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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Presumably the warp empowerment that would go into empowering their plagues is used to bind daemons into service instead.

Ya-huh.

I'm pointing out that rules that make your army forget who they are and lose special rules when allying with units from your own god doesn't make any sense. It's like the old days when CSM squads would forget which Chaos God the served when the Icon Bearer died, only on an army-wide scale.

It's absurd.

it's a solution to a genuine problem though, in that in 8th edition there was simply no reason NOT to soup and it frustrated people who wanted to run a space wolves army, or a custodes army, or a imprial guard army and not "Imperial guard with thunder wolf cavlary and custodes bike captains!"

 l0k1 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Yes. The Battle Forged rules for Fortifications make them functionally unusable.

Warhammer 40,000 CORE BOOK Indomitus Version 1.1 FAQ wrote:Page 247
Add the following sub-section:
FORTIFICATIONS
Units with the Fortifications Battlefield Role are terrain features that are part of your army. Unless otherwise stated, when setting Fortifications up on the battlefield, they cannot be set up within 3" of any other terrain feature that is not part of its own datasheet (excluding hills, page 260). If it is not possible to set up a Fortification as a result, it cannot be deployed and counts as having been destroyed. Fortifications can never be placed into Strategic Reserves (pg 256).

Maybe I'm missing something, but how does this make it unusable? It can't be within 3" of other terrain. Ok that'll depend on terrain placement during setup. It's a part of your army insinuates that it must be deployed in your deployment zone. Ok, unless it has a rule stating otherwise, which it might considering the article said it can be deployed 12" away from enemy units,worst case you deloy it in on your side of the table to make it harder on enemy units trying to drop in on your side. Fortifications can't be in Strategic Reserves. So what am I missing?

Sister terrain　requires 11"x11"empty square to deploy. In 9e that's hard. Depends on how big model obviously is but sister terrarn is pretty damn hard to deploy anywhere so you are risking 55pts to have nothing.

Necron terrain looks also fun. 3 pieces that need to stay away from terrain and need to be close to each other for additional restriction


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Presumably the warp empowerment that would go into empowering their plagues is used to bind daemons into service instead.

Ya-huh.

I'm pointing out that rules that make your army forget who they are and lose special rules when allying with units from your own god doesn't make any sense. It's like the old days when CSM squads would forget which Chaos God the served when the Icon Bearer died, only on an army-wide scale.

It's absurd.

If you look at fluff marines shouldn't lose doctrines etc having ig det or even ig squad in same det.

But it's about balance. Only alternative is up the points if you ally. Have detachment of dg and daemon? All points go up. Blood angels, ig and knight soup? Again points go up.

No, it should just cost command points.

That solution was bang on the money. They're the currency it should cost.

This level of anti-soup is ridiculous.

All this "it's about balance" is BS, frankly. If you want perfect balance then go play chess and make sure you always play at least 2 games and only one time start as white (which has a slight advantage due to initiative). We're here for a theme and a setting so why not try to play that? This crusade to 'get balance at all costs' just erodes that theme.

I perfectly agree there should be some boon for going mono (which there is, you get a detachment for free) and that souping in allies should cost CP (which it does) and have limited synergy outside of just fulfilling battlefield roles (which it had come to do); no issues with that because it makes sense and seems fair but when the cost of souping a) doesn't make sense (as with DG and ND) and b) is so harsh to lose an important mechanic, well then it just stinks. They've given mono something, which is great, i'm happy for mono players that wanted such and I felt that was needed but not paired with so much cost/synergy reduction for allies. One needed to happen in full or partial of both, not full measures for both.

As I previously said, the core issue with soup was that power gamers had to find power builds to abuse which ruined it for everyone. GW then corrected that, which is how it should be. Few systems are perfect without edit. The solution shouldn't be to overly restrict but be dynamic to develop forward. We've taken a step back. I can only hope GW surprise me as they have, and give daemons some sort of 'ignore that penalty' rule in detachments that fully share the same mark or are undivided - as it should be.

It's meant to be a game for many to enjoy so anything that cripples a previously wrought way of play on this kind of level should be shunned and anyone with the attitude of "well I wouldn't play someone using soup" might just need to re-evaluate the fundamental importance of a game with plastic soldiers plays within one's life.

Semper wrote:
No, it should just cost command points.

That solution was bang on the money. They're the currency it should cost.

This level of anti-soup is ridiculous.

