Daemons Rumour: Daemons getting merged with Cult Marines

[TheMawr]

18 minutes ago, mecanojavi99 said:

I'm all in favour but IMO if that's how things are going to be going forward I think it would be nice if in 11th the codexes had more appropriate names, because Death Guard + Nurgle Daemons isn't just Death Guard anymore, it's Children of Nurgle or whatever GW decides to call it.

 

codex Nurgle, codex Slaanesh, codex Tzeentch and codex Khorne.. it works for Aeldari ( though ironically thats various "relgious" factions that share their race.. with the aforementioned it would be the opposite, different "racial" factions that share their "religion" )

While at it, return CSM to Traitor Legions, its more ambigious and feels more collected Chaos mirror of Imperium rather than chaos mirror of spacemarines.

But there is probably a reason why that name didnt stick, I can see "Traitor" having a negative marketing effect. pity.

 

but if we have to think about "fancy" names :

Wardens of Nurgle, or even Wards of Nurgle (sounds more gross.)  though I always feel the word Vectors has a nice scifi feel.. Nurgle plague vectorium
Devourers of Khorne
Scions of Slaanesh, or Heirs of Slaanesh
Progeny of Tzeentch, or Scions of Tzeentch.. or leave the children/son ones to slaanesh and make it Chiliad or Chiliarchy of Tzeentch

[Shinespider]

The Daemons codex has always been bizarre - it's not really a codex, it's four mini-codices that each lack variety and don't really work well with eachother. Collapsing them into their relevant legion book has always made the most sense from a mono-god perspective.

 

If done properly, this could allow them to fully pivot the Daemons codex to being about Multigod armies. Get rid of all god-specific auras and keywords and focus on synergy. 

[Indy Techwisp]

31 minutes ago, TheMawr said:

1 hour ago, mecanojavi99 said:

I'm all in favour but IMO if that's how things are going to be going forward I think it would be nice if in 11th the codexes had more appropriate names, because Death Guard + Nurgle Daemons isn't just Death Guard anymore, it's Children of Nurgle or whatever GW decides to call it.

codex Nurgle, codex Slaanesh, codex Tzeentch and codex Khorne.. it works for Aeldari ( though ironically thats various "relgious" factions that share their race.. with the aforementioned it would be the opposite, different "racial" factions that share their "religion" )

While at it, return CSM to Traitor Legions, its more ambigious and feels more collected Chaos mirror of Imperium rather than chaos mirror of spacemarines.

But there is probably a reason why that name didnt stick, I can see "Traitor" having a negative marketing effect. pity.

 

but if we have to think about "fancy" names :

Wardens of Nurgle, or even Wards of Nurgle (sounds more gross.)  though I always feel the word Vectors has a nice scifi feel.. Nurgle plague vectorium
Devourers of Khorne
Scions of Slaanesh, or Heirs of Slaanesh
Progeny of Tzeentch, or Scions of Tzeentch.. or leave the children/son ones to slaanesh and make it Chiliad or Chiliarchy of Tzeentch

 

I mean,

Maggotkin of Nurgle...

Headonites of Slaanesh...

Blades of Khorne...

Disciples of Tzeentch...

 

IMO leaving it as Thousand Sons, Death Guard, Emperor's Children and World Eaters wouldn't be too problematic.

Calling them Codex Tzeentch, Nurgle, Khorne or Slaanesh would probably not help differentiate between the AoS and 40k versions of the factions.

 

It's better to consider it the Mortal/Transhuman side's codex that just has Daemons with it rather than a fully "shared" Codex between the 2 sides of it.

[Mana]

I suppose we will know with the release of EC codex, but what i want to know:

 

- Will we still be able to soup daemons with other chaos armies? (the rule is in index chaos daemons, so if that goes, soup goes away too).

- What happens to belakor? maybe they will put him in all the cult legion codexes?

- The new grotmas daemon detachments have 2 keywords, legiones daemonica and the specific god, will they implement them like that in each cult marine codex? will they simply update the detachments as needed if the keywords change?

 

I think we are gonna lose playing mixed daemons armies, a shame. On the positive side, maybe with this change there is no limit to how many nurgle daemons can go in a death guard army for example.

Edited January 17 by Mana

[TheMawr]

39 minutes ago, WrathOfTheLion said:

I think they did mention that it wouldn't include everything in the Drukhari list, at least when they were speaking of it, only the datasheets that were available to Ynnari armies. I believe they went into more detail on it in the video on the matter.

