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:

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
While I like the fact that the Lord Discordant won't be degrading, cutting away three wounds sounds a bit excessive. I would prefer if the number of wounds one lost before degrading was raised to ten. It's not a major issue, though.

I'd prefer if it they gave degrading statlines to things that they felt deserved them, and regular statlines to things that they felt deserved those, and lost this arbitrary 10 and above nonsense.

If everything is bespoke these days, how come that facet of the rules is so rigidly enforced when it is something they could ignore on a whim?

That's a good point, but I'm worried that alot of people would start complaining about it creating more imbalance and lead to accusations of faction favoritism.

One thing I want to see in the new codex is for the Master of Executions to be give an invuln save or FNP. For being a unit meant to be in the thick of it, he's pretty fragile.

 ArcaneHorror wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
While I like the fact that the Lord Discordant won't be degrading, cutting away three wounds sounds a bit excessive. I would prefer if the number of wounds one lost before degrading was raised to ten. It's not a major issue, though.

I'd prefer if it they gave degrading statlines to things that they felt deserved them, and regular statlines to things that they felt deserved those, and lost this arbitrary 10 and above nonsense.

If everything is bespoke these days, how come that facet of the rules is so rigidly enforced when it is something they could ignore on a whim?

That's a good point, but I'm worried that alot of people would start complaining about it creating more imbalance and lead to accusations of faction favoritism.

One thing I want to see in the new codex is for the Master of Executions to be give an invuln save or FNP. For being a unit meant to be in the thick of it, he's pretty fragile.

But there's already faction favoritism. By humongous leaps and bounds. If you're not Space Marine, you're going to be sitting on your thumbs for 5+ years hoping that you'll get an update to the section of your model line that's still resin/ancient plastic this edition or next.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
So I still don't understand on how the bundle boxes are fear-of-missing-out product. I understand the buy-all-this-other-stuff-to-get-the-new-thing angle, but what is the thing people are afraid of missing that generates extra sales?

Like don't get me wrong it's still douchey and pointlessly so because they could release the component individually alongside the bundle and the bundles would still sell out, but I don't see the FOMO aspect.

Just the fact that once the box will be released the accompanying warcom article and web page will be plastered with: "Limited time offer ! Get it while you can !!TM(C)(R)" is enough to make it a dodgy practice. Whether or not the products are actually limited afterward. But what pushes it over the edge for me is that there also will be the caveat of: "Get your codex 1 and an half/2 months before anyone else !"

What do TOs do in that situation? I mean you have a few people with the "newest" rules but those rules aren't "officially" released to the general public. So if Player A comes in with the new rules (and presumably points) and Player B comes into the event with the "current" rules which player is told "No, you can't use those rules."?

the TO has to set a date for releases, and most have done it anyway

so when a TO writes the announcement they also write to which date new rules are legit

like tournament is on 1st of April, only rules with a regular release until 1st of March are allowed (at least here it has always been that way)

That wasn't my question. Let me put it this way- A TO states that only rules released prior to April 30 will be used. GW releases the new limited edition box set April 29. The release includes new points/rules. The release of the new Codex isn't until sometime in June (after the event). Most people won't have access to an "official copy" of these new rules due to the low number of copies available. When 2 players show up with 2 different "official rule books" what is the TO supposed to do?

Has there been any rumours as to when Daemons might be getting a new codex?
Feels like they have been kind of forgotten.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
That wasn't my question. Let me put it this way- A TO states that only rules released prior to April 30 will be used. GW releases the new limited edition box set April 29. The release includes new points/rules. The release of the new Codex isn't until sometime in June (after the event). Most people won't have access to an "official copy" of these new rules due to the low number of copies available. When 2 players show up with 2 different "official rule books" what is the TO supposed to do?

Iirc with orks they enforced the old book until general release, but that wasn't uniformal and is ofc at the TO discretion.

 dan2026 wrote:
Has there been any rumours as to when Daemons might be getting a new codex?
Feels like they have been kind of forgotten.

Given that everything but Demons and Guard have been released/announced, I'd say dead last.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 dan2026 wrote:
Has there been any rumours as to when Daemons might be getting a new codex?
Feels like they have been kind of forgotten.

Given that everything but Demons and Guard have been released/announced, I'd say dead last.

GW are probably taking their time working out wtf they want to do with Daemons
They're the only faction in the game that doesn't have subfactions in the same way the others do, and I wouldn't be shocked to hear if someone wanted that changed

EDIT: I'm fully expecting the Warp Storm chart to return as their mono-faction bonus though

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

EDIT: I'm fully expecting the Warp Storm chart to return as their mono-faction bonus though

Bite your tongue. Why would you invoke that nightmare?