All this "it's about balance" is BS, frankly. If you want perfect balance then go play chess and make sure you always play at least 2 games and only one time start as white (which has a slight advantage due to initiative). We're here for a theme and a setting so why not try to play that? This crusade to 'get balance at all costs' just erodes that theme.

I perfectly agree there should be some boon for going mono (which there is, you get a detachment for free) and that souping in allies should cost CP (which it does) and have limited synergy outside of just fulfilling battlefield roles (which it had come to do); no issues with that because it makes sense and seems fair but when the cost of souping a) doesn't make sense (as with DG and ND) and b) is so harsh to lose an important mechanic, well then it just stinks. They've given mono something, which is great, i'm happy for mono players that wanted such and I felt that was needed but not paired with so much cost/synergy reduction for allies. One needed to happen in full or partial of both, not full measures for both.

As I previously said, the core issue with soup was that power gamers had to find power builds to abuse which ruined it for everyone. GW then corrected that, which is how it should be. Few systems are perfect without edit. The solution shouldn't be to overly restrict but be dynamic to develop forward. We've taken a step back. I can only hope GW surprise me as they have, and give daemons some sort of 'ignore that penalty' rule in detachments that fully share the same mark or are undivided - as it should be.

It's meant to be a game for many to enjoy so anything that cripples a previously wrought way of play on this kind of level should be shunned and anyone with the attitude of "well I wouldn't play someone using soup" might just need to re-evaluate the fundamental importance of a game with plastic soldiers plays within one's life.

Or they could just make the leap and dissolve the codex daemons, make death guard the "nurgle codex" and job done.

Death guard losing the mono faction bonus when a chaos daemons detachment present is the right thing to do, but only because chaos daemons shouldn't need to exist alongside.

Even in 9th, after the detachment changes, there was little to no reason to ever run DG troops over the much better daemon troops. Pure Death Guard had almost no tournament showing because there was nothing but drawbacks for playing the army as it's shown in the codex, despite the CP cost.

Up till now we had daemon troops and HQs who are superior to DG choices, horrors turning into pox walkers, GUO re-animating MBH and warp-timed Mortarions. Those things are at least as powerful as a slowly increasing -1T aura.

If you want to soup, you can still do so. But there also must be an incentive not to soup. You must chose between superior psychic powers and unit OR an army-wide rule. Right now you are just complaining that you can't have your cake and eat it.

tneva82 wrote:
If you look at fluff marines shouldn't lose doctrines etc having ig det or even ig squad in same det.

But it's about balance. Only alternative is up the points if you ally. Have detachment of dg and daemon? All points go up. Blood angels, ig and knight soup? Again points go up.

Except that last I checked, Guard were never originally part of the Space Marine army list and then got removed.

Daemons on the other hand...

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Well duh, if you are looking for ways in which something can be silly you'll find it.

Yeah, because finding the idea of Daemons in a CSM army as something that should be natural and not something that breaks the army's functionality is just so outlandish, I simply must be looking for things to complain about, right?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
If you look at fluff marines shouldn't lose doctrines etc having ig det or even ig squad in same det.

But it's about balance. Only alternative is up the points if you ally. Have detachment of dg and daemon? All points go up. Blood angels, ig and knight soup? Again points go up.

Except that last I checked, Guard were never originally part of the Space Marine army list and then got removed.

Daemons on the other hand...

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Well duh, if you are looking for ways in which something can be silly you'll find it.

Yeah, because finding the idea of Daemons in a CSM army as something that should be natural and not something that breaks the army's functionality is just so outlandish, I simply must be looking for things to complain about, right?

Why shouldn't there be a bonus for sticking to only one codex? It's been 5 editions since daemons and marines existed wholly in 1 book.

Well, a reasonable number of Nurgle Daemon units currently exist inside the Death Guard codex, but would - without keyword change - break the Contagions ability if you fielded them.

Sticking to the Codex, but losing your mono-bonus - something seems off there.

 Dysartes wrote:
Well, a reasonable number of Nurgle Daemon units currently exist inside the Death Guard codex, but would - without keyword change - break the Contagions ability if you fielded them.

Sticking to the Codex, but losing your mono-bonus - something seems off there.

Are people arguing over a hypothetical situation here? Presumably if daemons are in there they will be keyworded appropriately...

If they remove the daemons from the codex it would be a bad thing imo.

Umbros wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Well, a reasonable number of Nurgle Daemon units currently exist inside the Death Guard codex, but would - without keyword change - break the Contagions ability if you fielded them.

