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.

Or they could just rely on the models looking good, cuz no body ever accused GW of making the bestest mostest balancedest rules. They should stick with what they're good at, HIPS mouldings of tiny toy soldiers.

Well yeh cause those rules change anyway.

To be fair, its not because of balance that people buy warhammer 40k figures and plays with them.

Doesnt matter how bad they balance things it will still be played.

I guess that loses the incentive to actually do proper balance but i really dont think it would hurt them to do balancing better.

yukishiro1 wrote:
When's the last time someone won a super major with a super unique list nobody else took or thought of?

The "the game is balanced, everything works, people just don't realize it" thing is empirically false. If it was true, you'd see weird, unique lists winning super majors, and you just don't.

Now that is different from saying that you can do better with bad lists and factions than you might think. That bit is true. Things aren't usually as bad balance-wise as people say.

But there's a reason "netlists" are the ones that win the major tournaments most of the time. It's not that tournament players lack imagination; far from it, they are the ones who come up with the netlists by going through all the possibilities and settling on what works best most of the time. Broviathan didn't win LVO because everyone at LVO was lacking in imagination, it won because it was the strongest list in the game at the time. Siegler would be the first to admit that if he had taken something like GSC, he would not have won LVO, and almost certainly someone else taking Broviathan would have won instead.

Very well said.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Beardedragon wrote:
To be fair, its not because of balance that people buy warhammer 40k figures and plays with them.

Doesnt matter how bad they balance things it will still be played.

I guess that loses the incentive to actually do proper balance but i really dont think it would hurt them to do balancing better.

I think it is less about good balance generating interest, and more that bad balance will damage interest. 40k as a setting and a miniatures line generates interest, having a game with rules to support ones own miniatures doing what they do on the tabletop generates interest. Good balance facilitates that by providing a framework where imbalance does not screw up the experience.

My personal theory, at any rate.

Beardedragon wrote:
...i really dont think it would hurt them to do balancing better.

This is why people are irritated. A better-balanced game would be better for everyone, better for newbies (fewer traps) and old hands (more things to do), better for narrative (easier to construct scenarios) and competitive (broader range of stuff to play), better for GW (everything would sell instead of some things selling and some things not), better for retailers (your stock would move and you wouldn't have to keep up with an evolving meta to stock Warhammer), but for some reason GW isn't that interested in actually going to the effort of doing it.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Beardedragon wrote:
...i really dont think it would hurt them to do balancing better.

This is why people are irritated. A better-balanced game would be better for everyone, better for newbies (fewer traps) and old hands (more things to do), better for narrative (easier to construct scenarios) and competitive (broader range of stuff to play), better for GW (everything would sell instead of some things selling and some things not), better for retailers (your stock would move and you wouldn't have to keep up with an evolving meta to stock Warhammer), but for some reason GW isn't that interested in actually going to the effort of doing it.

and thats probably because the figures are selling quite well even though their balancing act is absolute gak.

but also lets not kid outselves, untill a few years ago Games Workshop had a very stagnant growth that barely moved upwards if at all. Only recently have they started earning a ton and thats not because of their superb balancing skills. in fact they changed a few people out and got more involved with the community.

my point is, GW often makes terrible decisions even if they are better at making said decisions now than before. So im hopeful that they might do a better job at balancing somewhere in the future, but i dont have hopes its any time soon. If you already have bad leadership that aint doing anything revolutionary, and then suddenly your company starts getting a lot of money? you kind of lose incentive to try new things, such as actually investing in proper balancing.

they just do what they know works, namely making space marines.

Games workshop neglects other factions that aren't selling as well...but how do they expect to sell them if they never update them?

Rebel4ever85 wrote:
Games workshop neglects other factions that aren't selling as well...but how do they expect to sell them if they never update them?

Possibly this could be the result of short term thinking on their part? As in they want to get the low lying fruit by catering to Marines even if it means the expense of their other lines, and the long term health of the game. GW has gone back to pluck the low lying Marine fruit for so many editions now maybe they think they can keep on going without consequences.

I am reminded of how they stopped Epic after a couple of failed revisions after Titan Legions, apparently in the mistaken notion that the Epic players would spend their money on 40K instead. While some might have, there were also Epic players that reduced or stopped their spending on GW related stuff at all. Not all Epic players were interested in 40K, and some had Epic armies that at that time had no 40K representation at that point in time. So GW killing off Epic might have cost them, though without access to the accounting numbers, we wouldn't be able to say whether they saved more on development and production costs from killing Epic.

