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.

 Rihgu wrote:
I've never met a Thousand Sons player who is thrilled to use Tzaangors, which is to say...

making Daemons players seek out non-daemon units seems like a terrible thing.

Just like making a Khorne Daemons player seek out non-Khorne Daemons seems like a terrible thing.

If the faction identity is being 6 datasheets and all of them only doing exactly one thing, I'd say the faction identity is bad and definitely *needs* to be "watered down".

I started back in 3rd and my recollection of daemons is:

3.5 - bundled with same god mortals as a theme or undivided
4th - undivided was promoted
6th - undivided was promoted
8th - monogod or multiple detachments was forced upon people
9th - monogod or multiple detachments forced upon people

There has been a shift in design and in reality if you choose to ignore 3/4 of a codex, maybe you should have restricted options?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


Redundancy is fine, literally filling the intentional voids in an army, i.e. khorne is melee with little range/staying power, Tzeentch is ranged/magic and rubbish in melee etc. is bad and waters down identity. So bolter bloodletters or greatsword horrors don't belong imo. If they should exist then it should be as plug-ins from their gods mortal units for the most part.

khorne already has the best long-range shooting of all 4 gods...

tzeentch already has melee-only units...

yes, you should be able to have mortal followers (not just CSM) for every god, but that doesnt mean the army wouldnt feel appropriate.

Look at AoS, every god has melee AND shooty options, yet they all play very differently from one another and feel like youre truly playing a Khorne/Nurgle/tzeentch/slaanesh army

Tzeentch has screamers for melee but they're also harrying fast units, Khorne has 1 shooting unit in the skull cannon which originally came in as an attempt to gift them frag grenades for charging and had strong melee rules. They have a minimal presence of the other for each god which is fine but doesn't need expanding imo.

Dudeface wrote:

Redundancy is fine, literally filling the intentional voids in an army, i.e. khorne is melee with little range/staying power, Tzeentch is ranged/magic and rubbish in melee etc. is bad and waters down identity. So bolter bloodletters or greatsword horrors don't belong imo. If they should exist then it should be as plug-ins from their gods mortal units for the most part.

Fine.remove all guns from melee marines and melee units from shooty marines then.

And don't you even dare to think about taking non-aspects in biel-tan. Non-wraith in iyanden etc.

And thousand sons should have any non-psychic removed.

 Rihgu wrote:
I've never met a Thousand Sons player who is thrilled to use Tzaangors, which is to say...

making Daemons players seek out non-daemon units seems like a terrible thing.

Just like making a Khorne Daemons player seek out non-Khorne Daemons seems like a terrible thing.

If the faction identity is being 6 datasheets and all of them only doing exactly one thing, I'd say the faction identity is bad and definitely *needs* to be "watered down".

i used to think this until i started playing AoS, a well made "Monogod" codex feels suuuuper fluffy and amazingly fun to play. It's a shame the 40k and AoS teams don't seem to talk to each other at all

Dudeface wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:
I've never met a Thousand Sons player who is thrilled to use Tzaangors, which is to say...

making Daemons players seek out non-daemon units seems like a terrible thing.

Just like making a Khorne Daemons player seek out non-Khorne Daemons seems like a terrible thing.

If the faction identity is being 6 datasheets and all of them only doing exactly one thing, I'd say the faction identity is bad and definitely *needs* to be "watered down".

I started back in 3rd and my recollection of daemons is:

3.5 - bundled with same god mortals as a theme or undivided
4th - undivided was promoted
6th - undivided was promoted
8th - monogod or multiple detachments was forced upon people
9th - monogod or multiple detachments forced upon people

There has been a shift in design and in reality if you choose to ignore 3/4 of a codex, maybe you should have restricted options?

If it's being force upon me what choice am I making, and if I'm not making said choice why should my options be restricted? And why is this problem unique to daemons?

Why are Aeldari not forced to play with 1/4th of a codex and then given extremely limited options?

In your mind, if Khorne were given a new unit (are they even allowed to, in this world view?) is that unit supposed to be just... another melee unit? Talk about redundancy... I'm Khorne, so I get 8 types of melee units!

IDK man, seems really boring, one-dimensional and stupid to be a daemons player, especially right now. Especially if they keep this terrible design paradigm. I can't even play my Undivided collection without Be'lakor, and if I take an Undivided army with Be'lakor I don't get the cool Warp Storm effects! Let Bloodletters have a gun, surely the psychic imprint of 40,000 years of *humanity* has left the impression of *guns* in the immaterium, as a weapon of war and bloodletting, that thing Khorne loves.

i used to think this until i started playing AoS, a well made "Monogod" codex feels suuuuper fluffy and amazingly fun to play. It's a shame the 40k and AoS teams don't seem to talk to each other at all

But in AoS you still have the choice of running monogod with mono-type (daemons, mortals), and some subfactions encourage that. There's also a lot of overlap between what mortal and daemon units are, usually.