Sticking to the Codex, but losing your mono-bonus - something seems off there.

Are people arguing over a hypothetical situation here? Presumably if daemons are in there they will be keyworded appropriately...

If they remove the daemons from the codex it would be a bad thing imo.

I agree this is weird and something I've never liked. Roll on God dexes and give generic csm generic weaker daemons to summon maybe.

Semper wrote:
No, it should just cost command points.

That solution was bang on the money. They're the currency it should cost.
.

So how you　compensate 2 det of pure army x being　inferior to det of 2 different factions? That's true always by definition if mono doesn't get bonuses.

Note you pay same cp whether you　soup or not...So 2 detachmen's of death guard pay same cp　as dg and daemons wet is　inferior　to soup..

Of course　if you don't care about balance it's whatever　but even kindergarden kid can　see imbalance in system in your style. Obviosly you don'' want balanced game and　instead are just looking to stomp others by list power without needing tactics

So...I’m brand new to forum posting in general and been a deathguard 40k player since the start of 8th so daily new in general.

Do people come on here to argue

Hitpoints wrote:
So...I’m brand new to forum posting in general and been a deathguard 40k player since the start of 8th so daily new in general.

Do people come on here to argue

It can appear that way sometimes...

I generally come for rumours and tactics. Amongst the bickering you can pick up some neat tricks.

Hitpoints wrote:
So...I’m brand new to forum posting in general and been a deathguard 40k player since the start of 8th so daily new in general.

Do people come on here to argue

Welcome to Dakkadakka.

Though its a lot more civil than other forums, thanks to Mods stepping in where conversations derail too much

 GaroRobe wrote:

Hitpoints wrote:
So...I’m brand new to forum posting in general and been a deathguard 40k player since the start of 8th so daily new in general.

Do people come on here to argue

Welcome to Dakkadakka.

Though its a lot more civil than other forums, thanks to Mods stepping in where conversations derail too much

I mean, I mostly look at Warhammer Competitive, Bolter and Chainword and here. This one tends to be the rudest.

On DG, I think overall these are all very strong buffs and should do great for the army.

Hitpoints wrote:
So...I’m brand new to forum posting in general and been a deathguard 40k player since the start of 8th so daily new in general.

Do people come on here to argue

A forum is by definition a place to argue.

Hitpoints wrote:
So...I’m brand new to forum posting in general and been a deathguard 40k player since the start of 8th so daily new in general.

Do people come on here to argue

Honestly it depends on what sub-forums you choose to visit on here. If you go to tactics, off-topic or geek media with nary a thought with regards to your post being logical or though through, you should expect potentially one poster to call you out, especially if its a controversial topic or opinion. You'll need some measure of thick skin (this is the internet after all). But you could go to painting and modelling and basically dodge most of the combative posters. I think you'll miss a big part on the forum experience otherwise though.

 Jidmah wrote:

Hitpoints wrote:
So...I’m brand new to forum posting in general and been a deathguard 40k player since the start of 8th so daily new in general.

Do people come on here to argue

A forum is by definition a place to argue.

Eh, not really argue :"a place, meeting, or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged." but you do you.

I think DG are looking like they're going to be in a good place. I get some people don't like the DR change, but honestly they look tough enough to matter on the table, and they're strong against most of the stuff that is anti-MEQ so they'll force people to split their lists between being tailored to fight MEQ and fight DG in their TAC lists.

Semper wrote:
No, it should just cost command points.

That solution was bang on the money. They're the currency it should cost.

This level of anti-soup is ridiculous.

All this "it's about balance" is BS, frankly. If you want perfect balance then go play chess and make sure you always play at least 2 games and only one time start as white (which has a slight advantage due to initiative). We're here for a theme and a setting so why not try to play that? This crusade to 'get balance at all costs' just erodes that theme.

I perfectly agree there should be some boon for going mono (which there is, you get a detachment for free) and that souping in allies should cost CP (which it does) and have limited synergy outside of just fulfilling battlefield roles (which it had come to do); no issues with that because it makes sense and seems fair but when the cost of souping a) doesn't make sense (as with DG and ND) and b) is so harsh to lose an important mechanic, well then it just stinks. They've given mono something, which is great, i'm happy for mono players that wanted such and I felt that was needed but not paired with so much cost/synergy reduction for allies. One needed to happen in full or partial of both, not full measures for both.

