I've been playing Warhammer for 8-1/2 years, and I've never seen so much vitriol directed at one army book (especially since the so-called 'announcement' that the guy who wrote it is doing the Necron Codex). Not even current VC gets this much hate sent its way.

Granted, I have yet to play against the book, but I've flipped through the book several times, and nothing particularly glaring stands out to me.

Am I missing something?

There are lots of reasons. I play them but I stay away from the automatic leadership 's like the Masque & banner...Slaanesh in general are my main problems with the book Other than that they can hammer you with magic, beat you down in combat, shoot fairly well & move really fast. I dunno why people have problems with that?

Slaneesh Daemon bombs and effects that work on undead and things immune to psychology don't make sense off the top of my head.

Pretty much everything in the book, other than the Slaaneshi units, is undercosted substantially. The magic is amazing. The "magic items" (which don't count as magic items for the purposes of stuff which stops magic items, BTW) include some of the most broken and undercosted stuff in the game. Most egregiously all the BSB banners, and the Bloodthirster's 25pt "re-roll all failed hits and wounds, I don't give a damn about taking on any ranked block from the front" power.

Play a few games against a tournament daemon list.

The thing most people I play have a problem with is the spamming of harder hitting units and items/upgrades. LD bomb armies ot nurgle heralds all with powerful bound spells are the thing that usually break the camel's back. People also really have problems with the nurgle spell that makes most of your stats 1. I've seen one guy just quit a game because his star dragon prince was in combat with a GUO that had cast the spell.

We don't let Daemons play at our gaming club. The army book is outright stupid and overpowered, and you'd better have a damn good excuse for bringing them to a friendly tournament.

Personally I don't see them as that bad. Sure some of the are pretty good but the only ones that I have seen that are ridiculous are nurgle stuff. Nurgle is just insane how good they are. Slannesh is good of course but not unbeatable specially if you can outshoot them before they reach you.

Bloodthirsters.

Flamers.

Plaguebearers.

All utterly broken.

The problem is this: GW created this new army and wanted to make new models/ redo all existing models for the line. They needed to make sure that the models sold, especially after taking said demons away from fantasy mortals players and 40k chaos players. How do we do that, they asked themselves. The answer is simple.
If you make the list completely over the top to the extreme of making it virtually point-and-click to win, then everybody will want to play with them. More specifically:

The aforementioned Slanneshi Ld. bomb.
Under-costed characters. Have you seen the prices on some of those special characters? Very cheap for what they do.
Magic items that cannot be cancelled.
Psy effects that even affect ITP units.
Overpowered everything. The Thirster and Flesh hounds come to mind here.
It is sad, but this list can go on and on.

To sum up, they pole vaulted past 'codex creep' to ensure the line sold.

It also depends on who is playing the army. You get the people who are power gamers and only just care if they win, not really looking at the fun part of the game.

Right now I'm trying to make a softer list with just using heralds. I know people are probly thinking not to hold my breath but it can be done. It just takes some extra effort.

Heralds are amazing too, though generally not as broken as the Greater Daemons. A Khorne herald on a Jugger is one of the best HTH characters in the game, and is so much cheaper than a Chaos Lord that it's absurd.

The Thirster item is reroll HITS only I'm afraid, so not quite as insane as reroll wounds as well.

15 points for a 3+ AS on a T6 flying character is also insane.

Ld bomb armies are just dull - althoyugh it doesnt really effect VC, their main rival.

Actual MAGES as core makes a huge difference: 360 points gets you 3 core blocks with a 5+ ward, 3 dispel and 3 power dice to cast a 4+ magic missile which can deal 7 strength 7 hits. Did i mention it is core? and causes fear?

However DE can have more broken builds, hotek dragon lords that stuff your magic phase up turn 1 being one of them.

Cheese Elemental wrote:We don't let Daemons play at our gaming club. The army book is outright stupid and overpowered, and you'd better have a damn good excuse for bringing them to a friendly tournament.

What's a friendly tournament?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ld bomb armies are just dull - althoyugh it doesnt really effect VC, their main rival.

Actually this does. They thrash your leadership and make you stupid which means you can't cast spells~VC loss. They also have those gifts which make you take a LD test to attack, so your vamps hardly ever get swings on the daemon characters.