 Rihgu wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:
I've never met a Thousand Sons player who is thrilled to use Tzaangors, which is to say...

making Daemons players seek out non-daemon units seems like a terrible thing.

Just like making a Khorne Daemons player seek out non-Khorne Daemons seems like a terrible thing.

If the faction identity is being 6 datasheets and all of them only doing exactly one thing, I'd say the faction identity is bad and definitely *needs* to be "watered down".

I started back in 3rd and my recollection of daemons is:

3.5 - bundled with same god mortals as a theme or undivided
4th - undivided was promoted
6th - undivided was promoted
8th - monogod or multiple detachments was forced upon people
9th - monogod or multiple detachments forced upon people

There has been a shift in design and in reality if you choose to ignore 3/4 of a codex, maybe you should have restricted options?

If it's being force upon me what choice am I making, and if I'm not making said choice why should my options be restricted? And why is this problem unique to daemons?

Why are Aeldari not forced to play with 1/4th of a codex and then given extremely limited options?

In your mind, if Khorne were given a new unit (are they even allowed to, in this world view?) is that unit supposed to be just... another melee unit? Talk about redundancy... I'm Khorne, so I get 8 types of melee units!

IDK man, seems really boring, one-dimensional and stupid to be a daemons player, especially right now. Especially if they keep this terrible design paradigm. I can't even play my Undivided collection without Be'lakor, and if I take an Undivided army with Be'lakor I don't get the cool Warp Storm effects! Let Bloodletters have a gun, surely the psychic imprint of 40,000 years of *humanity* has left the impression of *guns* in the immaterium, as a weapon of war and bloodletting, that thing Khorne loves.

i used to think this until i started playing AoS, a well made "Monogod" codex feels suuuuper fluffy and amazingly fun to play. It's a shame the 40k and AoS teams don't seem to talk to each other at all

But in AoS you still have the choice of running monogod with mono-type (daemons, mortals), and some subfactions encourage that. There's also a lot of overlap between what mortal and daemon units are, usually.

So which is it? Are you annoyed the 1/4 of the codex you're encouraged to use isn't a full army or are you annoyed the rules don't encourage you to use the full codex? "Make more units up" is not the answer to either of those, re-designing how the faction is handled is. But yes if a new Khorne daemon is introduced it should be melee oriented or supportive of melee units. A buff platform similar to the AoS warshrine might be good, failing that a big heavy hitter that isn't a blood thirster in the heavy slot, or maybe a jump unit. If you really wanted a ranged a unit a low shot high strength 18" elite infantry (which also happens to be handy in melee) that makes Khorne units get +1 to charge units wounded by the guns etc.

For what it's worth Drukhari are forced into 3 mini forces and they also generally dislike it, they just get round it easier. Other armies also exist with similar sized if not smaller rosters to khorne daemons, they jsut also happen to not have 3/4 of a codex they're not using alongside.

Are you annoyed the 1/4 of the codex you're encouraged to use isn't a full army or are you annoyed the rules don't encourage you to use the full codex?

Yes.

I'm advocating for both sides. Both are equally valid options.

 Rihgu wrote:

Are you annoyed the 1/4 of the codex you're encouraged to use isn't a full army or are you annoyed the rules don't encourage you to use the full codex?

Yes.

I'm advocating for both sides. Both are equally valid options.

You don't get or need both being the reality here and if you suggest "codex khorne daemons" needs to be a thing with a set of extra models, what would you introduce and what would the faction identity be given you're not a fan of rolling in WE.

 Rihgu wrote:

But in AoS you still have the choice of running monogod with mono-type (daemons, mortals), and some subfactions encourage that. There's also a lot of overlap between what mortal and daemon units are, usually.

yeah, which is what i meant. you get actual freedom.

Right now if i play Mono-Tzeentch in 40k its :

LoC (because nice centerpiece model thats also good)
Herald variation
DP
*optional extra character since i get like 2 spells to cast anyway

a few squads of horrors (blues because GW kneecapped pinks by not letting them split if the unit gets wiped -.-)

3 squads of flamers

3 squads of screamers

a mix of burning chariot/exalted flamers


and thats it, no more options. Adding TS + regular mortals to the faction would give me more choice (even if i personally would love to get more demonic units)

Dudeface wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:

Are you annoyed the 1/4 of the codex you're encouraged to use isn't a full army or are you annoyed the rules don't encourage you to use the full codex?