As I previously said, the core issue with soup was that power gamers had to find power builds to abuse which ruined it for everyone. GW then corrected that, which is how it should be. Few systems are perfect without edit. The solution shouldn't be to overly restrict but be dynamic to develop forward. We've taken a step back. I can only hope GW surprise me as they have, and give daemons some sort of 'ignore that penalty' rule in detachments that fully share the same mark or are undivided - as it should be.

It's meant to be a game for many to enjoy so anything that cripples a previously wrought way of play on this kind of level should be shunned and anyone with the attitude of "well I wouldn't play someone using soup" might just need to re-evaluate the fundamental importance of a game with plastic soldiers plays within one's life.

If you're here for the theme and setting then play narrative? GW seem to be making a concerted effort to balance 40k as a competitive game, with that they are reducing options presumably to reduce permutations and possible outliers that can skew the game.
At the same time they seem to be looking to create a more robust narrative game where people can still play to win within a slightly looser framework. Maybe it just needs a mindset change within the player base?

Clearly the playerbase should never change expectations and should never have options removed in order to make the game more balanced and more enjoyable across the board. Obviously GW should always continue to support every model they've ever made no matter what, even if you average player is forced to kitbash three different kits just to fiels one. /sarcasm

I feel like the community does need to learn to let go. Legacy options don't need to be supported and things will have to change to improve the game. We can't keep everything the same and at the same time claim we want a more balanced game too. Balance is going to sacrifice things and accepting that sooner will make the game more enjoyable in the long run.

Thing is, I get why matched play is the default play style within the community. Narrative/open has always been so loose the sheer level of investment that needed to go into the preparation and 'social contract' to make it an enjoyable experience or at least establish what each player's expectations are from the game.
Hopefully Crusade can go some way to filling the gap where people can play to win without having to win to enjoy it.

Abaddon303 wrote:
Thing is, I get why matched play is the default play style within the community. Narrative/open has always been so loose the sheer level of investment that needed to go into the preparation and 'social contract' to make it an enjoyable experience or at least establish what each player's expectations are from the game.
Hopefully Crusade can go some way to filling the gap where people can play to win without having to win to enjoy it.

I feel Crusade is definitely making great strides in that regard. I've raken part in campaigns before with what would be defined as a "match play" crowd so there is definitely a Venn diagram there, and I feel Crusade helps you craft that story about your personal character and army which can be really attractove to most players.

Dudeface wrote:
Why shouldn't there be a bonus for sticking to only one codex? It's been 5 editions since daemons and marines existed wholly in 1 book.

I was thinking the same thing. The first Chaos Space Marines Codex was released in February 1999 (it was proceeded by Codex Chaos for 2nd Edition in 1996). Daemons were removed in Codex: Chaos Space Marines in for 4th Edition in September 2007. So going from the release of 3rd Edition (1998), daemons have not been part of Codex CSM longer than they were.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Well duh, if you are looking for ways in which something can be silly you'll find it.

Yeah, because finding the idea of Daemons in a CSM army as something that should be natural and not something that breaks the army's functionality is just so outlandish, I simply must be looking for things to complain about, right?

If my argument was wrong you wouldn't need to twist the truth so much for a rebuttal.

Arbitrary bonuses are made for armies to be used as mono forces instead of mix and maxing. When it is worth it, people still does it.

It maybe doesnt makes the most sense but theres nothing inherently bad about it. I prefer it to a system where you can mix and mad without having a real choice or where you literally just cannot do it.

Semper wrote:
No, it should just cost command points.

That solution was bang on the money. They're the currency it should cost.

I agree this would be a simple and easy way of doing it. But right now there is no CP penalty. Adding another detachment of DG costs the same CP as adding a detachment of DoN, or any other Chaos faction for that matter. I think there should also be a cost for souping multiple sub-factions; instead we can mix and match to have a detachment of shooty guys from the shooty sub-faction with a different detachment of melee guys from the melee sub-faction, and another detachment spamming a certain unit to interact with some custom bonus min-maxxed to specifically buff that unit. And it all costs the exact same CP as running multiple detachments from the same faction.

IMO, the part where detachment CP is refunded should apply to all detachments that match the warlord's faction AND sub-faction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
Arbitrary bonuses are made for armies to be used as mono forces instead of mix and maxing. When it is worth it, people still does it.

It maybe doesnt makes the most sense but theres nothing inherently bad about it. I prefer it to a system where you can mix and mad without having a real choice or where you literally just cannot do it.