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, Crusader-what army will you rock tournaments with?

GSC? Slaanesh Daemons? R&H?

Since, apparently, people who can tell what’s good and what’s bad suck at the game.

I'd like to see him try with either of those...



Tbf for the last one he won't even be allowed to enter anymore soonish, since i expect them to be yeeted to legends, if anything.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, Crusader-what army will you rock tournaments with?

GSC? Slaanesh Daemons? R&H?

Since, apparently, people who can tell what’s good and what’s bad suck at the game.

I'd like to see him try with either of those...



Tbf for the last one he won't even be allowed to enter anymore soonish, since i expect them to be yeeted to legends, if anything.

Slaanesh demons are decent in the new edition at least. And anyway, Slaanesh demons isnt a codex, its a subfaction.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, Crusader-what army will you rock tournaments with?

GSC? Slaanesh Daemons? R&H?

Since, apparently, people who can tell what’s good and what’s bad suck at the game.

I'd like to see him try with either of those...



Tbf for the last one he won't even be allowed to enter anymore soonish, since i expect them to be yeeted to legends, if anything.

Slaanesh demons are decent in the new edition at least. And anyway, Slaanesh demons isnt a codex, its a subfaction.

When Slaanesh daemons are exactly as mechanically separated from Tzeentch Daemons as Deathwatch are from Space Marines, then they are expected to perform as a complete faction.

the_scotsman wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, Crusader-what army will you rock tournaments with?

GSC? Slaanesh Daemons? R&H?

Since, apparently, people who can tell what’s good and what’s bad suck at the game.

I'd like to see him try with either of those...



Tbf for the last one he won't even be allowed to enter anymore soonish, since i expect them to be yeeted to legends, if anything.

Slaanesh demons are decent in the new edition at least. And anyway, Slaanesh demons isnt a codex, its a subfaction.

When Slaanesh daemons are exactly as mechanically separated from Tzeentch Daemons as Deathwatch are from Space Marines, then they are expected to perform as a complete faction.

Deathwatch and SM are two different codexes right now, Slaanesh and Tzeentch are a single one.

Thats like saying that Wych cult drukhari and Coven drukhari are two different codexes.

I get what you mean but its pretty clear to me that the demon codex is mean to be played with multiple subfactions, just like drukhari.

(I totally wish you didnt need to)

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, Crusader-what army will you rock tournaments with?

GSC? Slaanesh Daemons? R&H?

Since, apparently, people who can tell what’s good and what’s bad suck at the game.

I'd like to see him try with either of those...



Tbf for the last one he won't even be allowed to enter anymore soonish, since i expect them to be yeeted to legends, if anything.

Slaanesh demons are decent in the new edition at least. And anyway, Slaanesh demons isnt a codex, its a subfaction.

When Slaanesh daemons are exactly as mechanically separated from Tzeentch Daemons as Deathwatch are from Space Marines, then they are expected to perform as a complete faction.

Deathwatch and SM are two different codexes right now, Slaanesh and Tzeentch are a single one.

Thats like saying that Wych cult drukhari and Coven drukhari are two different codexes.

I get what you mean but its pretty clear to me that the demon codex is mean to be played with multiple subfactions, just like drukhari.

(I totally wish you didnt need to)

Drukhari get a unique mechanical advantage that incentivizes them being played as a diverse force within Codex Drukhari.

You have a trade-off (You must take 3 Patrol detachments, which mean you have to take more mandatory HQs than a Battalion in a codex notorious for its terrible waste-of-time HQs, and also that means in organized play THAT'S your army, you get no more detachments than that)

and in exchange for that trade-off, you get a unique benefit (You get to choose 3 different Subfaction traits with none of the usual CP cost for allying)

Chaos Daemon armies have NO mechanical benefit for allying in other forms of daemons.

Next to no auras, abilities, powers, traits, or stratagems cross over. the only ones that do, like Skarbrand's aura, only do so because they're completely open - Skarbrand's aura also affects your OPPONENT'S models. Or, any other allies you may choose to take, for that matter.

In fact, some of the most critical stratagems in the book, like the one that grants you +1 to your invuln, are exclusive. If you take a detachment of Khorne Daemons and a detachment of Slaanesh Daemons, you get ONE use of the +1 Invuln strat.

