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.

 JNAProductions wrote:

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.

That's not the person you asked though LOL

Also Daemons having a separate codex makes WAY more sense than 4-5 Marine codices.

Because?

I’m optimistic Emperors Children / Noise Marines will be boosted and overall CSM balanced and boosted as well. I’m pretty happy with where my Craftworld are at and it seems the need codexes are decent. Sure there will be FAQ for any OP stuff but that’s alwYs how they do it. Should be in a good place

warpedpig wrote:
I’m optimistic Emperors Children / Noise Marines will be boosted and overall CSM balanced and boosted as well. I’m pretty happy with where my Craftworld are at and it seems the need codexes are decent. Sure there will be FAQ for any OP stuff but that’s alwYs how they do it. Should be in a good place

Well, EC/NM are inherently getting a nerf if rumors are true. Losing the shoots twice strat is bad for them (even though I don't think anyone should get that). I don't think they'll recover until they get their own book (for good or bad).

Codex as a whole.. eh. Too early to tell, despite all the rumors, they're in pieces which makes it hard to judge the whole thing.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Because?

They don't share the majority of their unit options, for starters...

At any rate, DoC don't work as their own book unless mixed god armies are made viable. And we should remember that was very much the concept of the original books; the different specialized units covered different roles and allowed the army as a whole to function. Their rosters were clearly designed to support that, the fluff included portions explicitly explaining it, and it is a facet that still runs strongly. In AoS they got the new direction to work (quite well, I might add) by combining the dedicated mortal & daemon sides. I don't know why they are so reluctant to do the same thing in 40k, especially considering how well received it has been.

Voss wrote:

warpedpig wrote:
I’m optimistic Emperors Children / Noise Marines will be boosted and overall CSM balanced and boosted as well. I’m pretty happy with where my Craftworld are at and it seems the need codexes are decent. Sure there will be FAQ for any OP stuff but that’s alwYs how they do it. Should be in a good place

Well, EC/NM are inherently getting a nerf if rumors are true. Losing the shoots twice strat is bad for them (even though I don't think anyone should get that). I don't think they'll recover until they get their own book (for good or bad).

Codex as a whole.. eh. Too early to tell, despite all the rumors, they're in pieces which makes it hard to judge the whole thing.

Eh, ignoring all negative modifiers to hit, getting +1AP on 6s to wound, and getting double exploding 6s in melee while "in doctrine" sounds pretty good. Though that might just be because of what I'm comparing it too.

Definitely agreed about judging the codex as a whole based off of these piecemeal leaks. Especially since we've already seen some stuff has already changed since they were playtested.

Ah. Its a design philosophy thing for me.

Rules that are 'I counter your thing (if you have that thing to counter)' are a waste most of the time (unless its really common). I hate that concept, simply because you're paying at least an opportunity cost for something that may not even matter.

6-fishing (or crit fishing, if you prefer), just doesn't appeal to me. Too much luck, not enough strategy. Bad rolls make it feel bad, and good rolls (especially if you're doubling or tripling down on it) just feel extraordinarily oppressive for the opponent. Its pretty much the opposite of fun for somebody no matter which way it breaks.

Voss wrote:
Ah. Its a design philosophy thing for me.

Rules that are 'I counter your thing (if you have that thing to counter)' are a waste most of the time (unless its really common). I hate that concept, simply because you're paying at least an opportunity cost for something that may not even matter.

6-fishing (or crit fishing, if you prefer), just doesn't appeal to me. Too much luck, not enough strategy. Bad rolls make it feel bad, and good rolls (especially if you're doubling or tripling down on it) just feel extraordinarily oppressive for the opponent. Its pretty much the opposite of fun for somebody no matter which way it breaks.

Totally same page here.

I wouldn't mind Daemons playing a more important role in the Chaos Marine codex, but because they already have their own codex (and we see how GW is really trying not to print the same datasheet in multiple codices), I don't see that happening.

The best thing they can do right now is to have Daemons be their own Codex. None of the factions are big enough in 40k to warrant their own Codex. They work in AoS because half of each battletome is made up of extra mortals that fill things out nicely.

