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.

Soul Grinder is only 10-15 years old as well IIRC, but it seems like something that should be multi-kitable. Defiler though is what 20-25 years? Feels like it was already an old kit when I started 20 years ago.

Amen on the base though.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Crispy78 wrote:
Forge / Maulerfiend are only, what, 10 years old? Not sure they'll be in scope for replacement yet...

Yeah, and they look gooood.

Defiler (ideally with as a multikit for a Soul Grinder) NEEDS an update, make it fit with the other demon engines visually and get rid of that godawful "no base" style

The Defier remains the best of the plastic Daemon Engine line, IMHO. Could use a base though.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Soul Grinder is only 10-15 years old as well IIRC, but it seems like something that should be multi-kitable. Defiler though is what 20-25 years? Feels like it was already an old kit when I started 20 years ago.

Amen on the base though.

Isnt the soul grinder litterally just one sprue swap from the defiler?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

The Defier remains the best of the plastic Daemon Engine line, IMHO. Could use a base though.

well on THAT subject we have vastly different opinions then :p

Voss wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
More likely in the 11th ed. Codex they legend cut the Venomcrawler entirely.

Why? They had a phase of putting it in everything for a while and it's one of the better daemon engines in the range (sadly).

It needs a few options which has always been alluded to thanks to the random thorax hole that looks like a mounting point.

Same. I'd (at some point) expect a full kit and eventually a quiet retirement of the current dinobots and Defiler for models that are more in scale

If they stop producing the sprue it's on (maybe if they put out a proper Obliterator kit...) they'll drop it unceremoniously.

Not sure, been a long time sinceI built a Soul Grinder.

Agreed that the Defiler is the best Daemon Engine design (in plastic anyway). Its a thing of beauty (as long as its armed with a twin linked lascannon and a defiler scourge) and only needs a slight modernization and update to bring it up to par with more recent sculpts. That and a base.

Crispy78 wrote:
Forge / Maulerfiend are only, what, 10 years old? Not sure they'll be in scope for replacement yet...

Yes.

They are. Just as mutilators were.
For better daemonengines, look no further than the decimator, brass scorpions etc.

Too much flesh, too little cable.

And for the love of khorne redo the venomcrawler, to be sold separately and be lesh fleshy.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Not sure, been a long time sinceI built a Soul Grinder.

Agreed that the Defiler is the best Daemon Engine design (in plastic anyway). Its a thing of beauty (as long as its armed with a twin linked lascannon and a defiler scourge) and only needs a slight modernization and update to bring it up to par with more recent sculpts. That and a base.

I'd like to see them embrace their inner crab a bit more. Have it as a literal crab shaped engine thar scuttles sideways with loads of armour on top and I'll buy back into chaos.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Crispy78 wrote:
Forge / Maulerfiend are only, what, 10 years old? Not sure they'll be in scope for replacement yet...

Yes.

They are. Just as mutilators were.
For better daemonengines, look no further than the decimator, brass scorpions etc.

If you think that the Decimator is a great looking model..... :(

ccs wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Crispy78 wrote:
Forge / Maulerfiend are only, what, 10 years old? Not sure they'll be in scope for replacement yet...

Yes.

They are. Just as mutilators were.
For better daemonengines, look no further than the decimator, brass scorpions etc.

If you think that the Decimator is a great looking model..... :(

It's not bad looking and I'll take it over the helbrute, but it does show its age a little.

The old FW engines and the defiler are from a time when they were just ornate machines that looked other worldly and like they shouldn't work. It's only since 6th(?) That the daemon flesh-light-robots have become normal. But I don't think they're wrong either, it's just GW leaned a little too much on the toy/cartoon aesthetic, the nurgle drones both plastic and FW looked better as an example of that.

I suppose the LoS and PBC carry on the look of the machine engines though.

In terms of CSM I suspect we’ll get detachments for the non-mono-god legions. Ergo siege masters, terror legion, demon blessed, and lords of deception. I also wouldn’t be terribly surprised to see a cultist-horde focused detachment.

