Concerned that Monogods will just be Themed WoC + Tokenized Daemons.

Wyvax#7456

Watched through a pretty nice video Turin released earlier today, theory crafting the Khorne monogod roster. I'd say he did a pretty good job and stayed conservative and reasonable in doing so, but it became pretty apparent that unless CA and GW are inventing brand new stuff for each list, even if they back port AoS units each roster each monogod list will play like an expanded WoC we have now. Let me explain...

With marks of chaos being used in every edition of WFB and the ET and later AoS expanding on mortal units, there's a decently sized list of warriors dedicated to each god that manages to dwarf the daemonic assets associated with each god. It's a given that we'll see marked marauders, Chaos Warriors and Chosen for each list in addition to more exotic things like Skullreapers and Putrid Blight Kings. The issue here is that even if those units look radically different (say Khornate Chosen look like the AoS Blood Warriors or have them as a variant, while Slaaneshi Chosen appear as they do in AoS) they'll still play identically barring some minor stat changes due to the marks, unless they decide that each god's warriors only get certain weapon loadouts, which IMO is completely arbitrary. In practice this makes the more exotic mortal units as well as the daemons they only unique options for each roster, but that leads to a second problem.

With the exception of Tzeentch's units and the bigger flashier monsters and chariots, each of the daemonic infantry and cavalry units available in the DoC armybook had cognates in the WoC book that were superior at the same job (it's even worse with AoS). Daemonic infantry is generally faster, but far squishier and less dependable than their mortal counterparts. The same issue applies to cavalry: Bloodcrushers and Skullcrushers are almost identical, preforming the same role in each army book, but in the same roster Skullcrushers are statistically superior, the same issue applies to Seekers of Slaanesh vs Hellstriders and Plague Drones vs Blightlords. The only daemonic units that don't get outshined by a mortal equivalent in combat are the ones that don't have anything to compare them too, such as furies, greater daemons, Soul Grinders, Skull Cannons, Hellflayer Chariots and pretty much all of Tzeentch's daemons.

So even if AoS units are being added in for each monogod army, and we're getting daemonic LLs to lead each faction, there is an extremely strong chance that at least 3 out of those 4 rosters are going to be overwhelmingly mortal units by the mid game every campaign. I don't mind all the missing WoC stuff added in so long as it also get's backported into the actual WoC roster, but there's a very real possibility each roster playing almost identically to the already existing WoC as well as the even worse possibility of the daemons themselves not getting the opportunity to shine on there own when paired up with the god's favored servants, effectively tokenizing them to obsolescence.

Here's Turin's speculation video if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlV7AKA1xSU&ab_channel=Turin

saweendra#3399

it is plus what ever they take from Bm and aos.hence why i don't like them

Wyvax#7456

saweendra said:

it is plus what ever they take from Bm and aos.hence why i don't like them

I'm fairly confident that any of the unique marked gors will also be backported into the BM list where they belong, so I'm not worried about that. The rest of the BM missing unit will take a couple of LPs to add, and I don't see them being shunted into the monogods at random.

Valkaar#2507

I was not a monogods fan for my own reasons (reasons that have largely been put to bed by the inclusion of both Kislev and Cathay)....but ROSTER was never one of those reasons.

If CA can take a fleshed out armybook, like the Lizardmen, and just hand out Revivification Crystals, Ancient Salamanders, Sacred Kroxigors like candy, plus make Nakai a Legendary Lord, not too mention the Regiments of Renown, without blinking an eye.....then I don't think they'll have any problem fleshing out the various Daemons.

And this type of creative expansion was not just limited to one race. Zoats and Bladesingers most recently, but new units were also made up for the Tomb Kings, High Elves, Greenskins, etc. etc.

And this is not too mention the Vampire Coast and Norsca who were cobbled together almost from scratch, just like Cathay is about to be!

I think people who have roster concerns underestimate CA's ability to be creative. Like I've seen several youtubers say things like "They NEED to pull from Age of Sigmar, because if they're just beholden to 8th edition, they have nothing to work with"...

^^And I think that just overly assumes CA is locked a path that they've just never actually been locked into; with any race. CA is totally willing to make stuff up and GW is totally willing to approve it. So they'll get complete rosters, I'm almost certain of it. Even if it's not a very 'armybook' roster.