Yes.

I'm advocating for both sides. Both are equally valid options.

You don't get or need both being the reality here and if you suggest "codex khorne daemons" needs to be a thing with a set of extra models, what would you introduce and what would the faction identity be given you're not a fan of rolling in WE.

I would roll in WE options and also add a unit that is bloodletters with guns (bolter-like and melta/multi-melta-like). There would be clear options for playing specifically World Eaters, a mortal cult, daemons-only, and any combination there-of. The faction identity would be short-ranged bloody combat, which would not be destroyed by minor options for longer-ranged combat.

 Rihgu wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:

Are you annoyed the 1/4 of the codex you're encouraged to use isn't a full army or are you annoyed the rules don't encourage you to use the full codex?

Yes.

I'm advocating for both sides. Both are equally valid options.

You don't get or need both being the reality here and if you suggest "codex khorne daemons" needs to be a thing with a set of extra models, what would you introduce and what would the faction identity be given you're not a fan of rolling in WE.

I would roll in WE options and also add a unit that is bloodletters with guns (bolter-like and melta/multi-melta-like). There would be clear options for playing specifically World Eaters, a mortal cult, daemons-only, and any combination there-of. The faction identity would be short-ranged bloody combat, which would not be destroyed by minor options for longer-ranged combat.

That's OK if you accept khorne is going to want skulls and you shouldn't be able to make a daemons firebase of ranged units. Of they were primarily elites with a heavy variant for example that could work (in a world where you can't DIY a detachment anyway).

Dudeface wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:

Are you annoyed the 1/4 of the codex you're encouraged to use isn't a full army or are you annoyed the rules don't encourage you to use the full codex?

Yes.

I'm advocating for both sides. Both are equally valid options.

You don't get or need both being the reality here and if you suggest "codex khorne daemons" needs to be a thing with a set of extra models, what would you introduce and what would the faction identity be given you're not a fan of rolling in WE.

I would roll in WE options and also add a unit that is bloodletters with guns (bolter-like and melta/multi-melta-like). There would be clear options for playing specifically World Eaters, a mortal cult, daemons-only, and any combination there-of. The faction identity would be short-ranged bloody combat, which would not be destroyed by minor options for longer-ranged combat.

That's OK if you accept khorne is going to want skulls and you shouldn't be able to make a daemons firebase of ranged units. Of they were primarily elites with a heavy variant for example that could work (in a world where you can't DIY a detachment anyway).

Thank you for agreeing that it's fine and can work. I'm glad that we agree Khorne Daemons can be allowed a little firebase of ranged units, as a treat.

Apple fox wrote:
I think yes, and some more out of the box thinking.
There definitely needs to be more demon engines and things the different gods demons put together.
And the mortals that summon and are part of a demon invasion need to be there, without the marines.
And I think new infantry with a proper build option.
There should be a lot of mortals willing to give into chaos for power and favours as well, so I often think they need to expand what demon princes are.
Not everyone will be super powerful, and less powerful servants can still be useful to bring into the demon army’s.
also a good bridge for cultists army’s to have as a tougher but not full powerful unit.

Reading this reminds me of Chaos 3.5, where daemons had to have an anchor to summon them onto the battlefield. I do like the idea of a sub-faction bonus or... psuedo Rite-of-war where daemons, when summoned by mortals get a buff over regular deployment because they have a mortal anchor to realspace.

Put all of it into one book. CSMs, Daemons, Renegades and Heretics. Allow them all to mish-mash together like the Ruinous Powers intended.

Edit: Oh yeah, throw Beastmen in there too.

I’m really hoping vashtorr is the start of something beautiful with more realises for dark mechanicum coming and that army is a wonderful blend of man, machine and demon.

But yes more demons, it’s should be such a rich vein of creativity for GW and with half the galaxy gone dark there should be thousands of world becoming homes to demons of all sorts.

And while I’m at it more cultists

I'd really like customizable daemon rules. The faction is a converter's dream, so they should get rules to reflect that. Give us the option to create our own lesser/greater/etc Daemons, if they'd break matched play then just make em available for Narrative/Crusade.

Hive Fleet adaptations type of rules are a step in the right direction; just mutate those ideas for Daemons and build from there..