 

No, it was actually way more ambigious than that.. you should know that while I say mad and often wrong things with annoyingly many words, I rarely let my facts get muddled by subjectivism and have either transcripted relevant text or made a graphic presentation

the specific quote :

"And really, the one that I wanted to point out there is the Devoted of Ynnead, the Ynnari units, because the Harlequins and the Drukhari units you can use in the Aeldari forces are in the codex itself."  with the other guy reacting with "Ahh, so you've got all the Harlequins, all the Drukhari in there, so you dont need to worry about bringing, you know, other battlebooks, its all solidly in there." ( full conversation about the book in spoilers)

 

Spoiler

After presenting the new miniatures ( most of them.) this is the conversation about the codex :

"Coming alongside these new releases is the new Aeldari codex as well, and it's a bit of an overhaul for the Aeldari here. Now, we expect new rules and detachments and things, as we were before, and new lore, and everything as you expect to see in the book there, but there is a couple of things that's worth pointing out here.

First of all, the Strands of Fate rule they had before has been replaced with a rule called Battle Focus. Strands of Fate let you use the dice to predict the future, as a farseer might do, but Battle Focus instead teaches your force to move more agile, with more agility around the table, so really playing on that Aeldari aspect of being super flexible and super fast, wich is nice.
Dont worry, Strands of Fate is still around but only in one of the Detachments, the Seer Council detachment, and it has changed a little bit.
Now, talking of detachments, there are 7 in this book which is really cool, going from the Warhost the Wind Rider host, if you want an army of Wraiths its there for you.

If you want an army of Harlequins they're in the book as well, which is nice to see. And really, the one that I wanted to point out there is the Devoted of Ynnead, the Ynnari units, because the Harlequins and the Drukhari units you can use in the Aeldari forces are in the codex itself."
 

"Ahh, so you've got all the Harlequins, all the Drukhari in there, so you dont need to worry about bringing, you know, other battlebooks, its all solidly in there."

 

"It is indeed, its does mean that the Aeldari codex is a hefty tome. It's a big, old, chunky tome, but its all in there, in one place, which is really good to use, and yeah, be excited about that. Thats really cool, but thats not all coming for the Aeldari ... "

and the the conversation cues towards the warpspiders reveal.

Like I said its rather ambigious, Though I do personally think its more likely to be just the Ynnari available units rather than all drukhari.

 

But besides that, right now there is only 6 Drukhari units ( 3 available plastic and 2 unavailable resin kits) that cannot be taken in Ynnari armies, all of them Haemonculi covens.

Spoiler

Wich coincidentally are the ones alluded to in psychic awakening to be working with Emperors children. https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-gb/articles/wbxvogPZ/psychic-awakening-into-the-void/ However, like everything psychic awakening, if there even was a plan with it, its probably long abandoned. I half hated and half loved the potential there, I love the hellraiser side of dark eldar.. but I dont like it with wyches, corsair, exodites and ynnari. There was very little to work with for a secondary force so far, and quite honestly imho Haemonculi would look good next to recent slaanesh elements.

 

Previously you also couldnt take Lelith, Drazhar and Mandrakes.. 3 of the 4 Drukhari kits released in the past decade, but in the index they randomly changed it so you can take these 3. However that page of the index was so rushed, it can easily be brushed away through that.

 

In short, currently what Ynnari can take is already the majority of the Drukhari range, With all of that said, I dont expect a merger of drukhari into the codex and actually expect it to be a very small list. (wich is beyond the topic.)

 

But that doesnt change we cant say for certain at this point, and as such cannot use it as a evidence for daemons excisting both in the cult codexes and combined in a daemons codex. While the eventual details that will be learned soon might add some light on the matter or fodder for speculation, I dont even think the emperors children codex release will resolve the issue.. its one of those things wich would be better if GW just straight out said it, instead of dancing around the topic.

 

Though in the end, if there is enough outrage, even if sales wouldnt warrant daemons as a seperate codex ( wich I think was the case for Harlequins and Deathwatch, though I dont think its the main factor here ) digital rules for it would always pop in and out of existence, for free even.

[WrathOfTheLion]

Fair enough, although it shouldn't be very long until it is or isn't evidence. The immediacy of us getting data on it does mean our questions will be answered in fairly short order.

[Lord Marshal]

GW do seem more willing to have codexes 'share' units this edition, notably most of the Grey Knights roster being in Imperial Agents despite them getting a codex next year. Of course that could just be Imperial Exceptionism, but.