Personally, I find it interesting to think about what the mono god legions will get. Like, how do you get 6 different detachments for WE when they only have half a codex to begin with? T-sons already have a super thematic detachment, and while I can easily imagine one or two more (buffing psychic weapons, buffing rubrics), then what is there beyond that? Especially given, IIRC, we were told each codex would get 6 detachments.

EC at least seem to be the ‘easiest’ of the god-aligned legions to spread out. Their focus is simply obsession, so it’s not too difficult to parcel out different styles of warfare (melee, ranged, psychics, flanking / maneuver, overwhelming force) into the detachments.

Dudeface wrote:

ccs wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Crispy78 wrote:
Forge / Maulerfiend are only, what, 10 years old? Not sure they'll be in scope for replacement yet...

Yes.

They are. Just as mutilators were.
For better daemonengines, look no further than the decimator, brass scorpions etc.

If you think that the Decimator is a great looking model..... :(

It's not bad looking and I'll take it over the helbrute, but it does show its age a little.

It's age has nothing to do with it. It was just a "meh" sculpt the day it was released.
Now it's a discontinued "meh" sculpt.....

ccs wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

ccs wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Crispy78 wrote:
Forge / Maulerfiend are only, what, 10 years old? Not sure they'll be in scope for replacement yet...

Yes.

They are. Just as mutilators were.
For better daemonengines, look no further than the decimator, brass scorpions etc.

If you think that the Decimator is a great looking model..... :(

It's not bad looking and I'll take it over the helbrute, but it does show its age a little.

It's age has nothing to do with it. It was just a "meh" sculpt the day it was released.
Now it's a discontinued "meh" sculpt.....

It's not discontinued https://www.forgeworld.co.uk/en-GB/Chaos-Decimator-Daemon-Engine

Dudeface wrote:

ccs wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

ccs wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Crispy78 wrote:
Forge / Maulerfiend are only, what, 10 years old? Not sure they'll be in scope for replacement yet...

Yes.

They are. Just as mutilators were.
For better daemonengines, look no further than the decimator, brass scorpions etc.

If you think that the Decimator is a great looking model..... :(

It's not bad looking and I'll take it over the helbrute, but it does show its age a little.

It's age has nothing to do with it. It was just a "meh" sculpt the day it was released.
Now it's a discontinued "meh" sculpt.....

It's not discontinued https://www.forgeworld.co.uk/en-GB/Chaos-Decimator-Daemon-Engine

Huh, I wonder why it didn't come up when I looked earlier.
Oh well, still a "meh" sculpt.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Too much flesh, too little cable.

There are some people who like Daemon Engines*, and some people who like Daemon Engines**. Appears we are both the latter.

*Like the Dinobots.
**Like the Defiler.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Too much flesh, too little cable.

There are some people who like Daemon Engines*, and some people who like Daemon Engines**. Appears we are both the latter.

*Like the Dinobots.
**Like the Defiler.

I'll gladly join that club.

All Daemon Engines are beautiful, though I mostly prefer the ones that emphasize Engine over Daemon.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Too much flesh, too little cable.

There are some people who like Daemon Engines*, and some people who like Daemon Engines**. Appears we are both the latter.

*Like the Dinobots.
**Like the Defiler.

Personally I prefer the venom crawler, because its a more interesting design and actually looks like its in scale. Both the dinobots and defiler are about 15-20% too big.

For me the best "cabley" demon engine is the Blood Slaughterer, the hatch on its back where i assume the demon is shoved in and contained is so damn cool.

So i guess i'm on team Fleshy bits AND demon pod lol

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
For me the best "cabley" demon engine is the Blood Slaughterer, the hatch on its back where i assume the demon is shoved in and contained is so damn cool.

So i guess i'm on team Fleshy bits AND demon pod lol

Same. Give me more stuff that's weird, unique and not just "marines with a spikes sprue". Don't care if it looks like a dinobot or some bolted shut cistern with metallic limbs, just make it weird.

Voss wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Too much flesh, too little cable.

There are some people who like Daemon Engines*, and some people who like Daemon Engines**. Appears we are both the latter.

