around a combination of the allegiances and therefore it doesn't do a great job of supporting an army that limits itself to one.

 alextroy 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.

Doesn't the Hedonites of Slaanesh book include 56 units? Yes, only some are daemons, but the book has much more variety than that. And if the daemon only army was the most effective, that was because the Battletome was actually designed to support an all daemon army.

So it wasn't a design problem that Codex Chaos Daemons is not designed to support single allegiance armies. It was a choice.They chose to design the army around a combination of the allegiances and therefore it doesn't do a great job of supporting an army that limits itself to one.

Right. A choice - but no different than putting all the Imperial Guard regiments in a book, or all the Tau sept units in a book, or whatnot. Yet you can play one Sept, or one Regiment, and not be penalized.

As for the battletome, yes, it includes lots of units. Not sure if it's 56, whatever the number is, if you take out hellstriders (two units made from one model kit) then it's ALL daemon units. So it's not a model problem that makes GW's 40k rules designers unable to design the gods to be independent. It's either incompetence, or a choice. Either way, it should be changed, because there's no reason you shouldn't be able to play a mono-Slaanesh army any more than there should be a reason you can't play a mono-Kraken army or a mono-Emperor's Children army or a mono-Vostroyan army.

To reiterate, the model line for Hedonites of Slaanesh has one model kit (Hellstriders) that isn't in 40k, otherwise all the other kits are also in 40k. So it's not a 'model support' problem. It's a 'shoddy rules' problem, whether by deliberate (and unreasonable) choice or incompetence.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Right. A choice - but no different than putting all the Imperial Guard regiments in a book, or all the Tau sept units in a book, or whatnot. Yet you can play one Sept, or one Regiment, and not be penalized.

As for the battletome, yes, it includes lots of units. Not sure if it's 56, whatever the number is, if you take out hellstriders (two units made from one model kit) then it's ALL daemon units. So it's not a model problem that makes GW's 40k rules designers unable to design the gods to be independent. It's either incompetence, or a choice. Either way, it should be changed, because there's no reason you shouldn't be able to play a mono-Slaanesh army any more than there should be a reason you can't play a mono-Kraken army or a mono-Emperor's Children army or a mono-Vostroyan army.

To reiterate, the model line for Hedonites of Slaanesh has one model kit (Hellstriders) that isn't in 40k, otherwise all the other kits are also in 40k. So it's not a 'model support' problem. It's a 'shoddy rules' problem, whether by deliberate (and unreasonable) choice or incompetence.

Outside of very recent AoS rules, when has a mono-god, pure daemon army ever been treated by GW as if it was supposed to stand on its own?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 alextroy 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.

Doesn't the Hedonites of Slaanesh book include 56 units? Yes, only some are daemons, but the book has much more variety than that. And if the daemon only army was the most effective, that was because the Battletome was actually designed to support an all daemon army.

So it wasn't a design problem that Codex Chaos Daemons is not designed to support single allegiance armies. It was a choice.They chose to design the army around a combination of the allegiances and therefore it doesn't do a great job of supporting an army that limits itself to one.

Right. A choice - but no different than putting all the Imperial Guard regiments in a book, or all the Tau sept units in a book, or whatnot. Yet you can play one Sept, or one Regiment, and not be penalized.

As for the battletome, yes, it includes lots of units. Not sure if it's 56, whatever the number is, if you take out hellstriders (two units made from one model kit) then it's ALL daemon units. So it's not a model problem that makes GW's 40k rules designers unable to design the gods to be independent. It's either incompetence, or a choice. Either way, it should be changed, because there's no reason you shouldn't be able to play a mono-Slaanesh army any more than there should be a reason you can't play a mono-Kraken army or a mono-Emperor's Children army or a mono-Vostroyan army.

To reiterate, the model line for Hedonites of Slaanesh has one model kit (Hellstriders) that isn't in 40k, otherwise all the other kits are also in 40k. So it's not a 'model support' problem. It's a 'shoddy rules' problem, whether by deliberate (and unreasonable) choice or incompetence.

It is entirely different. The design of the Codex is based around their concept of the army. They do not see the four Chaos gods as different flavors of daemons, but as four complementary parts of the codex. They designed the army in a way that you use multiple gods. Mono-Slaanesh is not the same as mono-Emperor's Children. We both know this is true because we are having this very conversation about how Mono-Slaanesh can't use most of the units in the codex and is rather one dimensional as a force.

Right. We are on the same page now.

What I am saying is:

They were wrong to design the army that way as it does a disservice to mono-god players. And yes, mono-god players have existed since before the first ever Daemons codex even came out in 5th edition, so don't pretend like they have never existed before.