 

I've said it before on this forum, but leaving Be'lakor orphaned would also be strange considering he's a relatively new and presumably still decently selling centrepiece. They could just banish him to "download his PDF to use in Codex: Chaos Space Marines on Warhammer Community!" however with that codex only being a few months old it does feel like something they would have prepped for given the God Legion 'dexes aren't that far out (particularly EC).

 

Edited January 17 by Lord Marshal

[FormelyKnownAsSmashyPants]

I’m actually thinking how cool a Khorne Daemon army led by Angron with no actual WE marInes could be.

[Tokugawa]

7 hours ago, mecanojavi99 said:

I'm all in favour but IMO if that's how things are going to be going forward I think it would be nice if in 11th the codexes had more appropriate names, because Death Guard + Nurgle Daemons isn't just Death Guard anymore, it's Children of Nurgle or whatever GW decides to call it.

It's not about which name is more accurate.

 

It's about which name is a better name, especially for commercial brand.

 

"Sisters of battle" "Grey knights" are more popular names than "Witchhunters" "Daemonhunters", although the latter may be more accurate to codex contents. Even GW themselves began to use "warhammer" more often than "games workshop".

 

So, why replace "Thousand Sons" with "Disciples of Tzeentch"?

[Plaguecaster]

Fielding the death guard daemon engines alongside my nurgle daemons without any tax rule like their currently is  would be amazing 

Always played death guard supported by daemons in previous editions so being able to do so normally again would be so great 

 

[TheMawr]

9 hours ago, Tokugawa said:

It's not about which name is more accurate.

 

It's about which name is a better name, especially for commercial brand.

 

"Sisters of battle" "Grey knights" are more popular names than "Witchhunters" "Daemonhunters", although the latter may be more accurate to codex contents. Even GW themselves began to use "warhammer" more often than "games workshop".

 

So, why replace "Thousand Sons" with "Disciples of Tzeentch"?

 

For starters, apparently the joke of the list of "something of something" names i listed wasnt clear.. but i see i made it look like serious suggestions the way i described it. ( but wardens = guard, devourers = eaters, and the words used for tzeentch and slaanesh represent sons/children.)

 

Im actually  not a fan of those names ( not in  AoS either ) as I dont see what is wrong with just using Khorne, Slaanesh, Nurgle and Tzeentch as army names.

That part was serious, and its not just a name change, its also more beneficial for keywording and related rules.

 

While sisters of battle have only 3 units that arent actually sisters of battle, and grey knights have only 1 ( the servitors that are probably leaving ) so its hand wavable, Thousand sons currently already has 6, and will have 11 demons added ( wich in contrary to the pentinent units never Where thousand sons before btw ) thats 17 datasheets that arent Thousand sons but will carry the Thousand sons faction keyword, meaning the need arrises for large  "excluding X and X" lists and/or additional need for more keywords because now each actual Thousand Sons unit needs : Thousand sons, , Chaos, Tzeentch, Hexus Astartes ( forgot what they used ) as minimum.

 

Its simpler to have the core faction keyword be Tzeentch instead, a current nonfaction keyword they all already share. And have all thousand sons units be : Tzeentch, Thousand sons in the faction keyword.. as a subfaction would... cleaning up the keyword section.

It goes a little bit further than just a name.

[Indy Techwisp]

29 minutes ago, TheMawr said:

 

For starters, apparently the joke of the list of "something of something" names i listed wasnt clear.. but i see i made it look like serious suggestions the way i described it. ( but wardens = guard, devourers = eaters, and the words used for tzeentch and slaanesh represent sons/children.)

 

Im actually  not a fan of those names ( not in  AoS either ) as I dont see what is wrong with just using Khorne, Slaanesh, Nurgle and Tzeentch as army names.

That part was serious, and its not just a name change, its also more beneficial for keywording and related rules.

 

While sisters of battle have only 3 units that arent actually sisters of battle, and grey knights have only 1 ( the servitors that are probably leaving ) so its hand wavable, Thousand sons currently already has 6, and will have 11 demons added ( wich in contrary to the pentinent units never Where thousand sons before btw ) thats 17 datasheets that arent Thousand sons but will carry the Thousand sons faction keyword, meaning the need arrises for large  "excluding X and X" lists and/or additional need for more keywords because now each actual Thousand Sons unit needs : Thousand sons, , Chaos, Tzeentch, Hexus Astartes ( forgot what they used ) as minimum.

 

Its simpler to have the core faction keyword be Tzeentch instead, a current nonfaction keyword they all already share. And have all thousand sons units be : Tzeentch, Thousand sons in the faction keyword.. as a subfaction would... cleaning up the keyword section.