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 dan2026 wrote:
Has there been any rumours as to when Daemons might be getting a new codex?
Feels like they have been kind of forgotten.

Given that everything but Demons and Guard have been released/announced, I'd say dead last.

GW are probably taking their time working out wtf they want to do with Daemons
They're the only faction in the game that doesn't have subfactions in the same way the others do, and I wouldn't be shocked to hear if someone wanted that changed

EDIT: I'm fully expecting the Warp Storm chart to return as their mono-faction bonus though

Seeing the state of 9th, I'd wager for an army wide 4++ at this point !

 DreadfullyHopeful wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 dan2026 wrote:
Has there been any rumours as to when Daemons might be getting a new codex?
Feels like they have been kind of forgotten.

Given that everything but Demons and Guard have been released/announced, I'd say dead last.

GW are probably taking their time working out wtf they want to do with Daemons
They're the only faction in the game that doesn't have subfactions in the same way the others do, and I wouldn't be shocked to hear if someone wanted that changed

EDIT: I'm fully expecting the Warp Storm chart to return as their mono-faction bonus though

Seeing the state of 9th, I'd wager for an army wide 4++ at this point !

I'm going with the whole faction ignoring invuls and having life steal like the Nightbringer. GD up to toughness 8 and 4++.

Hey, the 4++ is Tzeentch's thing. The rest of you can just forget it.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
Hey, the 4++ is Tzeentch's thing. The rest of you can just forget it.

You'll get more psychic boosts now. I don't see how GW can put out a daemon codex with GD not having T8 and a 4++, might as well not have them in this era of 40k otherwise!

Semper wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
Hey, the 4++ is Tzeentch's thing. The rest of you can just forget it.

You'll get more psychic boosts now. I don't see how GW can put out a daemon codex with GD not having T8 and a 4++, might as well not have them in this era of 40k otherwise!

I ain't gonna complain about it being easy to shoot Bloodthirsters or Great Unclean Ones off the table.

Greater Daemons need more durability (especially the GUO) and a better buff for other daemons.

drbored wrote:

 ArcaneHorror wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
While I like the fact that the Lord Discordant won't be degrading, cutting away three wounds sounds a bit excessive. I would prefer if the number of wounds one lost before degrading was raised to ten. It's not a major issue, though.

I'd prefer if it they gave degrading statlines to things that they felt deserved them, and regular statlines to things that they felt deserved those, and lost this arbitrary 10 and above nonsense.

If everything is bespoke these days, how come that facet of the rules is so rigidly enforced when it is something they could ignore on a whim?

That's a good point, but I'm worried that alot of people would start complaining about it creating more imbalance and lead to accusations of faction favoritism.

One thing I want to see in the new codex is for the Master of Executions to be give an invuln save or FNP. For being a unit meant to be in the thick of it, he's pretty fragile.

But there's already faction favoritism. By humongous leaps and bounds. If you're not Space Marine, you're going to be sitting on your thumbs for 5+ years hoping that you'll get an update to the section of your model line that's still resin/ancient plastic this edition or next.

That's true, I'm just worried that creating different wound degradation levels for different models would create unnecessary friction in the community.

What I'm really looking forward to are the ways that one can create a custom warband. I wonder what new traits and relics we might see?

 ArcaneHorror wrote:

drbored wrote:

 ArcaneHorror wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
While I like the fact that the Lord Discordant won't be degrading, cutting away three wounds sounds a bit excessive. I would prefer if the number of wounds one lost before degrading was raised to ten. It's not a major issue, though.

I'd prefer if it they gave degrading statlines to things that they felt deserved them, and regular statlines to things that they felt deserved those, and lost this arbitrary 10 and above nonsense.

If everything is bespoke these days, how come that facet of the rules is so rigidly enforced when it is something they could ignore on a whim?

That's a good point, but I'm worried that alot of people would start complaining about it creating more imbalance and lead to accusations of faction favoritism.

One thing I want to see in the new codex is for the Master of Executions to be give an invuln save or FNP. For being a unit meant to be in the thick of it, he's pretty fragile.

But there's already faction favoritism. By humongous leaps and bounds. If you're not Space Marine, you're going to be sitting on your thumbs for 5+ years hoping that you'll get an update to the section of your model line that's still resin/ancient plastic this edition or next.

That's true, I'm just worried that creating different wound degradation levels for different models would create unnecessary friction in the community.

What I'm really looking forward to are the ways that one can create a custom warband. I wonder what new traits and relics we might see?