I think the herald lists are just as nasty as the GD's because your army is bigger and heralds are force multipliers unlike the giant monsters.

My first experience with demons was round 2 of a tournament. Mostly nurgle demons played by a newb. I ran over most of the special stuff (flamers, HoK on jugger) but when i hit his plague bearer unit in the flank and in round 3 and was not able to kill the damn thing, not to mention the havoc the flesh hounds caused (killed my stegadon after IT charged THEM). Only reason I won that game was because I got lucky with my salamanders taking the GUO below half wounds.

And thats it right there, it came down to luck. This kid fell for every feint, got completely outmauneuvered, and it was only luck that i won... That is frustrating....

That said I am going to the Dark Side. I won my 40k 'Ard Boyz semis and will be getting demons and dual basing most of em (yay magnets).

ME <--------- Hypocrite?

Maybe

Daemons are the best army book. This makes the people who have non daemon armies sad. So they complain. Not hard to understand.

This happens every time a strong book comes out. The difference this time is that its a new army that is the strongest. No existing partisans, who have payed their dues by struggling along with an ancient army book for x years. Thus, folks can be united in their stirring defense of mediocrity.

[quote=Bat ManuelActually this does. They thrash your leadership and make you stupid which means you can't cast spells~VC loss. They also have those gifts which make you take a LD test to attack, so your vamps hardly ever get swings on the daemon characters.

I think the herald lists are just as nasty as the GD's because your army is bigger and heralds are force multipliers unlike the giant monsters.

It'd be fine if they were the best armybook, but they're not just the best. They're the most ridiculous piece of feth-tarded crap that GW has ever had the gall to place out into their store shelves.


I don't care if they release a new armybook that is strong, but damn it, this is just ridiculous. They affect ItP! REALLY? What the Feth! (wow, that sounds lame, lol)

Don't get me wrong, I'll gladly play a Daemon Player, even if it's the most drop dead cheesy piece of s**t list there is, but don't expect me near tourneys with Daemons running about, and other armybooks in need of serious update.

Yeah, who would expect you to go to a tourney where you faced strong competition. That would be unreasonable.

40kE, I take it that you do not consider the WH: Daemons army book to be anything particularly unusual?

I've never been a codex creep complainer, but IMO the Daemons book contains a higher than usual percentage of design fail. And this is from someone who happily played against SoC Daemons.

No, it'd be unreasonable if there was only 1 race winning most of those tourneys

Oh, wait....

I was looking through the daemon army book and on pg. 64 at the very top it says "With a Daemon army, you get to be the ultimate bad guy!" I find that sort of funny . Jokes aside, I wish I could have played daemons when the SoC rules were still good. That way I'd be getting the same daemony goodness without the extreme bells and whistels.

Wow after reading all of this I am afraid to take my Tomb Kings off the shelves.

Cryonicleech wrote:No, it'd be unreasonable if there was only 1 race winning most of those tourneys

Oh, wait....

Could you explain this to me. I am still a bit new to the WHF scene.

It's a little bit of Sarcasm on my part, honestly.

Don't worry, you can still play your games and tournaments as Tomb Kings, I'm just stating that almost anyone, regardless of experience level, can write up a good daemon list. They're just a cheesy army, plain and simple.

They're not like Dark Elves, or Vamps, which can be cheesy, but beatable cheese. Once you find your particular combo/build the Daemon army can roll through your opponents with ease, regardless of tactics or luck.

I have to disagree.i have played against the unbeatable Daemon lists and found them to be easy to predict.In case you are wondering i play O&G.Yes thats right you CAN win with them against the uber armies being played.Actually it is rather funny watching my opponent get angry when he does not roll over me on turn 3.

Ok, I am being way too pessimistic.

I'm just pissed that GW would decide to make The One Army Book to Rule them All for about a year, when many of the books were nearly balanced.

Yes, it's not impossible to win. But you really have to think about it.

DE are, when played well, stronger than the non-SC Daemons list.

Ring of broken dragon lord feths up the magic phase turn 1. Blood thirsters get shot to pieces (2xrbt plus normally 4x10 rxbmen = 80 shots) making them easy meat in combat (esp as its rerolls to hit and not to wound - it normally needs 6/7 hits and all wounds otherwise its screwed by itself) and you have enough magic to take otut he rest, along with better static combat troops.

