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.

I just finished looking through the new Daemon Codex and really felt like there was some potential for alliances between Chaos Marines and the Daemon armies. My question to everyone out there is this: Would you be ok with a CSM player using marked daemons from the Daemon Codex instead of the stupid generic daemons. After all, I still have bloodletter models from the old CSM codex. Is it unfair to let CSM players use these with the new rules published in the Daemon Codex?

If so then where does it stop? Could the two army lists be used more interchangeably? I think that the two lists, even when combined, are not as scary as the old CSM codex and by letting players choose from both lists they could make much more interesting cult armies. I know I'd be cool with the merging of the two lists?

What do you think?

Samwise158 wrote:Would you be ok with a CSM player using marked daemons from the Daemon Codex instead of the stupid generic daemons.

Is it unfair to let CSM players use these with the new rules published in the Daemon Codex?

Yes, I'd be OK with it. As long as *ALL* of the Daemons and CSM units were Marked and of the *same* Mark. That is, no unmarked units, no unmarkable units, and no units with different Marks.

I think it would definitely be unfair to let CSM players to use the "good" Daemons along with all of their other toys. If they want to mix marks, or to field unmarked stuff, or stuff that can't take marks, they can field generics.

But really, the problem is that the 40k Daemons have too good of a statline. If the Marked Daemons used the WFB 3-based statline, I'd have no problem.

I think it would be ok. But I wouldn't want the marked demons to assault after they DS, as in the demon codex.

The real question here is this: would you be ok with allowing a CSM player to use marked daemons in place of lesser daemons using the C:CSM daemon summoning rules?

For example, a lesser daemon has s4 t4 i4 a2 for 13 points.

A Plaguebearer is s4 t5 i2 a1 with FNP and always wounds ona 4+.

You comfortable with a CSM player playing all Nurgle to summon daemons that don't scatter and then immediately assault your gunline with models that just don't ever ever ever die?

IMO, if you did this (and I did in my Codex: Deathguard), you need to clarify that all marked daemons DEEP STRIKE AS NORMAL, although may do so regardless if the mission played uses the deep strike USR.

If they can't move into combat on the turn they arrive there's no point in bringing them.

Simple way to fix Daemons is only allow one unit of Daemons to be summoned off each Icon, so no matter how many Daemons are available that turn, an Icon can only be used once a turn.

That instantly balanced Daemon Bomb armies whilst at the same time allowing for summoned Daemons to move into combat on the turn they arrive.

BYE

I'm in concurrence with Noisy Marine. Bring what you want, but the demons are summoned under normal deepstriking rules (aka the demon codex). You would still need your minimum HQ and 2 troops from the chaos codex, but then you could go to town.

Here's an idea: Use two force organization charts, one for the Marines and another for the Daemons, then Deep Strike the Daemons in using Chaos Marine Icons.

Thats an interesting alternative Nurgly. I think most are focusing on the dropping them into the regular chaos list or as allies aka demonhunters, but thats a nice alternative as well.

I don't much fancy facing 3 units of Oblits and three Tzeentch princes or Soulgrinders, so I'd go with just combining the two lists into one (rather than using two FoCs), taking out generic Greaters and Lessers, and making them use normal DS rules.

Nurglitch wrote:Here's an idea: Use two force organization charts, one for the Marines and another for the Daemons, then Deep Strike the Daemons in using Chaos Marine Icons.

We call this Apocalypse.

The suggestion for allowing armies to be entirely themed is a good one in my book. As long as every model in an army has the same mark, daemons and beasts can be used to fill FOC charts. That being said, it would be nice for undivided CSM players to have access to specific daemons. I think that this could be ameliorated by only allowing marked daemons to be summoned from icons of the same mark. I think resuscitating the old +1 to summoning rolls for cult armies is a good benefit.

As far as the ability to charge on the turn daemons are summoned, I think that some playtesting is necessary. I think that the first turn charge ability can work as long as HMBC's one unit per summoning per icon is practiced. In addition, Greater Daemon summoning should work the same way, where a single aspiring champ with the right mark can be possessed by any of the marked Greater Daemons.

This way, combining the two lists wouldn't result in a woefully overpowered list, but one that would be characterful and require careful tactics to play well.

The only other big concern is how many Daemon Princes one can have. Should a six Daemon Prince list be possible?

My personal opinion, without any play testing mind you, is that Deamons should follow the same rules as allies for loyalists. You get:

0-1 HQ
0-1 Elites
0-2 Troops
0-1 Fast Attack
0-1 Heavy

None of these count towards your compulsory choices and your still restricted to the current force org chart. As far as how they deep strike, this would need to be worked out in play testing. However, I don't think an aspiring champion/icon bearer should be sacrificed for a greater deamon. This was a stupid rule previously and is a stupid rule now. My initial take would be to deep strike them as terminators, not the first turn, can use teleport homers. They should be able to assault as I see deamons materializing mid stride, not standing still as other teleporting units do. Also, deamons have no ranged attacks for the most part and are extermely squishy. I could be swayed to no assaulting depending on effectiveness.

You could also flip this for CSM allies with Deamons. In this case, you would deploy based on the Deamon codex and thus all non-reserve CSM units would start in your deployement zone.

Techboss wrote:My personal opinion, without any play testing mind you, is that Deamons should follow the same rules as allies for loyalists. You get:

0-1 HQ
0-1 Elites
0-2 Troops
0-1 Fast Attack
0-1 Heavy

None of these count towards your compulsory choices and your still restricted to the current force org chart. As far as how they deep strike, this would need to be worked out in play testing. However, I don't think an aspiring champion/icon bearer should be sacrificed for a greater deamon. This was a stupid rule previously and is a stupid rule now. My initial take would be to deep strike them as terminators, not the first turn, can use teleport homers. They should be able to assault as I see deamons materializing mid stride, not standing still as other teleporting units do. Also, deamons have no ranged attacks for the most part and are extermely squishy. I could be swayed to no assaulting depending on effectiveness.

You could also flip this for CSM allies with Deamons. In this case, you would deploy based on the Deamon codex and thus all non-reserve CSM units would start in your deployement zone.

Aw, why do Daemons and Chaos get 0-1 Heavy? Imperium don't get no 0-1 Heavy.

Also - why would Daemons be able to assault after Deep Striking when allied with Chaos Space Marines, when they can't normally?