Mechanically speaking, Slaanesh Daemons and Khorne daemons are JUST as separated as any other two codexes that share a keyword. The fact that they are printed in the same book is just irrelevant. they are as mechanically separated as Deathwatch and Ultramarines. They have the exact same penalty for being taken in the same detachment (no Subfaction traits) and the exact same cost to be taken together as allies. And the exact same amount of ability crossover: I.e., next to none.

the_scotsman wrote:

Drukhari get a unique mechanical advantage that incentivizes them being played as a diverse force within Codex Drukhari.

You have a trade-off (You must take 3 Patrol detachments, which mean you have to take more mandatory HQs than a Battalion in a codex notorious for its terrible waste-of-time HQs, and also that means in organized play THAT'S your army, you get no more detachments than that)

and in exchange for that trade-off, you get a unique benefit (You get to choose 3 different Subfaction traits with none of the usual CP cost for allying)

Chaos Daemon armies have NO mechanical benefit for allying in other forms of daemons.

Next to no auras, abilities, powers, traits, or stratagems cross over. the only ones that do, like Skarbrand's aura, only do so because they're completely open - Skarbrand's aura also affects your OPPONENT'S models. Or, any other allies you may choose to take, for that matter.

In fact, some of the most critical stratagems in the book, like the one that grants you +1 to your invuln, are exclusive. If you take a detachment of Khorne Daemons and a detachment of Slaanesh Daemons, you get ONE use of the +1 Invuln strat.

Mechanically speaking, Slaanesh Daemons and Khorne daemons are JUST as separated as any other two codexes that share a keyword. The fact that they are printed in the same book is just irrelevant. they are as mechanically separated as Deathwatch and Ultramarines. They have the exact same penalty for being taken in the same detachment (no Subfaction traits) and the exact same cost to be taken together as allies. And the exact same amount of ability crossover: I.e., next to none.

You do get a mechanical benefit from mixing gods. You fill out the other god's weaknessess.

Nurgle gives you tough objective holders.
Tzeentch gives you shooting.
Slaanesh/khorne give you solid melee.

Hmm, that reminds me of something..
Coven gives you tough objective holders.
Kabal gives you shooting.
Cult gives you melee.

Drukhari also don't have cross-subfations auras and a similar amount of cross subfaction stratagems, drukhari get 9 truly global strats (the other global ones are locked to units only coven/cult/kabals can take) and demons get 7 global stratagems.

You use warp surge as an example, i give you lightning fast reflexes or cruel deception as another one.

The only real difference between demons and drukhari is that drukhari forces you to run 3 patrols because of raiding party, if you want to have more fast/elite/heavy/flyer slots, you're gak out of luck and even then, running them that way means you can't soup at all (unlike other armies).

Mechanically speaking, Cults and Coven are JUST as separated as any other two codexes that share a keyword. The fact that they are printed in the same book is just irrelevant. they are as mechanically separated as Deathwatch and Ultramarines. They have the exact same penalty for being taken in the same detachment (no Subfaction traits) and the exact same cost to be taken together as allies. And the exact same amount of ability crossover: I.e., next to none.

Again, i understand WHY people want to treat each god as its standalone army and really wish it worked, but as the codex stands, its pretty clearly meant to be internally souped.

You actually lose mechanical benefit by mixing gods.

You either spend CP to bring a new detachment, or you lose a locus.

Losing the Slaanesh locus far outweighs any mechanical benefit you get from Tzeench's terrible, terrible shooting or Nurgle's toughness, because being able to advance and charge is godlike on a tiny board.

"Filling out the other god's weaknesses" isn't a mechanical benefit at all - there's no game mechanic to that. It may be an emergent benefit of interacting mechanics (though I disagree that it isn't a net loss) but there's literally no game mechanic whatsoever that gives you a bonus for mixing gods.

Also, let's be real. If Dark Eldar or Daemons were treated the same as Marines, they would have a Codex for each subfaction, or at least a big ol' supplement.

AoS does it well. The 40k equivalent would be a codex each for DG/DoN, TS/DoT, WE/DoK, and EC/DoS, then the regular codex for CSM with any marked units able to be taken by the god-specific codex.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Drukhari get a unique mechanical advantage that incentivizes them being played as a diverse force within Codex Drukhari.