It goes a little bit further than just a name.

 

We could always go back to Arcana Astartes...

[Indy Techwisp]

More Seriously tho, the current keywords all TSons units possess are Faction: Thousand Sons, Chaos and Tzeentch.

All Daemon units we have (currently just the Mutalith) add Daemon to those keywords.

 

Therefore, simply swap Legions Daemonica for Thousand Sons on the Tzeentchian Daemons and their keywords are correct.

 

If more exclusionary keywords are needed, just add Arcana Astartes to any actual Marines and key off having that Demon or Psyker 

[Tokugawa]

42 minutes ago, TheMawr said:

 

For starters, apparently the joke of the list of "something of something" names i listed wasnt clear.. but i see i made it look like serious suggestions the way i described it. ( but wardens = guard, devourers = eaters, and the words used for tzeentch and slaanesh represent sons/children.)

 

Im actually  not a fan of those names ( not in  AoS either ) as I dont see what is wrong with just using Khorne, Slaanesh, Nurgle and Tzeentch as army names.

That part was serious, and its not just a name change, its also more beneficial for keywording and related rules.

 

While sisters of battle have only 3 units that arent actually sisters of battle, and grey knights have only 1 ( the servitors that are probably leaving ) so its hand wavable, Thousand sons currently already has 6, and will have 11 demons added ( wich in contrary to the pentinent units never Where thousand sons before btw ) thats 17 datasheets that arent Thousand sons but will carry the Thousand sons faction keyword, meaning the need arrises for large  "excluding X and X" lists and/or additional need for more keywords because now each actual Thousand Sons unit needs : Thousand sons, , Chaos, Tzeentch, Hexus Astartes ( forgot what they used ) as minimum.

 

Its simpler to have the core faction keyword be Tzeentch instead, a current nonfaction keyword they all already share. And have all thousand sons units be : Tzeentch, Thousand sons in the faction keyword.. as a subfaction would... cleaning up the keyword section.

It goes a little bit further than just a name.

AoS don't have marine. It's different commercial situation to 40K. 

 

Believe or not, 40K people love marine much more than they love any other stuff. If a faction style and its product line is marine centric, it's better stay there and not go anywhere else.   

[Dr. Clock]

Full 'Lost and The Damned' with daemons fully included was always the aspiration for me for Khorne. Honestly this is the best faction reorg decision in a long time, and literally so many miles better than bungling of Agents of the Imperium lol.

 

For 'pure/balanced Undivided daemons' players, I hope you get whatever Codex support you desire at some point, but on the plus side no matter what there are 5 free dedicated daemons detachments for the remainder of the edition, and if you want to make a pivot into one of the Cult Codexes even to include some mortals and daemon engines, you won't have as much work to do to get there.

 

It'd surprise me greatly if there's no allowance for multi-god Daemons in next edition, and I can easily imagine them turning this into an Ynnari situation using Be'Lakor in the main CSM list.

 

I'd still hold out some hope of Daemons getting a Codex this edition though - looking at stat check recent player numbers for CSM and Daemons are equal at 5%. This on the back of Daemons getting 4 new detachments of course, and winning some tournaments with Slaanesh... So they do seem pretty popular, but at this point seems like if they do get a book it'll be within the 6 months leading up to next edition, at which point if it were me I'd just as soon retain the free rules in the rollover.

 

Anyway - I'm crazy stoked to throw my 1000 pts of daemons into my WE soon enough and make that a solid half and half army list when I want, as the Lord of Skulls intended.

 

Unfortunately it does however look like the addition of all the daemons units could cover a lack of ambition on the new units so many of us hunger for... Wouldn't surprise me if WE get nothing but a new character for their 'dex, which feels wrong. Pretty sure the KSons psykautomata thingies have been on the rumour engine, but nothing recognizably 40k Khorne has shown up there. Obviously the rumour is always 'Jugger cav', and if we don't get 'the unit that Invocatus should obviously be leading' I guess I'll finally bite the bullet and build some of those old bloodcrushers... and hopefully they at least have the courage to let Invocatus or Juggerlord lead them?

 

Surely they will announce their intentions for Codex: Daemons around the time the cult codex releases start kicking off, no?

 

Cheers,

 

The Good Doctor.

 

 

[Borbarad]

Wonder how well the Marines and Daemons will work together. I'm looking for Lord Invocatus to lead some Bloodcurshers.