AoS also has Slaves to Darkness, which is where all the Undivided stuff gets lumped into. 40k doesn't really have that yet. Even Chaos Marines as it will be will still have Noise Marines and Emperor's Children baked in, so it's not fully 'undivided' and won't be until Emperor's Children gets their own thing.

And even if it does, Chaos Marines doesn't represent all the other forms of chaos, like renegades and heretics, which SHOULD be its own thing.

For GW to apply AoS logic to 40k would bean that the Chaos Daemons would each be baked into their respective Chaos Marine Codex (Nurgle Daemons in Death Guard, etc), and then have a Renegades and Heretics book that has everything from Cultists to Traitor Guard to Chaos Marines filling out the 'undivided' (just like they have cultists, marauders, and chaos knights in AoS)

Trouble with that is the same issue someone has in AoS when they want to play multiple gods: they need multiple dexes, which just gets cumbersome FAST if you want to do undivided chaos daemons.

It's a mess, and not one that I would want to be in charge of handling, because no matter what you do, people won't be happy. Either you keep everything in one book and have a bunch of arbitrary 'fluffy' rules that strips synergy out of the entire faction, or you break it all up long-term, making people with undivided armies have to buy 4x the number of books to play the same army.

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

Not giving Furies an undivided mark instead of making them god aligned was such a mistake. Their whole shtick is supposed to be that their unaligned scavengers instead of any major force of Chaos.

Voss wrote:
Ah. Its a design philosophy thing for me.

Rules that are 'I counter your thing (if you have that thing to counter)' are a waste most of the time (unless its really common). I hate that concept, simply because you're paying at least an opportunity cost for something that may not even matter.

This definitely irks me too. I'd have preferred that the rule is to ignore the first negative modifier to hit and that we had more negative modifiers + more units with a higher BS/WS instead of the GW coward way of not exploring more values.

drbored wrote:
Trouble with that is the same issue someone has in AoS when they want to play multiple gods: they need multiple dexes, which just gets cumbersome FAST if you want to do undivided chaos daemons.

There isn't soup in AoS, so those would be separate armies. No different than a player needing two Codex in order to have an Ork army and a Necron army. The bonuses assigned to mono-faction detatchments and from army purity in 40k are all rolled into army choice in AoS. To translate, if 40k worked like AoS currently does;

-One codex each for DG+DoN, TS+DoT, WE+DoK, EC+DoS. Each of these has a set of bonuses army-wide that apply to both the marine and daemon portions.
-If someone wants to run just marines or just daemons from the above they can, though it is more of a narrative choice and isn't quite as effective due to loss of options.
-If someone wants to add in a handful of units from another god they can (as long as it isn't an opposed god) but those units are allies--they do not get the army-wide bonuses of the codex being used, nor any of the army-wide bonuses from their own codex (on the other hand, they do not disrupt any sort of purity bonus either). All a player needs to do this is the (free in the app) dataslates because...
-A given army only gets one codex of detachment/purity bonuses, artifacts, stratagems, etc. Campaign books may still add to it, but there is no way to be getting bonuses from (and thus never any requirement for) multiple army books. Though 40k's codex supplements would be the exception here (AoS has no equivalent).
-Fully mixed-god armies are still a thing but only through Be'Lakor's special army rules (which replace those from a Codex).
-CSM would be more or less the same, the cult-specific units would be stripped out but still usable via allies (as above) and vice versa.
-Traitor Guard would be their own codex. (In AoS generic Chaos mortals are all in one book but AoS has no equivalent to CSM; the beefy Chaos dudes were once regular humans that have accumulated gifts over long service to the dark gods. What AoS does have is an equivalent on the opposite side; Stormcast are humans who have been remade and 'upgraded' to super-human levels. And they are a different book than the normal human factions, though each has the ability to take a limited quantity of units from the other.)

Don't know how much sense that all makes, hope someone finds it helpful


Automatically Appended Next Post:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Voss wrote:
Ah. Its a design philosophy thing for me.