Alternatively, considering how we've seen several GW "Old World" units being used for Kislev.....maybe the monogods WILL get an 'armybook' roster....it will just be an "Old World" roster that we haven't seen yet, rather than an 8th edition or Age of Sigmar one.

saweendra#3399

Wyvax said:

saweendra said:

it is plus what ever they take from Bm and aos.hence why i don't like them

I'm fairly confident that any of the unique marked gors will also be backported into the BM list where they belong, so I'm not worried about that. The rest of the BM missing unit will take a couple of LPs to add, and I don't see them being shunted into the monogods at random.

i am because mono gods need BM LL to buff their BM fodder , and i am worried that they will steel Moonclaw , and i don't think they will directly back port them, most likely add mechanic that will allow recruit ment of some god units. as long as they don't steel moonclaw and jabber me good

i want my BM to be free of shackle of those four gods

i think all mono roster LL will look like
1. greater daemon LL
2. Mortal follower LL
3. BM follower LL
4. what ever they think play cool LL

Wyvax#7456

Valkaar said:

I was not a monogods fan for my own reasons (reasons that have largely been put to bed by the inclusion of both Kislev and Cathay)....but ROSTER was never one of those reasons.

If CA can take a fleshed out armybook, like the Lizardmen, and just hand out Revivification Crystals, Ancient Salamanders, Sacred Kroxigors like candy, plus make Nakai a Legendary Lord, not too mention the Regiments of Renown, without blinking an eye.....then I don't think they'll have any problem fleshing out the various Daemons.

And this type of creative expansion was not just limited to one race. Zoats and Bladesingers most recently, but new units were also made up for the Tomb Kings, High Elves, Greenskins, etc. etc.

And this is not too mention the Vampire Coast and Norsca who were cobbled together almost from scratch, just like Cathay is about to be!

I think people who have roster concerns underestimate CA's ability to be creative. Like I've seen several youtubers say things like "They NEED to pull from Age of Sigmar, because if they're just beholden to 8th edition, they have nothing to work with"...

^^And I think that just overly assumes CA is locked a path that they've just never actually been locked into; with any race. CA is totally willing to make stuff up and GW is totally willing to approve it. So they'll get complete rosters, I'm almost certain of it. Even if it's not a very 'armybook' roster.

Alternatively, considering how we've seen several GW "Old World" units being used for Kislev.....maybe the monogods WILL get an 'armybook' roster....it will just be an "Old World" roster that we haven't seen yet, rather than an 8th edition or Age of Sigmar one.

My issue here is that outside of the Revivification Crystal and the Zoats, all of those units are just champion upgrades or tier fillers. In a roster like the DoC, that'd add to something as all four of the daemon infantry and cavalry types play radically different roles from one another, but in the mixed monogod rosters, the units we actually know about each function as nearly straight upgrades of one another, so there isn't much of a point for a bloodletter champion unit with great axes when Skullreapers are already a thing for instance, that's just redundant. Don't get me wrong, I'm excited and hopeful that we'll get the new Daemon Brutes monstrous infantry that was added to AoS and 40k, but unless they create more brand new 'species' of daemons like them, more variants and champion tier units still won't break the glass ceiling that exists between the daemonic infantry and cav and the mortal infantry and cav. The monsters and exotic units have no such worries of course though.

That said you could be correct in them revealing completely original rosters and units developed by GW, though with such a long standing tradition of established fluff, that'd be rather contrary.

xDEMOSx

I hope that some AoS units will enter, along with the old world reboot.
and some new things too, to spice things up.

because if you enter simple AoS things like bloodreavers (also known as marauders marked reeskins)
mono khorne would be incredible, because the core is already present in End of times.

I saw the turin video, because I really like his channel, but the image I have of the Khorne list of infantry is more for:

Bloodreavers (AoS but it's simply marked marauders)
Blood Warriors (AoS, these even appear in the pre-sale art, check next to the Bloodletter on the front line, there are some more in the background too)
Skull Reapers (End of times)
Wrathmongers (End of times)
Bloodletters (8th ed)
Bloodreapers (champion of Bloodletters)
and..

there is no need for Khogons anymore, khorne with variants of these units would already be the strongest faction in terms of infantry.

As far as I remember what I read in the rules, only Blood Warriors have a shield, most of these units are using exotic weapons or two-handed or large weapons, so it would be completely different from WC in the case khorne would depend a lot on stacking buffs and their mobility to crushing and overcoming enemy infantry, would not be very resistant with the exception of a line of Blood Warriors, which would be expensive.

I'm just saying units that I think they saw, just analyze a little bit khorne works in AoS (one of the most popular factions there) and the material that CA could use, already to have a taste.
I spoke only of infantry, because in the video for turin this seems to be the most discouraging point.

dreagon#2903

I don't even think there will be such a thing as Warriors of Chaos or Demons of Chaos. I suspect that Chaos in the Old World will be very similar to AoS.