[Subtleknife]

20 hours ago, FormelyKnownAsSmashyPants said:

I’m actually thinking how cool a Khorne Daemon army led by Angron with no actual WE marInes could be.

Yes. You could replicate the battle for armageddon where Angron and the bloodthirsters charged the grey knights. That would be epic.

[Alternis]

I’m firmly in camp - support the folding into csm codexes.

 

we had to put up with rules bloat, model bloat, and now codex bloat? 
 

I much more prefer the movement of buy 1 book, get several armies stance, I get it might upset the hardcore daemon players, but it’s also an opportunity to experiment and try new builds and combinations using daemons with the associated CSM army. 
 

the bigger question is, what’s going to happen with Be’Lakor? 
maybe next edition he gets folded into the base CSM codex and can be run with Abaddon’s lot.

[Evil Eye]

I'd much rather have a proper Daemon Codex along with rules for fielding them alongside other Chaos forces. Though I maintain the best approach would be a Chaos "super-Codex" which combines all the Chaos factions into one book. Though granted, under the current design philosophy such a book would be the weight of a cinderblock with all the individual datasheets for every single possible model (when it could be the size of a modern Codex; the much-beloved 3.5E book was actually pretty slim and yet packed in a huge amount of fluff AND rules).

 

I will be honest though, my ideal Daemon Codex would be something like the Ruinstorm Daemons rules from HH 1.0, where you have basic archetypes and can essentially field whatever daemonic nightmares-made-flesh you can come up with.

 

That being said, whilst I would be sad to see the back of Daemons as a separate faction, I'd actually be willing to trade them if it meant we got traitor Guard back. Full daemonic incursions are rare, after all, whereas renegade regiments are ten a penny.

[Alternis]

10 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

I'd much rather have a proper Daemon Codex along with rules for fielding them alongside other Chaos forces. Though I maintain the best approach would be a Chaos "super-Codex" which combines all the Chaos factions into one book. Though granted, under the current design philosophy such a book would be the weight of a cinderblock with all the individual datasheets for every single possible model (when it could be the size of a modern Codex; the much-beloved 3.5E book was actually pretty slim and yet packed in a huge amount of fluff AND rules).

 

I will be honest though, my ideal Daemon Codex would be something like the Ruinstorm Daemons rules from HH 1.0, where you have basic archetypes and can essentially field whatever daemonic nightmares-made-flesh you can come up with.

 

That being said, whilst I would be sad to see the back of Daemons as a separate faction, I'd actually be willing to trade them if it meant we got traitor Guard back. Full daemonic incursions are rare, after all, whereas renegade regiments are ten a penny.

Well we are starting to see Dark Admech rear its head in another system + strong mentions of them in the present 40K setting in all things Vashtorr related. 
So I think downsizing these codexes does give more room to introduce things like traitor guard, dark Admech……Codex: Zoats 

[Indy Techwisp]

26 minutes ago, Alternis said:

Well we are starting to see Dark Admech rear its head in another system + strong mentions of them in the present 40K setting in all things Vashtorr related. 
So I think downsizing these codexes does give more room to introduce things like traitor guard, dark Admech……Codex: Zoats 

 

Dark Mech would probably follow the pattern of the existing "Chaos Mortals" and just be added to the CSM Codex as [DAMMNED] units.

[Alternis]

47 minutes ago, Indy Techwisp said:

 

Dark Mech would probably follow the pattern of the existing "Chaos Mortals" and just be added to the CSM Codex as [DAMMNED] units.

It all depends, looking at what’s coming for them in imperialis, they would need to be an independent codex, it wouldn’t fit otherwise.

[The Praetorian of Inwit]

I hope GW just writes some decent rules so people can enjoy mixing their Daemons and Heretic Astartes or run them pure.

 

The cynic in me says the rules will be written in such a way as to make it..convenient.. for DG/EC/WE/TS players to add Daemons whether they want to or not.

 

What would be awesome is if the Daemons being rolled with their Legions means we get an entirely new Daemon faction that is their own thing, 'Noctis Daemonica' or something. Be'lakor really should have his own Daemon range to be fair. 

[*42*]

I haven’t paid much attention to the last three or so editions of 40k, but for me a demon codex feels like the odd one out. Weren’t demons always included with regular chaos stuff for as long as we had the different marks or is my memory wrong? 

[WrathOfTheLion]

From the more recent Eldar information, I think it's a lot clearer that there's Dark Eldar reprints in their codex for Ynnari. So I think it's still up in the air whether they'll just reprint some Daemons in the cult Codexes, or completely fold them in.