You have a trade-off (You must take 3 Patrol detachments, which mean you have to take more mandatory HQs than a Battalion in a codex notorious for its terrible waste-of-time HQs, and also that means in organized play THAT'S your army, you get no more detachments than that)

and in exchange for that trade-off, you get a unique benefit (You get to choose 3 different Subfaction traits with none of the usual CP cost for allying)

Chaos Daemon armies have NO mechanical benefit for allying in other forms of daemons.

Next to no auras, abilities, powers, traits, or stratagems cross over. the only ones that do, like Skarbrand's aura, only do so because they're completely open - Skarbrand's aura also affects your OPPONENT'S models. Or, any other allies you may choose to take, for that matter.

In fact, some of the most critical stratagems in the book, like the one that grants you +1 to your invuln, are exclusive. If you take a detachment of Khorne Daemons and a detachment of Slaanesh Daemons, you get ONE use of the +1 Invuln strat.

Mechanically speaking, Slaanesh Daemons and Khorne daemons are JUST as separated as any other two codexes that share a keyword. The fact that they are printed in the same book is just irrelevant. they are as mechanically separated as Deathwatch and Ultramarines. They have the exact same penalty for being taken in the same detachment (no Subfaction traits) and the exact same cost to be taken together as allies. And the exact same amount of ability crossover: I.e., next to none.

You do get a mechanical benefit from mixing gods. You fill out the other god's weaknessess.

Nurgle gives you tough objective holders.
Tzeentch gives you shooting.
Slaanesh/khorne give you solid melee.

Hmm, that reminds me of something..
Coven gives you tough objective holders.
Kabal gives you shooting.
Cult gives you melee.

Drukhari also don't have cross-subfations auras and a similar amount of cross subfaction stratagems, drukhari get 9 truly global strats (the other global ones are locked to units only coven/cult/kabals can take) and demons get 7 global stratagems.

You use warp surge as an example, i give you lightning fast reflexes or cruel deception as another one.

The only real difference between demons and drukhari is that drukhari forces you to run 3 patrols because of raiding party, if you want to have more fast/elite/heavy/flyer slots, you're gak out of luck and even then, running them that way means you can't soup at all (unlike other armies).

It's true, Drukhari does suffer some of the same unique disadvantages that daemons get, being an arbitrarily split codex. However, you're being dishonest (or just ignorant, and that's OK) in a couple ways here.

Raiding Party is completely optional. Nothing within the drukhari codex forces you to run 3 patrols. It's an additional option that you have, that CAN be very powerful - it gives you the ability to have as many slots total as a Brigade and gives you 3 different choices of subfaction tactic. Those things largely make up for the lack of unity in the book, and somewhat cancels out the natural disadvantage you have going up against a codex that's more holistic. But if you dont' want it, you can bring drukhari as (usually) a part of an eldar soup army, and they work just as well.

In order to actually work, a codex that splits its units in to parts has to provide some benefit to correspond with what you give up. Daemons and Genestealer Cults don't do that - they just lack synergy with large chunks of the book, and get basically nothing in return for it. Daemons even uniquely have additional problems, like fixed traits, and the traits being 12" auras for no adequately explored reason.

If you can't understand the distinction, I'm just not sure how to help you. My drukhari listbuilding affords me the freedom to give my melee units a melee trait, and my shooty units a shooty trait, and my durable units a durable trait, AND I get full CP. If I want to do that with daemons, it costs me minimum 1/3 of my CP pool, or it costs me my subfaction traits entirely.

the_scotsman wrote:

Spoiler:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Drukhari get a unique mechanical advantage that incentivizes them being played as a diverse force within Codex Drukhari.

You have a trade-off (You must take 3 Patrol detachments, which mean you have to take more mandatory HQs than a Battalion in a codex notorious for its terrible waste-of-time HQs, and also that means in organized play THAT'S your army, you get no more detachments than that)

and in exchange for that trade-off, you get a unique benefit (You get to choose 3 different Subfaction traits with none of the usual CP cost for allying)

Chaos Daemon armies have NO mechanical benefit for allying in other forms of daemons.

Next to no auras, abilities, powers, traits, or stratagems cross over. the only ones that do, like Skarbrand's aura, only do so because they're completely open - Skarbrand's aura also affects your OPPONENT'S models. Or, any other allies you may choose to take, for that matter.

In fact, some of the most critical stratagems in the book, like the one that grants you +1 to your invuln, are exclusive. If you take a detachment of Khorne Daemons and a detachment of Slaanesh Daemons, you get ONE use of the +1 Invuln strat.

