Chaos Daemons codex, news and rumours

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.

**Voss**

Honestly, the soul grinder (and the despoiler its based on) are one of the first models I'd update. They're both terrible, clunky and out of scale.

**Gratlugg**

Maybe we're all counting different but 56 looks like the exact count of extant kits, not including anything new, unless they collapsed Bloodthirstiest into one entry.

Pretty wildly disappointed, I was really hoping the twins would port since Syll'Esske did.

Man maybe I should just drop Chaos completely.

**ArcaneHorror**

I think that the Soul Grinder looks fine, the upper half is especially quite well done. In an ideal world, we would get a Ku'gath model, but we'll probably get a plastic version of one of the old resin.

**Rydria**

The Bloodthister could easily be 1 datasheet with weapon options instead of 3 different datasheets.

**BorderCountess**

Rydria wrote:
The Bloodthister could easily be 1 datasheet with weapon options instead of 3 different datasheets.

I went through the app earlier today and between the current codex, PE: Engine War, and Be'lakor, I counted 58. My guess - and hope - is that they condensed the Bloodthirsters into one sheet.

**warmaster21**

Voss wrote:

Feels a bit weird to me. The layout suggests a fifth figure (in the upper right) which implies a fifth god (the shadow suggests Belakor, not fanfic boy that was never in 40k), and the plaguebearer-that-looks-like-a-daemonette shouldn't really be the central figure.

Malice, poor chaos god lost and forgotten to time

**Rydria**

Went threw the webstore for all the daemons in 40k/age of sigmar this is what i found

Spoiler:

**ArcaneHorror**

warmaster21 wrote:
Voss wrote:

Feels a bit weird to me. The layout suggests a fifth figure (in the upper right) which implies a fifth god (the shadow suggests Belakor, not fanfic boy that was never in 40k), and the plaguebearer-that-looks-like-a-daemonette shouldn't really be the central figure.

Malice, poor chaos god lost and forgotten to time

Malice definitely needs to be brought back into the mainstream of 40k, along with rules for the Sons of Malice, although I think that he should be given a different name. I read that the Mirror of Hate subfaction in the Daemons of the Ruinstorm army seems to reflect Malice.

As to the rules concerning Tzeentch shooting, the shooting power for them definitely needs to be taken up, as you don't want most of them to get into melee. Also, I would love to see the exalted daemons rules to be applied to lesser daemon units as well, reflecting the mechanics in the new Total War game, where you can pay to upgrade them.

**H.B.M.C.**

ArcaneHorror wrote:
Malice definitely needs to be brought back into the mainstream of 40k, along with rules for the Sons of Malice, although I think that he should be given a different name. I read that the Mirror of Hate subfaction in the Daemons of the Ruinstorm army seems to reflect Malice.

We just had a Chaos Codex that managed to take away more than it gave, so I doubt that we'd be getting anything new for them like that, especially with a legally questionable add-on like Malal.

**ArcaneHorror**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
ArcaneHorror wrote:
Malice definitely needs to be brought back into the mainstream of 40k, along with rules for the Sons of Malice, although I think that he should be given a different name. I read that the Mirror of Hate subfaction in the Daemons of the Ruinstorm army seems to reflect Malice.
We just had a Chaos Codex that managed to take away more than it gave, so I doubt that we'd be getting anything new for them like that, especially with a legally questionable add-on like Malal.

Much of what was lost in the CSM codex was due to the lack of certain models and weapons options in stock. Chaos Daemons don't suffer from any of that. Also, while Malal is not canon, Malice is, though he's not mentioned often, and the Sons of Malice are mentioned both in the novel Cadia Stands and in Battlefleet Gothic II.

**Mchagen**

ArcaneHorror wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
ArcaneHorror wrote:
Malice definitely needs to be brought back into the mainstream of 40k, along with rules for the Sons of Malice, although I think that he should be given a different name. I read that the Mirror of Hate subfaction in the Daemons of the Ruinstorm army seems to reflect Malice.
We just had a Chaos Codex that managed to take away more than it gave, so I doubt that we'd be getting anything new for them like that, especially with a legally questionable add-on like Malal.

Much of what was lost in the CSM codex was due to the lack of certain models and weapons options in stock. Chaos Daemons don't suffer from any of that. Also, while Malal is not canon, Malice is, though he's not mentioned often, and the Sons of Malice are mentioned both in the novel Cadia Stands and in Battlefleet Gothic II.

Much of what was lost in the CSM codex was due to sheer incompetence.

There's little chance anything major will be added to this book, but I do expect some heavy changes/updates to some of the datasheets. I'd like to see Daemons return to a more elite army as some have speculated previously.

**chaos0xomega**

Voss wrote:
Honestly, the soul grinder (and the despoiler its based on) are one of the first models I'd update. They're both terrible, clunky and out of scale.

You mean Defiler, not Despoiler. Don't see how they are out of scale, the Soul Grinder is a great sculpt, but in any case the Soul Grinder is still a fairly modern kit, don't see that being redone anytime soon.