Have you ever seen the Ruinstorm Daemons for 30k? Its pretty much exactly what you are describing.
Units come in pretty generic profiles; 'Lesser', 'Greater', 'Beast' etc that define the stat profile, FOC slot and unit type. Then you can bolt on upgrades like claws, wings, shooting etc. And finally you layer on an army-wide lean for Khorne, Nurgle, Tzeentch, Slaanesh, Undivided or Malal.

It has yet to be rewritten for v2 but the first edition was great in concept. Not too sure how it was received in terms of balancing options.

Nope. We need fewer demons, not more. Making a WHFB army on round bases into a 40k army was a huge mistake by GW. It sucks for mechanics reasons, it sucks for lore reasons, and demons really need to go back to being a summoning option alongside marine and cultist/traitor forces.

Aecus Decimus wrote:
Nope. We need fewer demons, not more. Making a WHFB army on round bases into a 40k army was a huge mistake by GW. It sucks for mechanics reasons, it sucks for lore reasons, and demons really need to go back to being a summoning option alongside marine and cultist/traitor forces.

So CSM, of which there's a pretty limited amount, need their own Codex and massive model line... But Daemons, who can outnumber any Legion with their numbers on a single planet, don't?

If anything, we should make Space Marines and CSM a small supplement, that you can add on like a Knight to Loyalist or Chaos armies.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:
Nope. We need fewer demons, not more. Making a WHFB army on round bases into a 40k army was a huge mistake by GW. It sucks for mechanics reasons, it sucks for lore reasons, and demons really need to go back to being a summoning option alongside marine and cultist/traitor forces.

So CSM, of which there's a pretty limited amount, need their own Codex and massive model line... But Daemons, who can outnumber any Legion with their numbers on a single planet, don't?

If anything, we should make Space Marines and CSM a small supplement, that you can add on like a Knight to Loyalist or Chaos armies.

CSM have far fewer design issues than demons and lore-wise are far more likely to be found on a conventional battlefield fighting against other conventional armies.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:
Nope. We need fewer demons, not more. Making a WHFB army on round bases into a 40k army was a huge mistake by GW. It sucks for mechanics reasons, it sucks for lore reasons, and demons really need to go back to being a summoning option alongside marine and cultist/traitor forces.

So CSM, of which there's a pretty limited amount, need their own Codex and massive model line... But Daemons, who can outnumber any Legion with their numbers on a single planet, don't?

If anything, we should make Space Marines and CSM a small supplement, that you can add on like a Knight to Loyalist or Chaos armies.

CSM have far fewer design issues than demons and lore-wise are far more likely to be found on a conventional battlefield fighting against other conventional armies.

40k is about conventional armies now? I thought it was about things like sentient fungus that loves a good scrap, hypno-indoctrinated fanatical super soldiers, space elf clowns, and yes, daemons.

Edit: Also, you say they have design issues. One I can think of is, outside Tzeentch, basically no shooting.
You know what could fix that? Adding shooty daemons to other gods.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:
Nope. We need fewer demons, not more. Making a WHFB army on round bases into a 40k army was a huge mistake by GW. It sucks for mechanics reasons, it sucks for lore reasons, and demons really need to go back to being a summoning option alongside marine and cultist/traitor forces.

So CSM, of which there's a pretty limited amount, need their own Codex and massive model line... But Daemons, who can outnumber any Legion with their numbers on a single planet, don't?

If anything, we should make Space Marines and CSM a small supplement, that you can add on like a Knight to Loyalist or Chaos armies.

CSM have far fewer design issues than demons and lore-wise are far more likely to be found on a conventional battlefield fighting against other conventional armies.

40k is about conventional armies now? I thought it was about things like sentient fungus that loves a good scrap, hypno-indoctrinated fanatical super soldiers, space elf clowns, and yes, daemons.

Edit: Also, you say they have design issues. One I can think of is, outside Tzeentch, basically no shooting.
You know what could fix that? Adding shooty daemons to other gods.

We circle back to: "they're not supposed to be a shooting army by GW's vision and design" the design issues as above come from the ham-fisted awful implementation of "are we 1 army or 4?" that GW keep leaning on.

 JNAProductions wrote:
40k is about conventional armies now? I thought it was about things like sentient fungus that loves a good scrap, hypno-indoctrinated fanatical super soldiers, space elf clowns, and yes, daemons.

Orks are just an aesthetic re-skin of a conventional army. They have infantry, tanks, heavy weapon units, a conventional chain of command, etc. Same with marines, complete with literal Vietnam-era APCs painted with their chapter colors. Pure clown armies don't fit the theme but it's no coincidence that they have balance and design issues and should go back to being a single unit in the Eldar codex.

