Another "Valrak has said this" post: Demons may get chopped into the cult marines armies

[ThePenitentOne]

Doesn't anyone like chess?

 

Why is everyone so eager that 40k be checkers?

 

This is, on it's face a stupid idea. Daemons have always been GW's most versatile gaming pieces- not only were we able to use them on their own, we could join them to any chaos army, we could use many of them in other 40k games and we could even use them in fantasy. Putting them in the Cult book is stupid, BECAUSE THEY CAN ALREADY BE USED WITH CULTS. We gain NOTHING.

 

But quite possibly, we LOSE the ability to use them on their own or with other chaos forces. Like Slaanesh? You MUST play EC- it's the only way to use them. Like Nurgle? Well, hope you like Death Guard too. I'll never understand why people cheer when they lose options.

 

The worst part?

 

Yes, Cult armies were light on units. That used to mean they had potential to grow. But now GW will just add daemons to their books and call it a day. Did you want a WE open topped, assault ramp tank/ murder fortress? Too bad- instead you can have the daemons that you already could have had, and that have existed for years... But they're NEW now cuz they're in YOUR book. You have all the units you need. Hey Tzeentch- want some new Daemon Engines? Well too bad- you get a bunch of "New" Daemons too.

 

SO to reiterate- yeah, this is the dumbest thing GW has done this edition (if in fact they do it- it's still just a rumour). It doesn't let us do anything we couldn't already do without it, it prevents us from doing many things we can do now, it will likely cause us to lose at least some units, and it will give GW a reason to feel justified in leaving 4 factions woefully underdeveloped, all so we can squeeze out more *&%$ing loyalist lieutenants or Heresy era stuff that excludes a significant chunk of the player base.

 

But I don't know if I'm more disappointed in GW for doing it, or in the community for believing it's a good idea.

 

The era of big, expansive ideas is dead. People want simple I guess. Use in one army only. Use in one game only. So much for getting maximum value from a model. I'm just stunned no one else sees it.

[Mogger351]

26 minutes ago, ThePenitentOne said:

Doesn't anyone like chess?

 

Why is everyone so eager that 40k be checkers?

 

This is, on it's face a stupid idea. Daemons have always been GW's most versatile gaming pieces- not only were we able to use them on their own, we could join them to any chaos army, we could use many of them in other 40k games and we could even use them in fantasy. Putting them in the Cult book is stupid, BECAUSE THEY CAN ALREADY BE USED WITH CULTS. We gain NOTHING.

 

But quite possibly, we LOSE the ability to use them on their own or with other chaos forces. Like Slaanesh? You MUST play EC- it's the only way to use them. Like Nurgle? Well, hope you like Death Guard too. I'll never understand why people cheer when they lose options.

 

The worst part?

 

Yes, Cult armies were light on units. That used to mean they had potential to grow. But now GW will just add daemons to their books and call it a day. Did you want a WE open topped, assault ramp tank/ murder fortress? Too bad- instead you can have the daemons that you already could have had, and that have existed for years... But they're NEW now cuz they're in YOUR book. You have all the units you need. Hey Tzeentch- want some new Daemon Engines? Well too bad- you get a bunch of "New" Daemons too.

 

SO to reiterate- yeah, this is the dumbest thing GW has done this edition (if in fact they do it- it's still just a rumour). It doesn't let us do anything we couldn't already do without it, it prevents us from doing many things we can do now, it will likely cause us to lose at least some units, and it will give GW a reason to feel justified in leaving 4 factions woefully underdeveloped, all so we can squeeze out more *&%$ing loyalist lieutenants or Heresy era stuff that excludes a significant chunk of the player base.

 

But I don't know if I'm more disappointed in GW for doing it, or in the community for believing it's a good idea.

 

The era of big, expansive ideas is dead. People want simple I guess. Use in one army only. Use in one game only. So much for getting maximum value from a model. I'm just stunned no one else sees it.

You can have them in your army now with no rules support in limited numbers with restrictions.

 

Putting them in the book allows for better meshing of rules and potential for hybrid armies we don't currently get.

 

That said, my fear is shoving daemons into world eaters etc. Will be a GW patting themselves on the back and saying the range is fixed as well.

[ThePenitentOne]

17 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

 

Putting them in the book allows for better meshing of rules and potential for hybrid armies we don't currently get.

 

Ah, yeah- you're right- I forgot about this. They're like Imperial Agents or Brood Brothers- they can be there, but that's it.