Rules that are 'I counter your thing (if you have that thing to counter)' are a waste most of the time (unless its really common). I hate that concept, simply because you're paying at least an opportunity cost for something that may not even matter.

This definitely irks me too. I'd have preferred that the rule is to ignore the first negative modifier to hit and that we had more negative modifiers + more units with a higher BS/WS instead of the GW coward way of not exploring more values.

There is some hope here; with AoS 3rd edition they also adopted a limitation on bonuses/penalties to hit/wound/saves, but they counterbalanced it quite well by handing out those bonuses and penalties more freely. For example; stacking two -1 to hit bonuses will never give an enemy -2, but since everyone has ready access to +1 to hit it remains a relevant tactic without being oppressive.*

*There is some debate about stacked bonuses to saves being a problem (or an asset, opinions vary) but that gets into gameplay dynamics different from 40k.

 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.

I don't entirely disagree with you, but each mono god has more none foregworld kits than Harlequins and comes close to Grey Knights.

Tzeentch has
Kairos
Lord of Change
Daemon Prince
Herald
Herald on Disc
Herald on Chariot
Blue Scribes
Changeling
Horrors
Exalted Flamer
Flamers
Screamers
Burning Chariot

The problem is two-fold.

First, they've put 8 of those datasheets into the HQ slot, 1 troops, 2 elite, 1 fast attack, 1 heavy and then they've made the rules far too similar to each other. Exalted Flamer, Flamers, Burning Chariot are all very similar. Horrors aren't much different and then most of the HQs do almost exactly the same thing. The Changeling is supposedly a galactic master of manipulation, deceit and misdirection, he/she/it should be a Callidus Assassin on steroids. Lord of Change - 2 casts... I weep.

Second, the 8th edition Daemons codex is terrible, each datasheet is so bland. Flamers and Exalted Flamers have no special rules, Screamers have one special rule and it is the worst implemented "fly over and do mortals ability" you can write, Burning Chariot like the other flamers has no special rules relating to flames, doesn't have the Screamers special rule (despite having two) but instead gets one of the weakest anti psyker rules (if you pay points for it). Lord of Change, longer range smites. the Heralds, in a way the +1S locus is actually just taking 1 strength off all the other datasheets then putting it here.

There is a huge amount of design space to write a very good four god Daemon codex. Even the GW clowns should be able to significantly improve on 8th edition. Also, assuming they stick with their current design philosophy I am looking forward to my Assault 3 S5 AP1 Pink Horrors that cost 10 points.

Daemons need a ground up rewrite to change how they work.

Greater Daemons in particular need a way to survive the insane high damage meta.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

That's not the person you asked though LOL

I fully agree with Chaos0xomega on this.

Also Daemons having a separate codex makes WAY more sense than 4-5 Marine codices.

In a sense that they have their own units, but thematically it is still weird. And the daemons have not enough units for properly functioning monogod armies. It just makes more sense if mortal followers of god X and daemons of god X are the same army. The most likely occurrence of daemons is them being summoned by mortal chaos adherents, so separating these in two different forces makes little sense.

 Crimson wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Also Daemons having a separate codex makes WAY more sense than 4-5 Marine codices.

In a sense that they have their own units, but thematically it is still weird. And the daemons have not enough units for properly functioning monogod armies. It just makes more sense if mortal followers of god X and daemons of god X are the same army. The most likely occurrence of daemons is them being summoned by mortal chaos adherents, so separating these in two different forces makes little sense.

Ah, so exactly how it works in AoS? Because it works well there, but only because there's much more actual mono-god non-daemon units in AoS than in 40k. I mean compare what non-daemon units Khorne or Slaanesh get in 40k vs AoS, there's no competition there, GW really needs to flesh out World Eaters and Emperor's Children. And Thousand Sons, hopefully.

Personally speaking, I always preferred daemons as an add on to CSM. I can get behind them having one single and seperate codex as then they can be played a standalone pure daemons army too but only so long as they can be summoned/used in any CSM army without removing mono-faction bonus'. The iidea of having a god specific book annoys me in the same way as we have all these new supplements and DG/TS codexs. It's just a money grab for what CSM 3.5 codex proved could be done in one book.