Sillybilly#1412

Yeah I’m really worried that the Demon Rosters will feature too many mortals. It’s one thing to have some chaff cultists and maybe some chaos warriors but to have all flavors of mortal infantry and cavalry and such really detracts from the whole Demons aspect. Especially since it will totally step on the WoC and BM toes. Why the heck would you play Warriors when you can choose one of the Demon races and receive most of their units anyway? For Chaos knights? Lol. If the official roster looks anything like Turin’s speculation then WoC will become redundant.

Surge_2#1464

Honestly, until we get official confirmation, I'm truly worried they will stuff this up.

Precedent?

WoC, and Beastmen.

They have not done justice to Chaos AT ALL, not even Norsca. Not a single good implementation of ANYTHING related to Chaos.

I have every reason to expect failure at this point. I'm not happy at all with the reveal so far, not one bit.

Mogwai_Man#4978

I don't think CA is allowed to use the AoS models.

In WHFB you just painted your chaos warriors or marauders with a god specific color to give them that theme.

That1dude#3323

Sillybilly said:

Yeah I’m really worried that the Demon Rosters will feature too many mortals. It’s one thing to have some chaff cultists and maybe some chaos warriors but to have all flavors of mortal infantry and cavalry and such really detracts from the whole Demons aspect. Especially since it will totally step on the WoC and BM toes. Why the heck would you play Warriors when you can choose one of the Demon races and receive most of their units anyway? For Chaos knights? Lol. If the official roster looks anything like Turin’s speculation then WoC will become redundant.

You’re thinking of this all wrong, these are not daemon armies, these are monogod armies. It is an amalgamation of all of the followers of these specific chaos gods, from the humans to the beastmen all the way up to the daemons, it will absolutely be represented as such in the game. If you keep thinking of these armies as daemons + a few mortals, then you will be immensely disappointed with the final outcome. There will absolutely be just as many mortals in this faction as daemons.

Wyvax#7456

Surge_2 said:

Honestly, until we get official confirmation, I'm truly worried they will stuff this up.

Precedent?

WoC, and Beastmen.

They have not done justice to Chaos AT ALL, not even Norsca. Not a single good implementation of ANYTHING related to Chaos.

I have every reason to expect failure at this point. I'm not happy at all with the reveal so far, not one bit.

I'm not as pessimistic as yourself on this issue, but I do have a sneaking suspicion that the monogods (barring Tzeentch, his roster gonna be poppin') will be more style than substance. If it brings all the missing Warriors of Chaos units back into there roster, awesome. If it brings the entire DoC roster under Be'lakor, also awesome! But I can't help have the feeling that it leaves little options for playstyle variety or for LP potential and further LL inclusion for that matter.

Surge_2#1464

Wyvax said:

Surge_2 said:

Honestly, until we get official confirmation, I'm truly worried they will stuff this up.

Precedent?

WoC, and Beastmen.

They have not done justice to Chaos AT ALL, not even Norsca. Not a single good implementation of ANYTHING related to Chaos.

I have every reason to expect failure at this point. I'm not happy at all with the reveal so far, not one bit.

I'm not as pessimistic as yourself on this issue, but I do have a sneaking suspicion that the monogods (barring Tzeentch, his roster gonna be poppin') will be more style than substance. If it brings all the missing Warriors of Chaos units back into there roster, awesome. If it brings the entire DoC roster under Be'lakor, also awesome! But I can't help have the feeling that it leaves little options for playstyle variety or for LP potential and further LL inclusion for that matter.

Monogods by their nature, will lack variety within each God. That is a feature, not a bug.

The issue is going to be if the leave WoC/Beastmen to rot on the vine, and if they dont even implement DoC.

In that scenario, we get intentionally, purposefully, limited Mono Gods, which is FINE, but without the real army lists? Thats a failure.

xDEMOSx

How mono would be limited?

it's not just deamons, it will be very close to mono AoS.
deadly units for various functions, and demons for specific functions.

on top of that GW may be creating things for them, they will be real lists with a good variety of strategies.

Wyvax#7456

Surge_2 said:

Wyvax said:

Surge_2 said:

Honestly, until we get official confirmation, I'm truly worried they will stuff this up.

Precedent?

WoC, and Beastmen.

They have not done justice to Chaos AT ALL, not even Norsca. Not a single good implementation of ANYTHING related to Chaos.

I have every reason to expect failure at this point. I'm not happy at all with the reveal so far, not one bit.