Mechanically speaking, Slaanesh Daemons and Khorne daemons are JUST as separated as any other two codexes that share a keyword. The fact that they are printed in the same book is just irrelevant. they are as mechanically separated as Deathwatch and Ultramarines. They have the exact same penalty for being taken in the same detachment (no Subfaction traits) and the exact same cost to be taken together as allies. And the exact same amount of ability crossover: I.e., next to none.

You do get a mechanical benefit from mixing gods. You fill out the other god's weaknessess.

Nurgle gives you tough objective holders.
Tzeentch gives you shooting.
Slaanesh/khorne give you solid melee.

Hmm, that reminds me of something..
Coven gives you tough objective holders.
Kabal gives you shooting.
Cult gives you melee.

Drukhari also don't have cross-subfations auras and a similar amount of cross subfaction stratagems, drukhari get 9 truly global strats (the other global ones are locked to units only coven/cult/kabals can take) and demons get 7 global stratagems.

You use warp surge as an example, i give you lightning fast reflexes or cruel deception as another one.

The only real difference between demons and drukhari is that drukhari forces you to run 3 patrols because of raiding party, if you want to have more fast/elite/heavy/flyer slots, you're gak out of luck and even then, running them that way means you can't soup at all (unlike other armies).

It's true, Drukhari does suffer some of the same unique disadvantages that daemons get, being an arbitrarily split codex. However, you're being dishonest (or just ignorant, and that's OK) in a couple ways here.

Raiding Party is completely optional. Nothing within the drukhari codex forces you to run 3 patrols. It's an additional option that you have, that CAN be very powerful - it gives you the ability to have as many slots total as a Brigade and gives you 3 different choices of subfaction tactic. Those things largely make up for the lack of unity in the book, and somewhat cancels out the natural disadvantage you have going up against a codex that's more holistic. But if you dont' want it, you can bring drukhari as (usually) a part of an eldar soup army, and they work just as well.

In order to actually work, a codex that splits its units in to parts has to provide some benefit to correspond with what you give up. Daemons and Genestealer Cults don't do that - they just lack synergy with large chunks of the book, and get basically nothing in return for it. Daemons even uniquely have additional problems, like fixed traits, and the traits being 12" auras for no adequately explored reason.

If you can't understand the distinction, I'm just not sure how to help you. My drukhari listbuilding affords me the freedom to give my melee units a melee trait, and my shooty units a shooty trait, and my durable units a durable trait, AND I get full CP. If I want to do that with daemons, it costs me minimum 1/3 of my CP pool, or it costs me my subfaction traits entirely.

I think you're misunderstanding my tone.

I agree with you that drukhari have more of a bonus for playing multiple subfactions compared to demons (you don't lose CP for doing it).
I agree that to have a multigod army, you lose a lot of CP for the privilege of being allowed to take everything in the codex.

What i meant to say but poorly communicated was that i don't think monogod armies should be considered as individual codexes since the 4 gods complement themselves in the roles that they have. Even if 9th's listbuilding structure makes it a disadvantage and actually impossible to run one of each gods (while keeping their loci).

When i saw Slaanesh demons and GSC's winrate compared as if they were two individual codexes it felt wrong to me. If it had been Slaanesh vs Rusted Cog then it wouldve felt fair.

Now, i personally feel like demons really need a rule like raiding party to allow multi god lists to be ran. Or loci that don't stop working if you mix gods in a detachment, or anything to help them. Personally i'd love a rule that did something like that :

A chaos demon army may include up to 4 patrols if every patrol is aligned to a different god

With possibly a unique CP cost for that special rule (3-4CP?) or a different type of detachment.

The problem with the "Slaanesh vs. Rusted Cog" example is that if you dropped the Rusted Cog rules from the list, there are still bonuses to be had.

For example, you don't have to be "Rusted Cog" to take an Astra Militarum detachment or to get GSC infiltration rules. In fact, you could have no subfaction keyword at all and still get SOME rules from your army.

If you drop Slaanesh from the Daemons list, you get nothing. Daemons have no armywide special rule - so in that way, Slaanesh is the faction rather than the subfaction. If you drop the God keyword, then Daemons get no benefit from their army at all.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Spoiler:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Drukhari get a unique mechanical advantage that incentivizes them being played as a diverse force within Codex Drukhari.