Not sayign its easy, but a good DE player beats out a daemons list more often than not. Which is why our local scene has placed DE in the same comp band as daemons, whereas before Daemons were on their own as the hardest army.

The problem for GW is that the daemons are so hated, people are not picking them up as a 2nd, 3rd or 4th army.

Sure the kids might take them as their first army.

I'm doing them in 40k, but will not touch them in WHFB.

They are so comp hit the last 2 tourneys they did not have a single player and the 2 before that had 1 player, and he scored minimum comp and was crippled so badly he finished mid pack despite winning all games except a tie vs me (I was playing to tie not to win).

10 simple problem solvers to make daemons competative but fun:
1: Tone down the magic
2: Magic items are items.
3: Make the magic items more realistically costed.
4: Screamers fly in a straight line.
5: Make flamers 3 shots each (and lower the points)
6: Flesh hounds have 1 wound (and lower the points)
7: Nurgle herald adds +1 to the ward save.
8: Ward save not available vs magic and etheral attacks.
9: Add 75 points to the Bloodthirster cost (as his upgrades were also raised)
10: You can only take 1 of each item (except for the dispel scrol equivalent)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also most players I know at clubs around town refuse to play them in friendly games.

I picked up the Daemons for my 40K list and am really looking forward to playing them as my first army in Fantasy.

Maybe instead of whining about how horrible they are to play against, you guys could think of them as a great way to get someone to learn Fantasy as a starter army. Then, when they are ready for a challenge they could step up to a tougher army.

In my case that tough army will be Ogres (I rec'd a battalion + sundry others for Xmas) but losing every week would cause me to lose interest in the game quickly.

Again, if you want more players to play against, you had best grow the hobby and nothing does that like success.

They really arn't that bad. I remember playing them for a spell getting completely mauled 9/10 times. Specially by elves and the like. Infact one of the few times I won is win my opponent wants to quit like if I make a good move the opponent would blame the army and just be like NO OTHER ARMY CAN WIN AND COMBAT AND HAVE FEAR YOU CHEESE!!!!!! Then they'd rage quit and I'd win like ok.... but really once the Herolds are gone daemons lose alot of there advantages and Greater Daemons just need to be shot and they lose. Yay.

nosferatu1001 wrote:DE are, when played well, stronger than the non-SC Daemons list.

DE are indeed very strong. That said, head to head comparisons aren't the best gauge of strength. Ability against the field is, and performance over time. The fact that DE are still (largely) subject to Psychology makes them inherently less reliable than DoC.

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:The problem for GW is that the daemons are so hated, people are not picking them up as a 2nd, 3rd or 4th army.

Sure the kids might take them as their first army.

I'm doing them in 40k, but will not touch them in WHFB.

They are so comp hit the last 2 tourneys they did not have a single player and the 2 before that had 1 player, and he scored minimum comp and was crippled so badly he finished mid pack despite winning all games except a tie vs me (I was playing to tie not to win).

10 simple problem solvers to make daemons competative but fun:

The Australian scene is obviously a bit different than some others. You guys have a heavier emphasis on Comp than the UK or US generally. Daemons are a bit more acceptable over here, and generally not seen to require QUITE so many alterations. Honestly a few quick recostings, a slight haircut for Flamers and Flesh Hounds (like getting rid of the second wound), and the ward save going back to being negated by magical weapons and spells (like the Forest Spirit save still is) would probably do it.

Loki_TBC wrote:Maybe instead of whining about how horrible they are to play against,

The question was asked and answered. Levying accusations of whining doesn’t support your point. Rather, it detracts from it by making you appear hostile and combative.

Loki_TBC wrote:you guys could think of them as a great way to get someone to learn Fantasy as a starter army. Then, when they are ready for a challenge they could step up to a tougher army.

Daemons and Undead are inherently bad armies with which to learn the game, as they are Immune to Psychology across the board, denying the player immediate experience with Panic, break tests/pursuit, and Fleeing from charges. All of which are among the more exiting and unique aspects of WH as opposed to 40k.