Edit: Also, you say they have design issues. One I can think of is, outside Tzeentch, basically no shooting.
You know what could fix that? Adding shooty daemons to other gods.

Or, instead of retconning the lore, just put them back into combined Chaos armies where it's ok if the demons don't have any shooting because they're a support element next to plenty of marines and/or cultists and traitors that can cover the shooting role. It worked fine that way in the past, before GW's sales department decided that "use your WHFB army in 40k too" would be a good selling point.

Having a ranged unit doesn’t mean it has to be particularly shooty.

Some kind of snot/bile/vomit beast for Nurgle fits. Think somewhere between a Biovore and Pyrovore, but grosser. Perhaps it just globs up terrain features, making them hostile or risky to enter. Keep the unit itself a wee bit fighty of course.

Tzeentch could be pinning, but little actual damage - a ranged option to affect enemy units in your favour.

Slaanesh? Not sure.

Khorne has its cannons, and for me those feel about enough. Though I stress I’m not personally talking rules, just cools.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Having a ranged unit doesn’t mean it has to be particularly shooty.

Some kind of snot/bile/vomit beast for Nurgle fits. Think somewhere between a Biovore and Pyrovore, but grosser.

Tzeentch could be pinning, but little actual damage - a ranged option to affect enemy units in your favour.

Slaanesh? Not sure.

Khorne has its cannons, and for me those feel about enough. Though I stress I’m not personally talking rules, just cools.

Yeah-I've suggested Nurgle Daemon units that are ranged, but not super killy. They inflict debuffs on the enemy, more than doing raw damage.

Which would be nice to see across the board, actually. Like with good morale rules.

I've long thought that something like the Slaanesh Chariots should have got some ranged guns ages ago as an upgrade (or just something to replace those insane whips). It's a fantastic model in AoS, but in 40K those chariots just feel so out of place without some kind of ranged or sci-fi feel to them.

I think we need undivided daemons, things that any of the forces can take that may get 'marks' or other god-specific upgrades to align them with that playstyle but otherwise are a little more flexible.

Soul grinders fit this, along with daemon princes, but it'd be nice to also see furies and a couple other things.

Do they need more? Well, honestly, my opinion is no, I think the chaos daemon line is one of the few lines that's mostly 'complete'. Someday I'm sure GW will replace the last resin bits and will update the core troops, and they'll fit in new characters and other models along the way, but 'need' is a strong word.

There could definitely be more daemons - just please, no more hqs or single model units. Make some actual boots on the ground for them. Throw all sorts of tropes in etc.

Say a unit like Ogre Leadbelchers for Khorne, bulky slow moving daemons that advance while showering their foes with a hail of fire. Or some doom-like techno daemons, technology fused with warp entities (I suppose Vastorr is going that angle, but on more than a single model and perhaps better executed). Throw in some biblical type angels as well, or oddly shaped/formed ones.

Allow for some exploration within the niches each god has - just because nurgle doesn't have any ranged elements doesn't mean it *shouldn't*. Plaguebearers already carry swords, so swapping them out for guns can be the most basic thing. You could also go with a living siege engine type thing similar to nids, with some daemonic entity firing plague flies, or noxious bile, etc.

Also I just feel it would be better to break from the tradition of all kits MUST be workable in both AOS and 40k. Let some of them be exclusive to one setting or the other, or at least provide options for both. I suppose that is more an aesthetics thing to me though, as I personally don't find it cool looking to see people charging tanks with chariots. Yes they are daemonic chariots with daemon riders, but the overall look of the interaction is more comical to me than anything to me.

I'd welcome some elite monsters akin to how Fleshhounds or Fiends work - so not the mass numbers of troops but not elite one off models, but I wouldn't be opposed to them.

I fully agree though - no more leaders! GW has loaded up AoS with MASSES of leader models.

I also think GW are breaking the AoS/40K reliance - AoS already has demonic leader models and infantry that don't cross over. There will still be cross overs and then there will be kits like the Prince that don't just cross over but have game specific optional parts.

Daemons shouldn't have bows, catapults, guns, vehicles or human-sized and shaped infantry or cavalry, it's too mundane. Expanding other options and phasing out the formerly mentioned types could take Daemons to a higher level.

 Overread wrote:
It's a fantastic model in AoS, but in 40K those chariots just feel so out of place without some kind of ranged or sci-fi feel to them.

Demons summed up perfectly in a single sentence.