I have already released quite a few custom warbands traits.

GW needs to decide if DoC are an army, or if the daemons of each god are an army. They have had mixed daemons work in the past, in AoS they put daemons and mortals of the same god each in their own book (analogous to DG+DoN, WE+DoK, etc) and it works really well. The approach of having four half-armies in the same book with counter-synergy between them does not work.

IMO it ties back to them deciding Undivided would not longer be a thing (a mistake IMO). But they don't even seem totally sure on that either. How are they going to manage Peterabo anyways?

They should either follow the AoS model and do "Forces of Tzeentch", "Forces of Khorne", etc. mixed with their corresponding mortals (Thousand Sons, Tzaangors, etc.) or split Daemons into 4 codecies (Daemons of Tzeentch, Daemons of Khorne, etc.).

I am not confident that Daemons can ever really be balanced or get the attention they need to function within the monogod identity construct that GW has been pursuing thus far if they leave them in one book. The mixed god armies have all either been OP or underpowered to the point of being borderline unplayable, or otherwise struggled from massive internal balance issues that made the units of specific gods basically useless.

Going off of Total War Warhammer 3, Daemons don't have enough depth to be 4 separate armies. There just aren't enough Daemonic units in the game to allow them to function that way.

I suppose they really need some sort of undivided unit then that can sit in all or multiple factions (Furies and such).

I just wanna know how my boy Huron is faring.

Daemons should have never been a separate army.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Going off of Total War Warhammer 3, Daemons don't have enough depth to be 4 separate armies. There just aren't enough Daemonic units in the game to allow them to function that way.

A solution easily remedied by a company that constantly produces new and often semi-redundant model kits in order to keep the wheels of commerce turning. It would take all of 2-3 new kits per God in order to adequately flesh them out as properly balanceable mid-tier standalone monogod factions.

In any case its kind of a moot point, because as it stands they are already 4 separate armies sharing a common codex - I can't take khorne juggernauts to support my Tzeentch army without losing access to my Tzeentch detachment/army special rules, remember?

 Crimson wrote:
Daemons should have never been a separate army.

Do you also say Space Wolves and all the other Marine Chapters that had their own Codecs should never have been separate armies?

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Daemons should have never been a separate army.

Do you also say Space Wolves and all the other Marine Chapters that had their own Codecs should never have been separate armies?

I do! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I mean at this point the genie is out of the bottle, but my preference would have been to leave "space marines" as a single faction with special characters and additional chapter special rules to represent their differences rather than spinning off all of these armies that have generally negligible distinctions from one another. Codex Supplements strike me as a better way to have handled a really distinctive SM variant like Space Wolves (whereas I'm not sure that Blood Angels or Dark Angels are really distinctive enough to warrant the same treatment). I think Deathwatch and Grey Knights are probably the only two that could really justify their own separate books.

chaos0xomega wrote:
A solution easily remedied by a company that constantly produces new and often semi-redundant model kits in order to keep the wheels of commerce turning. It would take all of 2-3 new kits per God in order to adequately flesh them out as properly balanceable mid-tier standalone monogod factions.

That's a lot of kits to flesh out a thin army. Remember Harlis just got folded back into the Eldar Codex. I think Daemons should have the same thing done to them with the upcoming Chaos 'Dex. They won't, but they should.

chaos0xomega wrote:
In any case its kind of a moot point, because as it stands they are already 4 separate armies sharing a common codex - I can't take khorne juggernauts to support my Tzeentch army without losing access to my Tzeentch detachment/army special rules, remember?

That's just the end result of GW's eyes being too big for their stomach. They want to make mono-God armies, but don't produce enough to warrant such armies existing (in 40k), but put it in anyway, leaving us with the hollow lists we have now.

It's not a problem in AoS, because Daemons and Mortals are in the same book. If you could do mono-God armies of Death Guard and Nurgle Daemons, 1KSons and Tzeentchian Daemons, then we'd be onto something.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Daemons should have never been a separate army.

Do you also say Space Wolves and all the other Marine Chapters that had their own Codecs should never have been separate armies?

I do! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I mean at this point the genie is out of the bottle, but my preference would have been to leave "space marines" as a single faction with special characters and additional chapter special rules to represent their differences rather than spinning off all of these armies that have generally negligible distinctions from one another. Codex Supplements strike me as a better way to have handled a really distinctive SM variant like Space Wolves (whereas I'm not sure that Blood Angels or Dark Angels are really distinctive enough to warrant the same treatment). I think Deathwatch and Grey Knights are probably the only two that could really justify their own separate books.

Alright. That's fair-I appreciate the consistency.