*Like the Dinobots.
**Like the Defiler.

Both the dinobots and defiler are about 15-20% too big.

They really aren't. The Defiler at least is relatively small, it just takes up a large footprint on the table because of its legs. When you consider that the gun sticking out of its chest was orginally meant to be the same battlecannon used by a leman russ, the Defiler is appropriately sized for what its meant to be.

The maulerfiend and forgefiend are likewise sized well to what they are meant to be - the rules just suck and don't accurately reflect that. When they were originally conceived and released, both were statted up to be equivalent to a tank - and had damage output comparable to one as well. A single forgefiend or maulerfiend was a realistic threat to any vehicle or monstrous creature in the game at the time and could reasonably be expected to solo the toughest units in a single turn (such as the Land Raider and Monolith). As the rules currently stand today, they would seem too large relative to the actual capability they bring to the table, but the solution there is to buff them rather than make the models smaller.

chaos0xomega wrote:


The maulerfiend and forgefiend are likewise sized well to what they are meant to be - the rules just suck and don't accurately reflect that. When they were originally conceived and released, both were statted up to be equivalent to a tank - and had damage output comparable to one as well. A single forgefiend or maulerfiend was a realistic threat to any vehicle or monstrous creature in the game at the time and could reasonably be expected to solo the toughest units in a single turn (such as the Land Raider and Monolith). As the rules currently stand today, they would seem too large relative to the actual capability they bring to the table, but the solution there is to buff them rather than make the models smaller.

i'm confused as to what you're saying here, Forge/Maulers are both capable of going toe to toe with land raiders in 10th.

You guys, keep arguing about Daemon Engines, I'm team Plague Hulk

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
For me the best "cabley" demon engine is the Blood Slaughterer, the hatch on its back where i assume the demon is shoved in and contained is so damn cool.

So i guess i'm on team Fleshy bits AND demon pod lol

Really thought we might have got a plastic one of them. Ho hum.

Crispy78 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
For me the best "cabley" demon engine is the Blood Slaughterer, the hatch on its back where i assume the demon is shoved in and contained is so damn cool.

So i guess i'm on team Fleshy bits AND demon pod lol

Really thought we might have got a plastic one of them. Ho hum.

What? World Eaters getting one of their few unique units ported to plastic? Nah, best i can do is Berzerker variant #5.
(no bikes nor jumppack either, what do you think you are, some sort of space marine?)

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
You guys, keep arguing about Daemon Engines, I'm team Plague Hulk

that is the one exception to the flesh Daemon engines that actually looks good...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Crispy78 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
For me the best "cabley" demon engine is the Blood Slaughterer, the hatch on its back where i assume the demon is shoved in and contained is so damn cool.

So i guess i'm on team Fleshy bits AND demon pod lol

Really thought we might have got a plastic one of them. Ho hum.

What? World Eaters getting one of their few unique units ported to plastic? Nah, best i can do is Berzerker variant #5.
(no bikes nor jumppack either, what do you think you are, some sort of space marine?)

Blood slaughterers are not unique to WE.

Red butchers would be, or teeth of khorne... alas.... GW sold WE players half a codex with only the berzerker side to it.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:


The maulerfiend and forgefiend are likewise sized well to what they are meant to be - the rules just suck and don't accurately reflect that. When they were originally conceived and released, both were statted up to be equivalent to a tank - and had damage output comparable to one as well. A single forgefiend or maulerfiend was a realistic threat to any vehicle or monstrous creature in the game at the time and could reasonably be expected to solo the toughest units in a single turn (such as the Land Raider and Monolith). As the rules currently stand today, they would seem too large relative to the actual capability they bring to the table, but the solution there is to buff them rather than make the models smaller.

i'm confused as to what you're saying here, Forge/Maulers are both capable of going toe to toe with land raiders in 10th.

They really aren't, at least not in terms of a high probability of "one-shot"-ing them unbuffed. Maulerfiend will average 9.5 wounds with Magma Cutters, even really hot rolls are unlikely to get you the 16 wounds you need to kill the LR. The Forgefiend is even worse and averages 2.6 wounds against a LR. You couldn't stack enough buffs on it to get you over the threshold.