 

That's because of one of the other bad decisions this edition- changing the way detachments work; before you could have brought them as an allied detachment. Now detachments are the source of all flavour in the game, so multidetachment armies don't work as easily as they did. Man, I liked 9th so much better.

Edited May 21 by ThePenitentOne

[Indy Techwisp]

37 minutes ago, ThePenitentOne said:

Ah, yeah- you're right- I forgot about this. They're like Imperial Agents or Brood Brothers- they can be there, but that's it.

 

That's because of one of the other bad decisions this edition- changing the way detachments work; before you could have brought them as an allied detachment. Now detachments are the source of all flavour in the game, so multidetachment armies don't work as easily as they did. Man, I liked 9th so much better.

 

If GW incorporate Daemons into TSons properly then they might actually see more play because as additional Psyker units they'd be more Cabal Points to work with.

[Remain_Indoors]

20 hours ago, Marshal Rohr said:

Saw that coming. Chaos Daemons are officially AoS. 

AoS already has them divided up between the cult armies of each god. More likely they’re being Beastmanned so TOW doesn’t need to make any new armies.

[sitnam]

8 minutes ago, Remain_Indoors said:

AoS already has them divided up between the cult armies of each god. More likely they’re being Beastmanned so TOW doesn’t need to make any new armies.

Demons of Chaos aren’t going to be a supported TOW faction. 

[Remain_Indoors]

8 minutes ago, sitnam said:

Demons of Chaos aren’t going to be a supported TOW faction. 

Yet.

[Special Officer Doofy]

1 hour ago, ThePenitentOne said:

BECAUSE THEY CAN ALREADY BE USED WITH CULTS. We gain NOTHING.

 

To echo Mogger, they can be taken but with heavy restrictions/limits and no rules support. Putting them in the cult legion codex would allow them to expand the detachments and give rules that could benefit them. Most importantly, it would let me buy one codex for what in the lore is one army.

 

You also said:

1 hour ago, ThePenitentOne said:

Like Nurgle? Well, hope you like Death Guard too.

 

How is that different from: Like Nurgle? Well hope you like the other 75% of the Chaos Daemons codex you're not using either. I mean it's no different. Plus the Chaos Daemons codex is often balanced as a whole. There were points in the past few editions where Slaanesh was doing very well but Nurgle sucked, but since it's the same codex, GW went owell it balances out.

 

The only viable argument against it I can think of is it screws the existing chaos daemon players that play 2-4 of the gods at once. 

[ZeroWolf]

I suspect that GW would put out something for the demon only players as either a free download or a white Dwarf supplement if this all pans out. 

[Naryn]

Oh man, if the next Thousand Sons release was the Blue Scribes or something instead of an actual Legion unit, the fury would be unbelievable. Almost as bad as another round of Tzaangors. I like this idea to give Sons more tools, but I'm not sure I like the idea of Daemons being only in the Sons codex, if that makes sense.

[Blight1]

Main reason why I don't think this is happening (this edition) is that we already have the CSM book and Belakor isn't in it.  That's the only place you could put him if you wanted to split daemons off into god books.  That's what they did in AoS and the time has passed.  Daemons have their own identity in 40k and splitting them into God books would break that and even their ability to ally with CSM.  It just doesn't seem feasible this edition.

[Mogger351]

24 minutes ago, Blight1 said:

Main reason why I don't think this is happening (this edition) is that we already have the CSM book and Belakor isn't in it.  That's the only place you could put him if you wanted to split daemons off into god books.  That's what they did in AoS and the time has passed.  Daemons have their own identity in 40k and splitting them into God books would break that and even their ability to ally with CSM.  It just doesn't seem feasible this edition.

Given the only undivided model left is belakor, he can be a pdf download or in a campaign book later. He also has a house knight dedicated to him.

 

To that end vashtorr is also a powerful daemon and isn't in the daemons book.

Edited May 21 by Mogger351

[sitnam]

43 minutes ago, Remain_Indoors said:

Yet.

Please just ignore the fact that GW has already announced the supported factions or the fact that doing so will mean the main studio is giving up some fairly popular kits (including greater demons) for both of its core games

[Scribe]

Splitting up Daemons would be stupid. Not that my voice matters as GW lost me already, but this would be a poor choice.

[appiah4]

Sell CSM players Daemon models and sell Daemon players CSM models.  Now all you need is a FOMO CSM vs SM box for 11E.  Well played GW.

[Marshal Rohr]

Splitting up daemons makes sense if each god gets a micro range and updated core daemons, like World Eaters and Thousand Sons have **** all unit options but still got a codex. It fits their thought process to a T. 
 