For 9th the ships has sailed, but for next edition I'd like them to throw out god-specific books with the relevant CSM, Daemons, mortals and Knights (just 1 profile for the small and the larger one, focus on allying 1 marked knight to your force).

Then put a Daemon incursion detachment in a WD/CA/campaign book (or, let's wishlist here, as a free download on warcom) that allows for a mixed daemon army so players who collected a mix of daemons don't need 4 books to play.

The other problem with Mono-god codexes is that it leaves Word Bearers alone and confused, and they have as strong if not arguably stronger ties to daemons than even the 4 Cult Legions

They should do Daemons exactly like they did Harlis in the new Eldar book:

You can bring them without breaking your "purity" bonus, but they can exist as a standalone force just as well.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They should do Daemons exactly like they did Harlis in the new Eldar book:

You can bring them without breaking your "purity" bonus, but they can exist as a standalone force just as well.

Yeah, completely agreed.

 Crimson wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

That's not the person you asked though LOL

I fully agree with Chaos0xomega on this.

Also Daemons having a separate codex makes WAY more sense than 4-5 Marine codices.

In a sense that they have their own units, but thematically it is still weird. And the daemons have not enough units for properly functioning monogod armies. It just makes more sense if mortal followers of god X and daemons of god X are the same army. The most likely occurrence of daemons is them being summoned by mortal chaos adherents, so separating these in two different forces makes little sense.

Custodes have 2 HQ, 1 Troop, 1 Fast Attack, 4 Elites, and 1 Heavy Support barring FW. That's enough for a codex. Harlequins have even less.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They should do Daemons exactly like they did Harlis in the new Eldar book:

You can bring them without breaking your "purity" bonus, but they can exist as a standalone force just as well.

I was going to suggest the same thing. You can have a X Daemon detachment that doesn't break your purity bonus if your army includes only X units. CSM Legions that don't have a fixed mark can bring a Chaos Daemon detachment without breaking their purity bonus but can only bring units that match Marks in their list, unless they have no marks at all (or Chaos Undivided if that comes back). These rules exist in Codex Chaos Daemons just like the rules for Agent of the Imperium exist in their rules.

So your Thousand Sons can also have a Tzeetch Daemon detachment. Your World Eaters can have a Khorne Daemon detachment. Your World Bearers army can have all sorts of daemons in their Chaos Daemons detachment.

Pure Chaos Daemon armies have a Chaos Incursion purity ability. It is not anything like the Warp Storm ability of yesteryear. Detachments in that army have detachment abilities that are either allegiance based if all of one allegiance or a different Chaos Undivided bonus for a mixed detachment. Detachment abilities are retained when allied into CSM armies.

Having Daemons act like Travelling Players would be the ideal solution however unlike Travelling Players it would absolutely need a points requirement/limit.

The lack of either is a very real issue with the implementation of mixed Aeldari armies right now and one which I don't think should be replicated.

 Bosskelot wrote:
Having Daemons act like Travelling Players would be the ideal solution however unlike Travelling Players it would absolutely need a points requirement/limit.

The lack of either is a very real issue with the implementation of mixed Aeldari armies right now and one which I don't think should be replicated.

I get that Harlequins have a totally borked balance, but I disagree that you should be forced to have small Harlies/Daemons with a larger force of Eldar/CSM.

What's wrong with a Sorcerer, a Dark Apostle, their Chosen bodyguards, and a small force of Cultists leading a true Daemonic horde?

I was really hoping that they'd actually fix summoning. It used to be a viable option. But seeing as how Incursion isn't one of the powers available to the MoP in the rumours, it looks like it might not be an option at all.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

That's not the person you asked though LOL

I fully agree with Chaos0xomega on this.

Also Daemons having a separate codex makes WAY more sense than 4-5 Marine codices.