You have a trade-off (You must take 3 Patrol detachments, which mean you have to take more mandatory HQs than a Battalion in a codex notorious for its terrible waste-of-time HQs, and also that means in organized play THAT'S your army, you get no more detachments than that)

and in exchange for that trade-off, you get a unique benefit (You get to choose 3 different Subfaction traits with none of the usual CP cost for allying)

Chaos Daemon armies have NO mechanical benefit for allying in other forms of daemons.

Next to no auras, abilities, powers, traits, or stratagems cross over. the only ones that do, like Skarbrand's aura, only do so because they're completely open - Skarbrand's aura also affects your OPPONENT'S models. Or, any other allies you may choose to take, for that matter.

In fact, some of the most critical stratagems in the book, like the one that grants you +1 to your invuln, are exclusive. If you take a detachment of Khorne Daemons and a detachment of Slaanesh Daemons, you get ONE use of the +1 Invuln strat.

Mechanically speaking, Slaanesh Daemons and Khorne daemons are JUST as separated as any other two codexes that share a keyword. The fact that they are printed in the same book is just irrelevant. they are as mechanically separated as Deathwatch and Ultramarines. They have the exact same penalty for being taken in the same detachment (no Subfaction traits) and the exact same cost to be taken together as allies. And the exact same amount of ability crossover: I.e., next to none.

You do get a mechanical benefit from mixing gods. You fill out the other god's weaknessess.

Nurgle gives you tough objective holders.
Tzeentch gives you shooting.
Slaanesh/khorne give you solid melee.

Hmm, that reminds me of something..
Coven gives you tough objective holders.
Kabal gives you shooting.
Cult gives you melee.

Drukhari also don't have cross-subfations auras and a similar amount of cross subfaction stratagems, drukhari get 9 truly global strats (the other global ones are locked to units only coven/cult/kabals can take) and demons get 7 global stratagems.

You use warp surge as an example, i give you lightning fast reflexes or cruel deception as another one.

The only real difference between demons and drukhari is that drukhari forces you to run 3 patrols because of raiding party, if you want to have more fast/elite/heavy/flyer slots, you're gak out of luck and even then, running them that way means you can't soup at all (unlike other armies).

It's true, Drukhari does suffer some of the same unique disadvantages that daemons get, being an arbitrarily split codex. However, you're being dishonest (or just ignorant, and that's OK) in a couple ways here.

Raiding Party is completely optional. Nothing within the drukhari codex forces you to run 3 patrols. It's an additional option that you have, that CAN be very powerful - it gives you the ability to have as many slots total as a Brigade and gives you 3 different choices of subfaction tactic. Those things largely make up for the lack of unity in the book, and somewhat cancels out the natural disadvantage you have going up against a codex that's more holistic. But if you dont' want it, you can bring drukhari as (usually) a part of an eldar soup army, and they work just as well.

In order to actually work, a codex that splits its units in to parts has to provide some benefit to correspond with what you give up. Daemons and Genestealer Cults don't do that - they just lack synergy with large chunks of the book, and get basically nothing in return for it. Daemons even uniquely have additional problems, like fixed traits, and the traits being 12" auras for no adequately explored reason.

If you can't understand the distinction, I'm just not sure how to help you. My drukhari listbuilding affords me the freedom to give my melee units a melee trait, and my shooty units a shooty trait, and my durable units a durable trait, AND I get full CP. If I want to do that with daemons, it costs me minimum 1/3 of my CP pool, or it costs me my subfaction traits entirely.

I think you're misunderstanding my tone.

I agree with you that drukhari have more of a bonus for playing multiple subfactions compared to demons (you don't lose CP for doing it).
I agree that to have a multigod army, you lose a lot of CP for the privilege of being allowed to take everything in the codex.

What i meant to say but poorly communicated was that i don't think monogod armies should be considered as individual codexes since the 4 gods complement themselves in the roles that they have. Even if 9th's listbuilding structure makes it a disadvantage and actually impossible to run one of each gods (while keeping their loci).

When i saw Slaanesh demons and GSC's winrate compared as if they were two individual codexes it felt wrong to me. If it had been Slaanesh vs Rusted Cog then it wouldve felt fair.

Now, i personally feel like demons really need a rule like raiding party to allow multi god lists to be ran. Or loci that don't stop working if you mix gods in a detachment, or anything to help them. Personally i'd love a rule that did something like that :

A chaos demon army may include up to 4 patrols if every patrol is aligned to a different god

With possibly a unique CP cost for that special rule (3-4CP?) or a different type of detachment.