What is the evidence that they designed the codex so you should use multiple gods? There is as far as I am aware little to no cross-god synergy, beyond the fact unit X might perform function Y better than unit Z so you are limiting yourself if you take Z rather than X.

Like Dark Eldar, its four armies thrown together and if you keep them in separate detachments, essentially play as separate armies. You could blend, but there are detriments to doing so (weaker ones I think than DE - but still.)

"Monogod doesn't seem to be that good (as compared with say "mono Kabal", which is) so it must be intended" is a questionable conclusion. I'm not convinced GW ever intends anything at the competitive end of the game - they just put out rules and see what happens. If something emerges which they deem obnoxious/un fun they intervene quite quickly, if its just good they eventually nerf because having everyone gravitate towards playing one faction is boring.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Right. A choice - but no different than putting all the Imperial Guard regiments in a book, or all the Tau sept units in a book, or whatnot. Yet you can play one Sept, or one Regiment, and not be penalized.

As for the battletome, yes, it includes lots of units. Not sure if it's 56, whatever the number is, if you take out hellstriders (two units made from one model kit) then it's ALL daemon units. So it's not a model problem that makes GW's 40k rules designers unable to design the gods to be independent. It's either incompetence, or a choice. Either way, it should be changed, because there's no reason you shouldn't be able to play a mono-Slaanesh army any more than there should be a reason you can't play a mono-Kraken army or a mono-Emperor's Children army or a mono-Vostroyan army.

To reiterate, the model line for Hedonites of Slaanesh has one model kit (Hellstriders) that isn't in 40k, otherwise all the other kits are also in 40k. So it's not a 'model support' problem. It's a 'shoddy rules' problem, whether by deliberate (and unreasonable) choice or incompetence.

Outside of very recent AoS rules, when has a mono-god, pure daemon army ever been treated by GW as if it was supposed to stand on its own?

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.

 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.

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 pretty sure there were animosity rules in the 2nd ed codex chaos. Slaanesh/Khorne and Tzeentch/nurgle didn’t play well together IIRC. I don’t remember the details for how it worked though, and can’t speak to later editions.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
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.

So while mono-god may not be "the official way" to play Daemons GW certainly loves to punish you for doing anything else.

 alextroy wrote:
Grey Knights and Thousand Sons got their exceptions to Smite Spam due to their codexes having too many units with Smite as part of their abilities. Every non-vehicle Grey Knight and proper Thousand Sons unit (excluding vehicles and Tzanngors) is a Psycher. They also only had one list of Psychic powers, so that limited that aspect of the units also. It would be impossible to properly balance an army that gets progressively worst the more units you take.

Daemons don't have that problem. While many of the characters are Psychers, not all them are. Only one unit is a Psycher, with a bad Smite ability.

Uh, I'm sorry, my Pink Horrors definitely do pay for Smite as one of their abilities...

they roll 1d6 to cast it, so if I cast smite as my power with the first squad, it goes off on a 5+, and the second squad it goes off on a 6+, meaning at maximum two squads can ATTEMPT to smite.

And then when I want to smite after that with my Lord of Change, who pays for a 30" range smite, it goes off on an 8+

the_scotsman wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Grey Knights and Thousand Sons got their exceptions to Smite Spam due to their codexes having too many units with Smite as part of their abilities. Every non-vehicle Grey Knight and proper Thousand Sons unit (excluding vehicles and Tzanngors) is a Psycher. They also only had one list of Psychic powers, so that limited that aspect of the units also. It would be impossible to properly balance an army that gets progressively worst the more units you take.

Daemons don't have that problem. While many of the characters are Psychers, not all them are. Only one unit is a Psycher, with a bad Smite ability.

Uh, I'm sorry, my Pink Horrors definitely do pay for Smite as one of their abilities...

they roll 1d6 to cast it, so if I cast smite as my power with the first squad, it goes off on a 5+, and the second squad it goes off on a 6+, meaning at maximum two squads can ATTEMPT to smite.

And then when I want to smite after that with my Lord of Change, who pays for a 30" range smite, it goes off on an 8+

100% with you on feeling a little hard done to when my big bird struggles compared to a lowly squad champ. Also @alextroy thousand sons definitely have more than 1 list of powers, where as our poor horrors are stuck with 1 list, in a tzeentch battalion (as you are encouraged to run them), you'll have minimum of 5 units who can cast a total of 7 times, with 3 of those being on 1 die and often with high cast values.

 alextroy 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.