In that regard though, the point is that a single model (as opposed to a unit) that can truly go toe-to-toe successfully with a land raider should logically be of a similar size to one, barring any sort of magic/tech disparity that enables a higher degree of lethality in a smaller package. The Maulerfiend and Forgefiend used to fit that criteria, they don't anymore.

 Gert wrote:
It's not Rogue Trader anymore Doc, there are way too many options for that to be even remotely in the realms of a possibility.

The balance would be non-existent both internally and as an opposing force. People wouldn't win due to luck or skill, they'd win because there would never be any downside to playing the army.

Complete freedom is the worst thing any designer can do to a game and restrictions are absolutely necessary to keep it with even a modicum of health. Even the proposed detachments would be worthless because the basic version that lets a player take everything would always be the better choice. And if restrictions have to be placed to keep balance in the first place, does that not mean that the army should be split? If you have to largely restrict options just to keep the army from being too powerful, then that army shouldn't be.

Totally doable, and of course the great Chaos 3.5 provides the template providing both a huge array of options while also placing limitations on their usage.

GW won't do it because GW likes to sell you as many $50 books as possible. But could it be done? Absolutely.

I imagine the dark mechanicus would have just as many arguments as us over demon engine design. How fleshy or how close to a standard STC it should be.

Perhaps that's part of the charm. The individual techie/modeler can do as they please. Add more flesh? go for it. more cables? By all means.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Gert wrote:
It's not Rogue Trader anymore Doc, there are way too many options for that to be even remotely in the realms of a possibility.

The balance would be non-existent both internally and as an opposing force. People wouldn't win due to luck or skill, they'd win because there would never be any downside to playing the army.

Complete freedom is the worst thing any designer can do to a game and restrictions are absolutely necessary to keep it with even a modicum of health. Even the proposed detachments would be worthless because the basic version that lets a player take everything would always be the better choice. And if restrictions have to be placed to keep balance in the first place, does that not mean that the army should be split? If you have to largely restrict options just to keep the army from being too powerful, then that army shouldn't be.

Totally doable, and of course the great Chaos 3.5 provides the template providing both a huge array of options while also placing limitations on their usage.

GW won't do it because GW likes to sell you as many $50 books as possible. But could it be done? Absolutely.

ya but not every 3 years reccuring revenue times X ammount of chaos books...

Alas, considerng the quality of the recent chaos books, that ain't a loss because the only correcting stage is the £$CHF € going to gw.

Also the whole can't be done.. HH has what 9 Legions / book in a multitude of ways? in a more complex system... Every single one is better than what follows in 40k.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Totally doable, and of course the great Chaos 3.5 provides the template providing both a huge array of options while also placing limitations on their usage.

GW won't do it because GW likes to sell you as many $50 books as possible. But could it be done? Absolutely.

3.5 didn't have 5 additional armies worth of units though did it? It was just CSM with some Daemons.
Death Guard were a unit and a character, not 17 units plus the crossover CSM units like Land Raiders.
Base CSM have around 40 units if my maths is right and I think I'm missing some characters or something. And by my estimation half of those units didn't exist in 3rd. So even just going by basic CSM standards, the unit options have almost doubled and you think that adding five more Codexes worth of units and rules into an already large army is a good idea.
You have absolutely no right to ever complain about balance again my dude because you've proposed the least balanced thing since 7th Ed Ynarri Scatterbike spam.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Also the whole can't be done.. HH has what 9 Legions / book in a multitude of ways? in a more complex system... Every single one is better than what follows in 40k.

Each Legion has a few unique units and characters alongside some special rules and maybe equipment if they're lucky. Most of the rules affect the greater part of the Legion list that is shared generic units.
That reason is why HH has far better balance between armies because those armies share 90% of the same units and rules.
There are no Death Guard Tactical Marines or Emperor's Children Despoilers, they're all the same basic stat line and equipment.
That isn't the case with the various CSM armies unless you really want to start removing options or turning every single datasheet into a genericised mess.