They want granular product lines so they can judge which armies to cut out when they need new product lines as the games moves into the full blow magic the gathering mode. Factions will now come and go like however the cards work in magic. 

Edited May 21 by Marshal Rohr

[Orange Knight]

If looking at it from a point of view primarily concerned with the health of the tabletop game, 40k probably does require a lot of consolidation of factions and armies, and for some to be cut.

 

In my humble opinion, the entire Marine range should be consolidated into two books in the same way as Astartes are handled in the Heresy. One book for all the generic units, and another for chapter specific units, rules and detachments.

 

Grey Knights, Deathwatch and Agents of the Imperium could all fall under an Inquisition codex. This would breathe new life into all of these factions, and potentially players could still run thematic armies composed entirely of Grey Knight models, as an example.

 

I suppose the individual aligned Daemons could be streamlined and consolidated into the relevant Chaos Marine factions. This would actually enrich factions such as Thousand Sons and Death Guard, but would of course be at the loss of the pure Chaos Daemon codex.

 

The 40k game is very bloated right now. Lots of factions; some full of so many options they swim in redundancy, others lacking key units needed to complete their range. It also takes a great deal of time for all the factions to even get a new codex throughout an edition, and the game and balance suffer as a result.

 

This will be upsetting to some, no question about that. Unfortunately it's probably a likely outcome, and GW have already started to consolidate armies with the removal of Harlequins and Ynnari as a dedicated faction and sub faction respectively. 

Edited May 21 by Orange Knight

[Marshal Reinhard]

I dont see the problem. Technically I would prefer, say, the nurgle book to be called the nurgle book rather than the DG book, but if said book allows a nurgle deamon army with or without DG i really cant be fussed about what is essentially semantics at that point.

[sitnam]

20 minutes ago, Marshal Reinhard said:

I dont see the problem. Technically I would prefer, say, the nurgle book to be called the nurgle book rather than the DG book, but if said book allows a nurgle deamon army with or without DG i really cant be fussed about what is essentially semantics at that point.

I just wish you had the option of running god-specific renegades that aren’t DG, WE, or TS. I love rubrics, but my Tzeentch army is renegades not Thousand Sons. I’d worry about the ability to combine CSM with demons if this all transpires.

[Borbarad]

As I play both World Eater and Khorne Daemons I don’t mind it per se; and depending on detachments I might even benefit from a Daemonkin type of codex. 
 

But for Daemon players with mixed alignment this sucks; being forced into expanding your armies to keep your existing models relevant. 

[DemonGSides]

Ahh what's this on B&C this morning... Completely unfounded rumors being discussed as if the entirety of the decision and how it will shake out is already known?

 

Valrak should figure out how to get paid based on headspace occupied. He'd be a millionaire by now. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

3 hours ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

 

To echo Mogger, they can be taken but with heavy restrictions/limits and no rules support. Putting them in the cult legion codex would allow them to expand the detachments and give rules that could benefit them. Most importantly, it would let me buy one codex for what in the lore is one army.

 

You also said:

 

How is that different from: Like Nurgle? Well hope you like the other 75% of the Chaos Daemons codex you're not using either. I mean it's no different. Plus the Chaos Daemons codex is often balanced as a whole. There were points in the past few editions where Slaanesh was doing very well but Nurgle sucked, but since it's the same codex, GW went owell it balances out.

 

The only viable argument against it I can think of is it screws the existing chaos daemon players that play 2-4 of the gods at once. 

And how many people that currently play multiple gods only do so because there are so few options for any specific god available currently?

 

[Mogger351]

4 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

Ahh what's this on B&C this morning... Completely unfounded rumors being discussed as if the entirety of the decision and how it will shake out is already known?

 

Valrak should figure out how to get paid based on headspace occupied. He'd be a millionaire by now. 

Is it unfounded? There's strong evidence GW wants to handle daemons this way and it's a bit weird none of the god related books nor daemons have been on a roadmap.

 

In the land of probability of GW splitting out daemons based on their own actions, it looks likely without a rumour source saying it.

[Mogger351]

2 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

And how many people that currently play multiple gods only do so because there are so few options for any specific god available currently?

 

How many people who orks with grots do so because there are so few options for grots. Apply the same logic to kroot, armour marks, vehicle chassis, homeworld origins. It doesn't matter. If you want to hyper focus on one subsection of an army, expect it to be limited.

[Jolemai]

Play nicely please folks.