The Defiler on the other hand...

**H.B.M.C.**

Faced with the prospect of keeping the Defiler or getting more Dinobots, I'll keep the Defiler.

**EviscerationPlague**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Faced with the prospect of keeping the Defiler or getting more Dinobots, I'll keep the Defiler.

The Dinobots are amazing, and I want a Sauropod transport one. I will die on this hill.

**Voss**

chaos0xomega wrote:
Voss wrote:
Honestly, the soul grinder (and the despoiler its based on) are one of the first models I'd update. They're both terrible, clunky and out of scale.

You mean Defiler, not Despoiler. Don't see how they are out of scale, the Soul Grinder is a great sculpt, but in any case the Soul Grinder is still a fairly modern kit, don't see that being redone anytime soon.

The Defiler on the other hand...

I think D-word robot names ran into Warjack names and just sort of short-circuited. But yeah, defiler.

As to the out-of-scale, I'm going partially on the venomcrawler (which I like a lot more and is far more sensible in size) and experience when kit-bashing defilers into a brass scorpion. Going through the bits box, the weapons from the defiler kit (autocannons, heavy flamers, and the terrible flail) really stood out as over-sized.
It matters less these days, but in the era before knights and all that junk, the sheer size of that kit (and so also soulgrinders) really stood out compared to other vehicles .

H.B.M.C. wrote:Faced with the prospect of keeping the Defiler or getting more Dinobots, I'll keep the Defiler.

That's a weird false dichotomy to stand up for, but ok.

**Rydria**

Nurglings are no longer available online on GW webstore and it doesn't say temporally out of stock (UK) so perhaps Nurglings are either getting axed or are getting a new kit ?

**Sasori**

Rydria wrote:
Nurglings are no longer available online on GW webstore and it doesn't say temporally out of stock (UK) so perhaps Nurglings are either getting axed or are getting a new kit ?

They are just getting the updated packaging. GW doesn't axe new plastic kits.

**H.B.M.C.**

You really think they'd axe Nurglings?

Voss wrote:
That's a weird false dichotomy to stand up for, but ok.

Is it? Forgefiend, Maulderfiend, Helstalker, Heldrake and the Venomcrawler. They're all more Daemon Engine than Daemon Engine, and share no aesthetic similarities (beyond spikes/arrows) with the Defiler. So yes, given one or the other, I'll take the one that looks like a vehicle created to house a Daemon, rather than a Daemon that looks a bit like a robot.

**dan2026**

Why are people thinking Furies have been dropped from the book?

**Not Online!!!**

EviscerationPlague wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
Faced with the prospect of keeping the Defiler or getting more Dinobots, I'll keep the Defiler.

The Dinobots are amazing, and I want a Sauropod transport one. I will die on this hill.

Please no, can't we have more demon engines along the line of the defiler and Decimator. Especially a plastic decimator?

**Dysartes**

Rydria wrote:
Went threw the webstore for all the daemons in 40k/age of sigmar this is what i found

Spoiler:

1. lord of change
2. great unclean one
3. keeper of secrets
4. bloodthister
5. kairos
6. heralf of slaanesh {finecast}
7. pox bringer
8. Bloodmaster
9. The masque
10. spoilpox scrivener
11. sloppity bilepiper
12. the changeling
13. karanak
14. skulltaker
15. Bloodthrone
16. infernal enrapturess
17. herald of khorne on juggernaut [finecast]
18. fluxmaster
19. daemon prince
20. fateskimmer
21. epidemius {finecast}
22. syll'esske
23. horticulous slimux
24. skarbrand
25. rotigus
26. the blue scribes {finecast/temp out of stockl}
27. flamers
28. exalted flamer
29. beast of nurgle
30. bloodcrushers
31. brimstone/blue horrors
32. daemonettes
33. bloodletters
34. plaguebearers
35. pink horrors
36. nurglings [no longer available online}
37. seekers
38. seeker chariot
39. screamers
40. skull cannon
41. feculent gnarlmaw
42. burning chariot
43. flesh hounds
44. fiends
45. soul grinder
46. plague drones {temp out of stock}
47. Shalaxi Helbane
48. Exalted seeker chariot
49. Hellflayer
50. Be'lakor
51. contorted epitome
52. Furies
53. Dexcessa [Aos only]
54. synessa [Aos only]
55. gaunt summoner [Aos only)
56. Herald of slaanesh chariot [Aos only]
57. Herald of slaanesh exalted seeker chariot [Aos only]

Put the big list in a spoiler to save space...

I fully agree on 1-52 being in the book. We'll probably still see the Bloodthirster as 3 datasheets (taking the count to 54), but I'm not convinced they'll split the Horror datasheet, which would merge 31 & 35 on your list, dropping us back to 53.

Someone else said their count was already at 56 - what am I missing here?

**Malika2**

Will there be any new models?

**Dysartes**

Malika2 wrote:
Will there be any new models?