You correctly identified the biggest issues with both the codex and its perception. It amuses me that we have a community that just lumps 5-6 books under "marines" but then separates 4 subfactions out of a single codex and expects them to function independently.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The problem with the "Slaanesh vs. Rusted Cog" example is that if you dropped the Rusted Cog rules from the list, there are still bonuses to be had.

For example, you don't have to be "Rusted Cog" to take an Astra Militarum detachment or to get GSC infiltration rules. In fact, you could have no subfaction keyword at all and still get SOME rules from your army.

If you drop Slaanesh from the Daemons list, you get nothing. Daemons have no armywide special rule - so in that way, Slaanesh is the faction rather than the subfaction. If you drop the God keyword, then Daemons get no benefit from their army at all.

I see your point of view, basically genestealer cult exists while "Daemons" doesn't really exist.

I still don't agree with that point of view but to each their own.

I would absolutely love it if we got AoS-like god codexes.

Those 5-6 books under "marines" have better synergy with each other than the Daemons subfactions in the single codex.

You still get the cool rules for being "Adeptus Astartes" if you bring two units with the Angels of Death rule from any mix of codexes even in the same detachment....

...while Daemons actually lose all their rules if you do same.

Dudeface wrote:


You correctly identified the biggest issues with box the codex and its perception. It amuses me that we have a community that just lumps 5-6 books under "marines" but then separates 4 subfactions out of a single codex and expects them to function independently.

Yeah, and demons are really the only one we keep hearing about being split up into 4. Theyre in a very similar situation than drukhari (hence me bringing them up). yet drukhari is always treated as a whole.

Again, i would love AoS-like god codexes that really expand on the rules and feel fluffy.
When i learned of depravity points, my fluff-o-meter went off the charts (even if it was/is? overtuned)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Those 5-6 books under "marines" have better synergy with each other than the Daemons subfactions in the single codex.

You still get the cool rules for being "Adeptus Astartes" if you bring two units with the Angels of Death rule from any mix of codexes even in the same detachment....

...while Daemons actually lose all their rules if you do same.

don't you only lose the loci? which is the same as marines losing their chapter tactic bonuses?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Those 5-6 books under "marines" have better synergy with each other than the Daemons subfactions in the single codex.

You still get the cool rules for being "Adeptus Astartes" if you bring two units with the Angels of Death rule from any mix of codexes even in the same detachment....

...while Daemons actually lose all their rules if you do same.

Oh the daemons book is hot trash from a design perspective, but arguing that X daemons deserve to have their own progress and competitive rates compared against a lumped marines faction is just daft.

Because of how they wrote daemons, a codex daemons force is so unlikely to ever be fielded imo that they're just a tag on to other chaos forces by default.

Dudeface wrote:

Oh the daemons book is hot trash from a design perspective, but arguing that X daemons deserve to have their own progress and competitive rates compared against a lumped marines faction is just daft.

Because of how they wrote daemons, a codex daemons force is so unlikely to ever be fielded imo that they're just a tag on to other chaos forces by default.

Theres so much potential for a fun demons codex too, theyre the ones that should be getting weird rules. Really eager to see if it it gets better in 9th when their new codex gets released.
The exalted greater demon stuff from PA was a step in the good direction IMO. I'd love for demons to become ultra customisable.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
don't you only lose the loci? which is the same as marines losing their chapter tactic bonuses?

Yes, you do only lose the loci - which is literally the only special rules available to a Daemons army.

So you go from Marines, who lose Chapter Tactics but keep a whole host of rules, to Daemons, who lose every single rule period if they bring another god. The only difference between Slaanesh and Tzeench in the same detachment and a completely unbound army is that you get to keep some CP (but you only have like 4 stratagems so whatever).

Let me put it this way:
Bringing Tzeench and Slaanesh in the same detachment has more in common with bringing Eldar and Tyranids in the same detachment than with bringing Ultramarines and Blood Angels in the same detachment.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
don't you only lose the loci? which is the same as marines losing their chapter tactic bonuses?

Yes, you do only lose the loci - which is literally the only special rules available to a Daemons army.

So you go from Marines, who lose Chapter Tactics but keep a whole host of rules, to Daemons, who lose every single rule period if they bring another god. The only difference between Slaanesh and Tzeench in the same detachment and a completely unbound army is that you get to keep some CP (but you only have like 4 stratagems so whatever).