I'm not as pessimistic as yourself on this issue, but I do have a sneaking suspicion that the monogods (barring Tzeentch, his roster gonna be poppin') will be more style than substance. If it brings all the missing Warriors of Chaos units back into there roster, awesome. If it brings the entire DoC roster under Be'lakor, also awesome! But I can't help have the feeling that it leaves little options for playstyle variety or for LP potential and further LL inclusion for that matter.

Monogods by their nature, will lack variety within each God. That is a feature, not a bug.

The issue is going to be if the leave WoC/Beastmen to rot on the vine, and if they dont even implement DoC.

In that scenario, we get intentionally, purposefully, limited Mono Gods, which is FINE, but without the real army lists? Thats a failure.

Agreed. It's so weird because in the lore as well as in the TT, themed 'monogod' forces are the exception rather than the rule. In the Gotrek and Felix novel Beastslayer for instance, a major host of Chaos Warriors forms under a Chaos Lord of Tzeentch and within his army he has warriors dedicated to all four of the ruinous powers, including high ranking lieutenants devoted to Khorne, Slaanesh and Nurgle acting as his commanders, and while they don't like each other, they work together to assault Praag. It's only after the horde grows incredibly huge that BM tribes join it's ranks, and it's only after the sorcerors in the host invest a huge deal of magic into a ritual do we actually see daemons emerge, and it's daemons of every kind: bloodletters, 'nettes and Beasts of Nurgle are all seen on the battlefield.

Surge_2#1464

xDEMOSx said:

How mono would be limited?

it's not just deamons, it will be very close to mono AoS.
deadly units for various functions, and demons for specific functions.

on top of that GW may be creating things for them, they will be real lists with a good variety of strategies.

Smash
Slow, Tough
Fast, Stabby
Fire, Range, Magic.

There you go.

Like listen, I had multiple Chaos Armys, several mono god. I had Daemons. I had WoC. I PLAYED THIS GAME.

Mono's will be very one note. That is why we get 4 of them.

Beast_of_Guanyin#8747

@Surge_2 I'd like your opinion on the below if you don't mind.

I'm thinking CA Should go full ham on the differences between gods. Turn it up to 11. Elves and Greeks for Slaaanesh, loads of Archers for Tzeeentch. Have real army differences rather than sharing 2/3rds of the roster share a few key units but go real different on the rest.

xDEMOSx

monos no and just WoC + DoC there are units that would only appear if they heard monos armys, like Blood Warriors (unless I'm mistaken, they are already in the art of pre-sale).
the direction that GW has been taking since the End od times, is of these god-themed armies, and they work very well, both in sales and in championships.

WoC will probably win all of their demonic cavalry, the only things I think they lost will be Mutalith Vortex Beast and Slaughterbrute.

Wyvax#7456

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

@Surge_2 I'd like your opinion on the below if you don't mind.

I'm thinking CA Should go full ham on the differences between gods. Turn it up to 11. Elves and Greeks for Slaaanesh, loads of Archers for Tzeeentch. Have real army differences rather than sharing 2/3rds of the roster share a few key units but go real different on the rest.

Not gonna comment on whether they should or should not go that route, but if they do, then the argument for preserving roster identity for every other race in the game immediately goes out the window. All the sudden the most heretical demands like ram cavalry for dwarfs have weight for them.

Surge_2#1464

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

@Surge_2 I'd like your opinion on the below if you don't mind.

I'm thinking CA Should go full ham on the differences between gods. Turn it up to 11. Elves and Greeks for Slaaanesh, loads of Archers for Tzeeentch. Have real army differences rather than sharing 2/3rds of the roster share a few key units but go real different on the rest.

Honestly I'd be fine with it at this point. When they are talking about 'lets go on a lark into the realm of Chaos to kick Khorne in the shins lul!' there is no more point in holding back.

Slaanesh Elves are already canon. Ref: Storm of Chaos. Do it.
AoS Styled Mortals? Who cares, more 'human' diversity. Do it.

I'm super close to checking out on this franchise, and if they fail me with Chaos I have nothing to bother buying in for. Cathay is a joke to me, Kislev is just another human empire, Ogres and CDwarves will be years later, so that leaves me with a Game 2 list that I have played to death (and the game itself IS flawed) and...monos?

If they stuff it, and like you say its 2/3rds the same stuff with different Daemons only? And I dont even get the real DoC list? No updates to WoC? No updates to Beastmen????

NOPE.

So yeah. Go all in. Anything and everything Chaos, implement it.