You do have a point, however, that playing DoC or VC is a pretty good way for a new player to shorten the length of time it takes them to be able to play competitively against experienced players. It is, however, at the cost of developing a more complete set of play skills.

Bad Double Post.

I just don't get it. Daemons are the strongest codex, we all agree.

Why is that any kind of a big deal?

If the best list wasn't Daemons, it'd be the next guys down. Beasts of Chaos lose just as bad to Dark Elves as they do to Daemons. There's a whole posse of strong army lists sitting right below Daemons. If we chopped the top off, the next thing down would be the new top.

What would be the distinction between bringing my Ogres to a tournament and dreading Vampries/Warriors of Chaos/Dark Elves/Empire and bringing them to a tourney and dreading Daemons of Chaos. None.

The objections to Daemons seem to boil down into several categories:

#1: Back in my day...

These guys whine about the newest codex year after year. We've all got them at our clubs. They have an army from 80 years ago and are still complaining that skirmishers can't march when they are close to enemies. They prefer to explain that things nowadays are broken to actually enjoying the game.

#2: Baaah

These guys just agree with other posters, who complain about broken Daemons. I'm sure I'm not the first person to see a thread and be caught offguard by the carping about irrelevant stuff. There was a batrep recently that destroyed a unit by flying furies behind them and running up a Keeper + Masque + -leadership banner This provoked pages of diatribes about how broken that combo is. I think we can all agree that that combo is a small part of the army book's strength.

Now, #1 and #2 flavors of complainers are present everytime a new codex comes out. We all remember their diatribes vs. high elves, who were going to dominate the game by preventing charging from meaning anything with their doom swordmasters.

#3: My army has been downgraded.

These are the most common, and require the most explanation, as they aren't typical. These guys have the lists that would be top tier if the Daemons weren't there, and resent Daemons for being stronger than their lists.

This isn't normally an issue with a new codex, as they typically require a certain degree of skill to bring out the strength. Empire bites unless you do it right, as an example. Thus, normally if you have a top tier list and a new codex comes out you expect you'll beat all the bad builds of it, even if its got a stronger list than yours in it.

This is important, so it gets a paragraph on its own. The primary complaint that lies beneath alot of this complaining about the Daemons Codex is that its easy to use. Flamers don't have much of a learning curve, neither do Siren-Keepers. The Daemons of Chaos player doesn't need any particular skill to get his codex's full strength.

A typical complainer I know has a Thorek gunline. Its typical for such a list. Its a pretty strong thing, can beat a lot of modern lists if it gets the first turn, would be pretty top tier if there were no Daemons. He doesn't resent that I can make a list that beats him with DoC, he knows I attend tournaments and play 2-3 times a week. He resents that anybody can play a DoC list and beat him. You plop down a thirster and 24 flesh hounds, and he's beat. Its not a hard army strategy to see, just about on the order of Thorek + shooting, actually, and it'll take him down every time. Or the beginner might just maximize magic with a Tzeentch list, that beats him too. There's other builds.

So you've got a lot of skilled players with strong lists, who are used to having a first tier list, and now have a second tier list. They complain, and their complaints aren't anything new. Daemons have "taken the skill out of the game" (Everyone should have it as hard as i do), the list is "full of fail" (stronger than mine).



There's actually some validity to this complaint. Normally when a dex comes out and you adopt it, you are top dog for a while. Then new books come out, and you fall off your throne, but remain top tier. Warriors of Chaos didn't obsolete Vampire counts instantly. VC didn't annihilate Empire off the field, and so on. You have a year or so of being fully competative, particularly as the new dex is scoured for strong lists.

DoC skipped that. It came out and blew the top tier away, and there's no scouring required. You want to win a tournament nowadays? 4 choices. 1: Change the rules so that your army wins (comp). 2: Play Daemons of Chaos. 3: Hope you don't meet a DoC army played by someone as good as you. 4. Build an anti-DoC list, and pretend you aren't choosing #3.

This is the same choices that I would get as an Ogre/TK/Beast of Chaos player, really. I can write a silly additional rules system that rewards me for not taking the time to buy a modern book. I can get a newer book. I can hope I only meet codexes from my time period, or I can convince myself that my (insert good build of bad book) build will let me counter their codex superiority.