Let me put it this way:
Bringing Tzeench and Slaanesh in the same detachment has more in common with bringing Eldar and Tyranids in the same detachment than with bringing Ultramarines and Blood Angels in the same detachment.

Yeah, thats what i thought, i just wanted to make sure i wasn't playing something wrong with my Tzeentch/Nurgle detachment.
For some reason i had in mind that the god "bonuses" were a global thing (+1 invuln to tzeentch, always fight first for slaanesh, disgustingly resilient and whatever khorne gets) but theyre just abilities on the datasheets.
As dudeface said : the whole codex is a mess that needs a rewrite,
Demons should be more customizable than space marines IMO

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
don't you only lose the loci? which is the same as marines losing their chapter tactic bonuses?

Yes, you do only lose the loci - which is literally the only special rules available to a Daemons army.

So you go from Marines, who lose Chapter Tactics but keep a whole host of rules, to Daemons, who lose every single rule period if they bring another god. The only difference between Slaanesh and Tzeench in the same detachment and a completely unbound army is that you get to keep some CP (but you only have like 4 stratagems so whatever).

Let me put it this way:
Bringing Tzeench and Slaanesh in the same detachment has more in common with bringing Eldar and Tyranids in the same detachment than with bringing Ultramarines and Blood Angels in the same detachment.

Yeah, thats what i thought, i just wanted to make sure i wasn't playing something wrong with my Tzeentch/Nurgle detachment.
For some reason i had in mind that the god "bonuses" were a global thing (+1 invuln to tzeentch, always fight first for slaanesh, disgustingly resilient and whatever khorne gets) but theyre just abilities on the datasheets.
As dudeface said : the whole codex is a mess that needs a rewrite,
Demons should be more customizable than space marines IMO

Oddly I'd rather double down on the existing design choice and not have a daemons codex. They already print the relevant gods daemons in the relevant chaos legion book, just push out emps children and world eaters, put daemons rules in each, then expand undivided daemons slightly and leave those in generic chaos space marines.

Gives the legion codecies more merit for existing, stops awkward reprinting of rules for "summoning purposes" and gives fluffy mono god armies easy access. Arguably multi God daemon armies are no worse off than they are now, maybe the hq equivalent for the undivided daemons could have a rule that facilitated mixed detachments.

Dudeface wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
don't you only lose the loci? which is the same as marines losing their chapter tactic bonuses?

Yes, you do only lose the loci - which is literally the only special rules available to a Daemons army.

So you go from Marines, who lose Chapter Tactics but keep a whole host of rules, to Daemons, who lose every single rule period if they bring another god. The only difference between Slaanesh and Tzeench in the same detachment and a completely unbound army is that you get to keep some CP (but you only have like 4 stratagems so whatever).

Let me put it this way:
Bringing Tzeench and Slaanesh in the same detachment has more in common with bringing Eldar and Tyranids in the same detachment than with bringing Ultramarines and Blood Angels in the same detachment.

Yeah, thats what i thought, i just wanted to make sure i wasn't playing something wrong with my Tzeentch/Nurgle detachment.
For some reason i had in mind that the god "bonuses" were a global thing (+1 invuln to tzeentch, always fight first for slaanesh, disgustingly resilient and whatever khorne gets) but theyre just abilities on the datasheets.
As dudeface said : the whole codex is a mess that needs a rewrite,
Demons should be more customizable than space marines IMO

Oddly I'd rather double down on the existing design choice and not have a daemons codex. They already print the relevant gods daemons in the relevant chaos legion book, just push out emps children and world eaters, put daemons rules in each, then expand undivided daemons slightly and leave those in generic chaos space marines.

Gives the legion codecies more merit for existing, stops awkward reprinting of rules for "summoning purposes" and gives fluffy mono god armies easy access. Arguably multi God daemon armies are no worse off than they are now, maybe the hq equivalent for the undivided daemons could have a rule that facilitated mixed detachments.

Hmm thats an interesting approach.

So basically you'd have Codex: Deathguard/ThousandSons/EmpChildren/worldEater with the demons included in them?

I'm not so thrilled about that honestly. Demons and CSM are very different armies. If anything, the demon entries shouldnt be present in the CSM books. I've seen so many new players show up with demons in their CSM lists and not understand that they can't actually use them to fill slots in teir army.