I would imagine there is at least one new sculpt, but whether it is a new datasheet or not is anyone's guess at this point.

**charles_the_dead_lizzard**

I wish GW would finally provide some new Deamon Models, especially some suited more for 40k. The new Thirster for HH is a missed opportunity for an awesome plastic sculpt btw. I would almost expect them to transfer the new named Keepers from AoS to 40k with the Codex. But to be honest I see little to no odds for really new sculpts in near future, alone because they need to weite and balance them for both, AoS and 40k, which are designed by different teams iirc.

**Mothman**

To be honest the actual new daemon releases should be boxs of 10 new basic daemons with an upgrade sprue to make them exalted versions like total war where they just give upgraded heads. Option to exalt any unit as a points upgrade would give a little more interest in how you build the army

The core issue with the model line is boring base units (the daemonettes being hyper static is their main issue), maybe they could also fix it by doing 4 underworlds warbands with 1 herald +5 daemons with varied poses to help break up the units.

I would love the twins to be ported over but doubt they will, chaos feels like its being rushed out door to get back to other stuff. As for them being AOS, syllesske was an AoS character and still was ported over.

**Fayric**

I would love to se more daemon engines for chaos daemons -as a posibility to get unalligned units that work for any daemon army.
Lore for the mysterious masters of the daemon forges, that trick banished daemons to accept an eternity as slaves, trapped in daemon engines as a quick way to get remanifested in realspace is worth expanding on I think.

Edit: one of the biggest problem with chaos daemons is that its basicly 4 minor armies with just a handfull of units each. Need more units that dont have a fixed patron god.

**Geifer**

Mothman wrote:
To be honest the actual new daemon releases should be boxs of 10 new basic daemons with an upgrade sprue to make them exalted versions like total war where they just give upgraded heads. Option to exalt any unit as a points upgrade would give a little more interest in how you build the army

The core issue with the model line is boring base units (the daemonettes being hyper static is their main issue), maybe they could also fix it by doing 4 underworlds warbands with 1 herald +5 daemons with varied poses to help break up the units.

I would love the twins to be ported over but doubt they will, chaos feels like its being rushed out door to get back to other stuff. As for them being AOS, syllesske was an AoS character and still was ported over.

I don't think writing one or two datasheets for the twins is such a problem that it would prevent their inclusion. Approaching it from the other side, GW isn't going to make any new models for Daemons, so if they port over the twins, they can still advertise them as new models because they haven't been in 40k before.

I don't see why they wouldn't port them over, to be honest.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fayric wrote:
Edit: one of the biggest problem with chaos daemons is that its basicly 4 minor armies with just a handfull of units each. Need more units that dont have a fixed patron god.

The problem is that GW should just get over themselves and write mixed mortal and Daemon codices for each god like they do in AoS. Splitting off Daemons was a mistake for exactly that reason. The Daemon bestiary for each god was never meant to stand on its own like that.

**Fayric**

Geifer wrote:
Mothman wrote:
To be honest the actual new daemon releases should be boxs of 10 new basic daemons with an upgrade sprue to make them exalted versions like total war where they just give upgraded heads. Option to exalt any unit as a points upgrade would give a little more interest in how you build the army

The core issue with the model line is boring base units (the daemonettes being hyper static is their main issue), maybe they could also fix it by doing 4 underworlds warbands with 1 herald +5 daemons with varied poses to help break up the units.

I would love the twins to be ported over but doubt they will, chaos feels like its being rushed out door to get back to other stuff. As for them being AOS, syllesske was an AoS character and still was ported over.

I don't think writing one or two datasheets for the twins is such a problem that it would prevent their inclusion. Approaching it from the other side, GW isn't going to make any new models for Daemons, so if they port over the twins, they can still advertise them as new models because they haven't been in 40k before.

I don't see why they wouldn't port them over, to be honest.

I didnt see any reason why they would not bring Gaunt Summoner over to 40k, but its been a while, and I still have to use it as a herald. Anyway, the named daemons have really awfull data sheets so perhaps its just as well.

**Geifer**

If I recall correctly the Gaunt Summoner after its introduction in Silver Tower was put in the Everchosen faction before it got put in the Tzeentch book.Whereas, as mentioned in a post above, the new daemonic Slaanesh models were ported immediately(ish) after they came out for Hedonites.

Perhaps that's how GW sees it, Gaunt Summoner as a councilor to Archaon and therefore fully an AoS model whereas the new Slaanesh Daemons were always meant to be dual system.

Granted, that's a bit of wishful thinking because I want Slaanesh to get as much attention as possible.

**blood reaper**

I really dislike the idea a surprisingly large selection of people have of forcing Daemons players to lose their armies so people can go back to this sort of asinine "Actually, Daemons HAVE to have mortal followers around with them" idea. There certainly should be more rules for mixing Daemons and mortals, but pure Daemon lists should be an option, and should not be lost. Likewise, Undivided Daemon Hordes should not be scrapped either.