Article Discussion: Codex: Daemons Fundamentals

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.

**Anonymous**

This is an automated message added by the articles system.

A new article titled Codex: Daemons Fundamentals has been added to the dakka articles system.

This message thread is for the discussion of content in the article.

If you have anything to add to the article, then just jump in and edit it by going to the actual article page and clicking 'edit' (the link can be found just above the article). If there is no edit link then the article is locked for now, so just add your comments or content to this thread and if they are appropriate then they should eventually get merged in.

If there is something in the article that you wish to debate or comment on, then this is the place to do it. Just hit the reply button and get chatting! You need to be registered and logged in to post in the forums so if you are an anonymous article editor then now would be a great time to register and join in dakka's great forum discussion!

**malfred**

Just so you know, wiki-code and bbcode are mutually
exclusive. I don't know why it's like that, but it is.

**malfred**

If you're going to work on it some more, go into the article
and edit to see my changes. I use the text editor since I'm
still learning all the wiki codes as opposed to the bbcodes.

**Ozymandias**

Also, you may want to add Daemonettes to the Troops section.

Otherwise, great Tactica!

Ozymandias, King of Kings

**malfred**

For the first section, I kept the color coding as per the
different gods. The various unit types were given bold and
used a numbered list in place of font-size 18 (too big!). I'm
wondering if color coding the entire tactica would be a nice
touch. You can see how those tags work in the first section
(I've only gotten to the elites).

**malfred**

Can someone clear something up for me? I broke the first
section into icons then the four gods as subsection. Why
doesn't that seem right? (I don't have the Daemons codex)

**40kenthusiast**

Monstrous creatures can, I believe, fire 2 weapons in a round, so you are trifle harsh on the Lord of Change.

**CanadianGreenskinofKhorne**

I think your right about the lord of change, but i disagree the bloodthirster. He screams character killer if you upgrade his strength, and even without it hes strength 8 on the charge. Yes, mortal strike could be better ill agree with that. The collar is alright, hes already toughness 6 so librarians will be crying enough just to wound him in most cases( if he doesnt kill em first.) IMO hes better killing tough units like termies because his ws 10 will kepp him alive, and for sending character hunting. Hes not bad at shredding infantry either, but i can see where the keeper of secrets is better. other then this your pretty spot on. the epidimus horde list is pretty sick. taking him and the skull taker is mean, especially with just khorne and nurgle troops.

**malfred**

I think I have the layout done. Haven't decided between
bulleted stuff or not.

(btw: I've just been editing formatting, I have no clue
what any of it means)

**lemurking23**

I think you might over-estimate the Soulgrinder. They are very very good against horde armies and will chew through any squad without a PFist or meltabombs/haywire grenades. The problem is, PFist and what not are not all that uncommon, and 1 bad roll and 160 points is gone.

I have no been impressed with them, not writing them off either, but I do think that a DP or more basic troops is often a better investment unless you are reasonably sure you are facing a horde.

**Stelek**

What a horrible article.

Lots of inaccuracies.

Shame really.

**legoburner**

Stelek wrote:What a horrible article.

Lots of inaccuracies.

Shame really.

That's not very helpful... it is a wiki so please dive in and make it better, or at least point out the specific problems so that others can fix them.

**Kallbrand**

Masque cant join units for example.

**Frazzled**

Demons are also quite impacted by V5. We might wait until that is more seasoned before reviewing in more detail.

**Foda_Bett**

The masque cannot join units.
It's not an independent character.

**MagickalMemories**

Bloodthirster - I loved it back in 3rd edition. Now, honestly, it pales in comparison to its fellow HQ choices. Where most of the other demons got buffed, he got nerfed. It's not bad, it's just mediocre. The new codex puts way too high a price on wings, IMHO. In my view, the closer you can start to the enemy, the less value there is in special mobility. At least he comes with an armor save standard. I think he'll do well on the battlefield, but at quite a premium. I don't like the ranged attack for him (it should be AP1). While it's nice that he can get a collar of khorne equivalent, the collar itself has been nerfed (only a save versus psychic wounds). So even with it, he's still lash fodder. I think he'd be fine if he costs 20% less points, but so be it

I don't have my CSM codex handy, so forgive me if this question is answerable with a "No."

Aren't Monstrous Creatures immune to Lash?

I believe that lash doesn't affect them, IIRC.

Eric

**kirsanth**

MagickalMemories wrote: Aren't Monstrous Creatures immune to Lash?

I believe that lash doesn't affect them, IIRC.

Eric

AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

No.

You did make me look though. Still says "Non-vehicle unit".

shrug