Doesn't the Hedonites of Slaanesh book include 56 units? Yes, only some are daemons, but the book has much more variety than that. And if the daemon only army was the most effective, that was because the Battletome was actually designed to support an all daemon army.

So it wasn't a design problem that Codex Chaos Daemons is not designed to support single allegiance armies. It was a choice.They chose to design the army around a combination of the allegiances and therefore it doesn't do a great job of supporting an army that limits itself to one.

Right, which is why when playing with a mixed daemons/tsons army, I get access to the following synergies:

1) I can buff my daemons' hit rolls with my DPTz

2) I can use Discipline of Tzeentch spells from my DpTz

3) I can summon Tzeentch daemons on 4d6 with my Tsons stratagem

4) I can buff my Tsons daemon engines with my Daemons psychic powers and auras

5) I can buff my Daemons with a mutalith vortex beast

And when I'm playing with a mixed daemons army, I get access to the following synergies:

1) I have to share certain vital stratagems, meaning they can't be used by the rest of my army.

2) I can...buff my tzeentch daemons' attacks with Skarbrand, I guess?

That's....about it. There's exactly as much cross-faction synergy between my theoretical khorne and tzeentch daemons as there is between my Deathwatch and Admech armies. Or my Wych Cult and Kabal drukhari armies. People need to learn that just because something is printed in the same book, it ain't a cohesive faction unless you build those rules in.

One rule that crosses between daemon factions on a terrible special character from one god army does not make a complete army.

Horror are bad at Smite. Even before the rules revision they were bad at Smite. Now they are exceptionally bad at Smite. It's almost like GW doesn't care if they actually have any Psychic capability at all.

That's because GW gak the bed with Smite as a power in general.

 alextroy wrote:
Horror are bad at Smite. Even before the rules revision they were bad at Smite. Now they are exceptionally bad at Smite. It's almost like GW doesn't care if they actually have any Psychic capability at all.

Mmmm. And that somehow proves that I'm supposed to take daemons from all 4 gods in my army, despite them being exactly as separate ruleswise as Guard and Space Marines?

Is it the low unit count? No, that doesn't make sense, my tzeentch daemons have more units than my harlequins, or knights, or custodes...

Is it the shared stratagems? No, that's not a benefit, that's a penalty, it's actually much better if I take tsons or csm allies because then they don't have to share.

It's just the fact that they're printed next to each other in the same book, huh? as if that has some effect on how they play on the table? Weird.

Oh, and the fact that they're bad. Somehow, when an army is bad, it's "Intended as an ally force." Kind of like how GK were intended as an ally force when they were bad, but now they're not because they're good. And how GSC were OK to run as a full army when they were good, but now that they are super weak they're intended as an ally force.

Share with me, O Oracle, your mystical mind-reading powers that allow you to delve into big daddy GW's intentions! Tell me, if the rules for daemons in PA make them strong, shall they still be intended to be an ally force?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
That's because GW gak the bed with Smite as a power in general.

nonono, it's much more Bespoke Rules for every psychic power in existence to be an anti-elite infantry power.

It was much much worse when there were anti-tank psychic powers, anti-infantry psychic powers, and anti-elite psychic powers. 8th ed's psychic rules definitely were not a way to force the mortal wound mechanic into existence. They definitely haven't remembered why people enjoyed templates over in AOSland, and reintroduced them but in a much more expensive way with Endless Spells.

I think Smite was a reasonably sensible idea.
Rather than trying to give *every faction* a mind bullets spell - of which there have been many in previous editions, with inevitable comparisons, recriminations and balance issues, just give everyone such a spell.

But for some reason, they then decided everyone should get 6 spells, possibly multiple lores, and relatively few other hard duplicates of the same abilities that aren't just bonuses to existing abilities. The result has been a lot of rubbish spells often including offensive spells which are mathematically worse than Smite (harder to cast, fewer mortal wounds, both) even if they possibly don't auto-hit the nearest unit. (You can I think see similar issues with warlord traits, relics and stratagems and indeed chapter tactics themselves although there more overlap has been permitted.)

But then its the usual conflict. Does GW *design* Orks around da Jump (and CSM around Warptime) or do they just throw them in and see what evolves from the mess? This then gives rise to what may be an intelligent design fallacy, because obviously every faction is "supposed" to use their powerful abilities that quickly in turn become signature abilities because they are powerful.

Its hard to believe GW designed daemons with any of the daemon lores in mind, because they are all somewhat incidental. (I mean minuses to hit and FNPs are nice, but they are not especially exciting or defining.)

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
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?

 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.