Me too. I also note that while CP cost is the more straightforward method the way GW has done it is more fun for me personally. I feel like I am rewarded for sticking to my guns, instead of simply avoiding a penalty. And the reward is a cool ability rather than just CP. I can see merit in both approaches.

Deathguard, from what we’ve seen so far, seems to be following well in Gws efforts to expand fluff into gameplay. Make your army feel unique from other factions but still maintain a certain level of equilibrium regarding rule set. This is so hard to do when there’s such a plethora of games rules and fluff. The codices that have released so far have generally been on point. Sure there will always be rules that some aren’t fond of and accepting any change to an army especially if it’s your own can be quite tough.

People are also allowed to be upset with changes they don’t like. It’s how the game evolves. We can pass judgement on individual rules we’ve seen so far for solely what they are. But we can’t judge DG as a whole just yet because we still haven’t seen 75% of the codex and rules. As it stands it seems pointless judging any death guard unit against its imperial counterpart for anything more than speculation.

If what’s come out from 9th so far I don’t think we have to worry about DG being unplayable or uncompetitive, the game as a whole has much better internal core rules and individual faction rules than any of its predecessors.

Dudeface wrote:
Why shouldn't there be a bonus for sticking to only one codex? It's been 5 editions since daemons and marines existed wholly in 1 book.

 alextroy wrote:
So going from the release of 3rd Edition (1998), daemons have not been part of Codex CSM longer than they were.

Daemons are in the DG Codex. You guys remember that, right?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
If my argument was wrong you wouldn't need to twist the truth so much for a rebuttal.

I'm not even certain you addressed my argument to begin with, so...

 Jidmah wrote:
Even in 9th, after the detachment changes, there was little to no reason to ever run DG troops over the much better daemon troops. Pure Death Guard had almost no tournament showing because there was nothing but drawbacks for playing the army as it's shown in the codex, despite the CP cost.

Up till now we had daemon troops and HQs who are superior to DG choices, horrors turning into pox walkers, GUO re-animating MBH and warp-timed Mortarions. Those things are at least as powerful as a slowly increasing -1T aura.

If you want to soup, you can still do so. But there also must be an incentive not to soup. You must chose between superior psychic powers and unit OR an army-wide rule. Right now you are just complaining that you can't have your cake and eat it.

Firstly, I don't see the point in having cake and not eating it.

That aside, my concern is that there is a continuing trend of, as has been mentioned previously, GW over-reacting to complaints and that the boons you've mentioned may well not continue. Also, those mono-benefits are replacing benefits you used to get regardless then there's also an issue as you're taking away from Soup to give to mono when you can theoretically give to mono without taking from soup. For example DR has been mitigated as part of a wider palette of abilities, one being the contagion auras. The issue being, I suppose, for example is you got 95% effectiveness of the army in 8th, even when souping, whereas now you only get say 75% because a more significant ability has been cut. It would be better if you got 100% or even 90% while souping and then 120% mono. It's only ended up that way because of the changes to the army (in that they've cut DR down as part of the 'mono-package'). If it had stayed the same and they had stuck contagions on top i'd be less 'but back on my heels'. I'd still have an issue from a fluff perspective but at least in games terms it wouldn't be a straight up gut punch. I appreciate that comes in the context of the 2W rise but the points are meant to account for such.

I agree with you that there should be something good for mono but it shouldn't be at the expense of soup. The two should be balanced ways to play and at the moment I don't feel they are, I think it's going the other way in favour of mono. I hope it comes back to more the middle and I am sincerely glad that the people who do want to enjoy mono factions get some joy (I add) but it's just sad it has to punish someone elses joy and go so brazenly against the fluff.

Abaddon303 wrote:

Semper wrote:
No, it should just cost command points.

That solution was bang on the money. They're the currency it should cost.

This level of anti-soup is ridiculous.

All this "it's about balance" is BS, frankly. If you want perfect balance then go play chess and make sure you always play at least 2 games and only one time start as white (which has a slight advantage due to initiative). We're here for a theme and a setting so why not try to play that? This crusade to 'get balance at all costs' just erodes that theme.

I perfectly agree there should be some boon for going mono (which there is, you get a detachment for free) and that souping in allies should cost CP (which it does) and have limited synergy outside of just fulfilling battlefield roles (which it had come to do); no issues with that because it makes sense and seems fair but when the cost of souping a) doesn't make sense (as with DG and ND) and b) is so harsh to lose an important mechanic, well then it just stinks. They've given mono something, which is great, i'm happy for mono players that wanted such and I felt that was needed but not paired with so much cost/synergy reduction for allies. One needed to happen in full or partial of both, not full measures for both.