Bayes#3307

If they end up making **** rosters they end up making **** rosters, but there is a zero chance they will end up doing so because "muh army books". We are already getting the old world kislev and cathay, so I expect we are getting the old world chaos aswell. The greater daemons look different and they said no AoS, I think it's gonna be new stuff.

Draxynnic#3149

It's a nitpick, but when it comes to Seekers and Hellstriders, I'd call them more of a sidegrade (and if one is better than the other, it'd be the Seekers). In practice, I expect Hellstriders will be the shock cavalry variant, while Seekers will be a melee cavalry variant. Seekers might also be anti-infantry while Hellstriders are anti-large.

On the broader topic, it's a concern I have as well. It's something that I considered problematic on the tabletop - the gods were all supposed to have their different characters and different ways of doing things, but in practice, their mortal followers all fought like Khorne-worshippers. Now that CA has committed to monogods, I'd like them to pull out all the stops and do everything they can to make them genuinely feel different.

Wyvax said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

@Surge_2 I'd like your opinion on the below if you don't mind.

I'm thinking CA Should go full ham on the differences between gods. Turn it up to 11. Elves and Greeks for Slaaanesh, loads of Archers for Tzeeentch. Have real army differences rather than sharing 2/3rds of the roster share a few key units but go real different on the rest.

Not gonna comment on whether they should or should not go that route, but if they do, then the argument for preserving roster identity for every other race in the game immediately goes out the window. All the sudden the most heretical demands like ram cavalry for dwarfs have weight for them.

I'm inclined to disagree here. I see where you're coming from, but the Chaos "roster identity" dates back to when they were all one roster. When game 3 releases, do we really need to have seven (or more) races that all share the same identity?

The way I see it, the monogod races are something new. Sure, there were rules in some editions that encouraged or even enforced it if you wanted to take certain options (it was all but impossible to get a Greater Daemon in an Undivided army in 6E, for instance) but on the tabletop monogods were always a subset of a wider Chaos list. Now they're going to have their own rosters. As long as each roster has its own identity, I don't think it's a big deal if that identity isn't the same as the traditional Chaos identity.

Rob18446

Monos will play similarly it's as a simple as that, I dont know how anyone could think otherwise. Regardless of what colour they are Chaos are an elite melee army at its core, with each god adding a few specialised extra pieces, that wont change the core function of the army.

saweendra#3399

Rob18446 said:

Monos will play similarly it's as a simple as that, I dont know how anyone could think otherwise. Regardless of what colour they are Chaos are an elite melee army at its core, with each god adding a few specialised extra pieces, that wont change the core function of the army.

Not if they bring more stuff from Aos see mono roster using just wh fantasy material was going to be one dimensional since they were never designed to function as a race.

But mono from AoS designed ro function separately

Gatinho_Explosivo#3499

To stay within the "daemons being overshadow by mortal units" topic:

Between the many daemon units that perform functions that the marked warriors/mortals don't (which is an important differentiator), higher tier versions could always be 'made' up. If we got Ancient Salamanders, why not Exalted Flesh Hounds of Khorne? Shadow-walkers? Bloodreapers. Why not Exalted Bloodthirster for lords and regular Bloodthirster for heroes? Etc.

There's also 6th edition stuff like the chariots (and the Pleasureseekers monstrous cav for Slaanesh) and other potential additions that could either perform a new function or could perform it better than the WoC equivalent. In Horus Heresy there are these monstrous infantry daemons called Daemon Brutes, so instead of relying on too much on Chaos Trolls or Chaos Ogres for monstrous infantry-type units, CA can do differently flavored daemon brutes.

And we have yet to make an unit up from nothing, which is most likely a real possibility. But even then it will be inevitable that some marked warriors perform better than daemons anyway, and as long as they don't do it overwhelmingly so, I think it's totally fine.

Captain_Rex#1635

I expect them to get AoS units for better differentiation.

RikRiorik#9890

I’m a bit torn over the way it seems the implementation is going. On the one hand uniting the Warriors and Daemons of Chaos rosters makes for a lot more interesting Chaos and preserves the feel and possibilities of a big four. On the other hand we lose any special ’Daemon only’ race and all that this would have meant.

It’s probably the best kind of implementation though.

As for the OP, I’m sure there’ll be the standard ”Daemon Lords get Daemon bonuses and Mortal Lords get Mortal bonuses”. Apart from that though I’m sure there are enough ways to differentiate mortal and daemonic units to make both useful.

Crossil#2134

They hate us cause they ain't us.

RikRiorik#9890

Crossil said:

They hate us cause they ain't us.

They hate us cause they anus?