In a sense that they have their own units, but thematically it is still weird. And the daemons have not enough units for properly functioning monogod armies. It just makes more sense if mortal followers of god X and daemons of god X are the same army. The most likely occurrence of daemons is them being summoned by mortal chaos adherents, so separating these in two different forces makes little sense.

Custodes have 2 HQ, 1 Troop, 1 Fast Attack, 4 Elites, and 1 Heavy Support barring FW. That's enough for a codex. Harlequins have even less.

The problem is a lot of those demon units do the exact same thing. There's very little role-diversity within each God's own force, and when there is diversity GW tends to penalise them so they aren't as good or efficient as that of the god whose toes are being stepped on.

Each god's daemons weren't designed to work on their own, their concepts and roles were put together within the context of mixed-god armies being the way the army was supposed to work. Even if that concept has changed, the fundamental design features of each god's lineup being specialized and having deliberate weaknessess are still there.

EightFoldPath wrote:

 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.

I don't entirely disagree with you, but each mono god has more none foregworld kits than Harlequins and comes close to Grey Knights.

Tzeentch has
Kairos
Lord of Change
Daemon Prince
Herald
Herald on Disc
Herald on Chariot
Blue Scribes
Changeling
Horrors
Exalted Flamer
Flamers
Screamers
Burning Chariot

The problem is two-fold.

First, they've put 8 of those datasheets into the HQ slot, 1 troops, 2 elite, 1 fast attack, 1 heavy and then they've made the rules far too similar to each other. Exalted Flamer, Flamers, Burning Chariot are all very similar. Horrors aren't much different and then most of the HQs do almost exactly the same thing. The Changeling is supposedly a galactic master of manipulation, deceit and misdirection, he/she/it should be a Callidus Assassin on steroids. Lord of Change - 2 casts... I weep.

Second, the 8th edition Daemons codex is terrible, each datasheet is so bland. Flamers and Exalted Flamers have no special rules, Screamers have one special rule and it is the worst implemented "fly over and do mortals ability" you can write, Burning Chariot like the other flamers has no special rules relating to flames, doesn't have the Screamers special rule (despite having two) but instead gets one of the weakest anti psyker rules (if you pay points for it). Lord of Change, longer range smites. the Heralds, in a way the +1S locus is actually just taking 1 strength off all the other datasheets then putting it here.

There is a huge amount of design space to write a very good four god Daemon codex. Even the GW clowns should be able to significantly improve on 8th edition. Also, assuming they stick with their current design philosophy I am looking forward to my Assault 3 S5 AP1 Pink Horrors that cost 10 points.

Daemon are very HQ heavy but the mono-god roster is pretty easy to fix. First take a page from their first codex and make Daemon Princes heavy support again. They created fluff to support it before with true neverborne despising ascended mortals, just bring it back. Then the Herald on Disc can go to fast attack, the Herald on Chariot and Exalted Flamer can go to elites. Taking another page from the 4th edition codex chariots need to be seriously buffed. Taking a Herald on a chariot back then was nearly as powerful as taking a Greater Daemon. For the lesser chariots allow them to be taken in units of 2-3. Then its just a matter or either giving units daemonic gifts to makeup for specific weakness. Daemons don't have much wargear besides hand weapons; but no new models or conversion are needed to represent any additions. Either make them upgrades available on their datasheets to limit them; or make a list for players to choose from. Psychic powers/Khornate Prayers need to be more powerful. Other Psykers use the warp, but daemons are the warp. They need to either know more spells, or be able to cast or deny more spells. Maybe go back to units of lesser daemons count as Psykers again.

Give the Greater Daemon a 4++ save, and innate damage reduction to help against all the rules out there that can shutdown invulnerable saves. Throw in the piercing and sweeping attacks they be granting lately and their set. For troops just make an "exalted" variant for each lesser daemon. It wouldn't take much +1A/+1W/+1LD and and extra ability or two. Finally bring over the remain AOS daemons over to 40K. They already brought Horticulous Slimux and Syll'Esske over so why not the Gaunt Summoners and the Slaanesh Twins?

We don't need rules negating thr negation of Invul. We need no negation of Invul to begin with, or at least total negation.