As I previously said, the core issue with soup was that power gamers had to find power builds to abuse which ruined it for everyone. GW then corrected that, which is how it should be. Few systems are perfect without edit. The solution shouldn't be to overly restrict but be dynamic to develop forward. We've taken a step back. I can only hope GW surprise me as they have, and give daemons some sort of 'ignore that penalty' rule in detachments that fully share the same mark or are undivided - as it should be.

It's meant to be a game for many to enjoy so anything that cripples a previously wrought way of play on this kind of level should be shunned and anyone with the attitude of "well I wouldn't play someone using soup" might just need to re-evaluate the fundamental importance of a game with plastic soldiers plays within one's life.

If you're here for the theme and setting then play narrative? GW seem to be making a concerted effort to balance 40k as a competitive game, with that they are reducing options presumably to reduce permutations and possible outliers that can skew the game.
At the same time they seem to be looking to create a more robust narrative game where people can still play to win within a slightly looser framework. Maybe it just needs a mindset change within the player base?

Quite possibly a decent point but what's easier to do? Change the mind set of millions of people or just work out a better game? I'd possibly say the latter and I don't agree these kinds of changes are that method. Clearly the actual issues with Soup were bad synergies created by poor editing most of the time and ill-thought out key words. Some of the biggest culprits were CP farmers that can't exist in the current game. Most of the worst synergies (such as using Morty and Magnus with all the daemon joy) were corrected quickly and removed on a principle that could continue...

 ClockworkZion wrote:

I feel like the community does need to learn to let go. Legacy options don't need to be supported and things will have to change to improve the game. We can't keep everything the same and at the same time claim we want a more balanced game too. Balance is going to sacrifice things and accepting that sooner will make the game more enjoyable in the long run.

I would have thought we want an enjoyable game first and foremost? If that's the case, you assume that balance at any cost is the solution or that it has to sacrifice? Genuine question btw. Again, it's taking the argument to its conclusion if you really want to go this way. We may as well all have exactly the same stratgems, unit options so on and so forth. What exactly needs to be sacrificed for this balance we're looking for? Why is soup the sacrifice and not stratagems, for example? Or why do armies have different weapons? How much do we cut off because it's the easier thing to do? What do we keep cutting off?

Dudeface wrote:
Or they could just make the leap and dissolve the codex daemons, make death guard the "nurgle codex" and job done.

Death guard losing the mono faction bonus when a chaos daemons detachment present is the right thing to do, but only because chaos daemons shouldn't need to exist alongside.

I'd love that, likely. Daemons should be within the CSM dexs in my opinion. You could still make an army out of them but, like with 3rd/3.5ed you should just be able to build daemons in like any other unit depending on the warlord's mark. If that needs to be split into 5 areas - 4 Gods and Undivided, then i'd accept that. Though I also stand by that Abaddon and BL detachments also shouldn't remove these sorts of mono-abilities, almost as if they were unaligned and undivided...

tneva82 wrote:

Semper wrote:
No, it should just cost command points.

That solution was bang on the money. They're the currency it should cost.
.

So how you　compensate 2 det of pure army x being　inferior to det of 2 different factions? That's true always by definition if mono doesn't get bonuses.

Note you pay same cp whether you　soup or not...So 2 detachmen's of death guard pay same cp　as dg and daemons wet is　inferior　to soup..

Of course　if you don't care about balance it's whatever　but even kindergarden kid can　see imbalance in system in your style. Obviosly you don'' want balanced game and　instead are just looking to stomp others by list power without needing tactics

Yes, I know you pay the same at the moment. Expand it. It costs x CP for a detachment, that cost is then furthered if the detachment is from a different book. I didn't say mono shouldn't have bonuses.

The latter comment... did you read what I wrote in full?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Why shouldn't there be a bonus for sticking to only one codex? It's been 5 editions since daemons and marines existed wholly in 1 book.

 alextroy wrote:
So going from the release of 3rd Edition (1998), daemons have not been part of Codex CSM longer than they were.

Daemons are in the DG Codex. You guys remember that, right?

If you want to call that handful of Daemon units they included in the codex as being part of the army, go right ahead. They are obviously there to allow you to summon them without owning Codex Chaos Daemons, not because they expect you to include them in your battle-forged army. I would be less surprised if they are removed from the upcoming codex than if they remain included.