The funniest bit is that the #3 style complainers are sitting on fierce lists themselves. Look at Mannahnin's most recent battle report. He's got Warriors of Chaos. He'd crush any Ogre list he faced without effort, kick Tomb Kings down the stairs, etc. Its a solid list. Yet he says that the Daemons book is "full of designer fail".

A challenge, then, Mannahnin (I'm singling you out as the most articulate of the complainers). How come its ok for your army list to be so much better than, say Ogres, and not ok for the Daemons to be so much better than WoC? We'll go point for point.

You point out a way that the Daemons are better than the warriors, I'll point out an equivalently important way that the Warriors are better than Ogres.

I'll start, Kholek singlehandedly beats the entire Ogre codex. He can break any unit, kill any character, all before they swing back, and outranges anything that might damage him on the charge, and causes Terror to boot. Now you show me a Daemon unit that does the same thing vs. warriors, or give me a point and raise a Doc/WoC imbalance for me to rebut.

I have to say after playing a few games against daemons over the past year or so i feel they arent quite as bad as everyone makes them out to be.
They have some powerful special characters and simply dumb magic "items" but the thing that makes them an awful book is, that a new player can pick up the army, make all the mistakes in the world and still come out with a masacre 50% of the time. Its frustrating for experianced players.
And honestly most of the people who play daemons on a regular basis are bad players who play very competitively or else very good players who make themed or "toned down" DoC armies. Thats my experiance any how.

"bad players who play very competitively "

Huh? So they are skilled, but jerks? Or they are unskilled, but win due to superior codex? Maybe both? I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I'm honestly unsure waht you mean.

I think he meant the lesser skilled players who play to win and actively participate in tourneys but win simply due to using a superior army book.

That was a bit of a low blow man. Reinterpretting someone's unclear expression into a declaration of scrub-ness isn't cricket.

There are no DoC players in my area so all the bad things ive heard are well here at dakka. Im a DE and WE player and would really enjoy playing against them in ard boyz to test my metal. Ill be useing my DE for the tourney but ive made one for my WE just for fun.

@40k - is that directed toward me? If yes, I'm not quite sure what you mean by that statement (honest, not being snarky).

There are those who whine about books from time to time, and yes, Daemons happens to have the hate leveled against them currently.

It's not impossible to beat the new armybooks, but as you stated, Certain models or builds can wipe entire armies (I.e. Your Kholek Example)

It really all boils down to the players. Either Daemons stay top dog, or maybe not. Honestly, I'd rather just play.

P.S. How is that a low-blow? All he's doing is trying to interpret something.

It really does start ruining the game when you start a game and your opponent looks like your crazy because you have a daemon army. At the gameing store I go to daemons are one of the armies that get a bad rep and people do not want to play because they heard that daemons are cheesey and overpowered. I'm not saying that daemons are not any of those things but, people should at least make their own decision if daemons are crazy or not by acctually playing a game against them.

Also the assumption that daemon players do not have any skill at all and play the army because it makes up for their inexperience is really offensive. I'm not the greatest warhammer player to ever hit the scene but I'm not just staring the game and know how to play. I started a daemon army because I liked the background and models, with an army that I can play a couple games a week with, not so I can make a list that I can win easily with. So putting daemon players in catagories is does not give justice for people who play already of are just starting.

@WarMonger -

Reread what Leith wrote. Those comments are from his experiences playing against Daemon armies. His comment is also that an unexperienced player can build a list with the DoC Army Book and still win against a competent opponent. He in no way made a blanket statement about Daemon Players.

@Jin: To my mind, what you interpreted him as saying would be extremely embarassing to say, like declaring that you don't believe in math, or gravity. I like to let folks make such statements themselves, or charitably assume they don't think such things.

WarMonger33 wrote:It really does start ruining the game when you start a game and your opponent looks like your crazy because you have a daemon army. At the gameing store I go to daemons are one of the armies that get a bad rep and people do not want to play because they heard that daemons are cheesey and overpowered. I'm not saying that daemons are not any of those things but, people should at least make their own decision if daemons are crazy or not by acctually playing a game against them.

Also the assumption that daemon players do not have any skill at all and play the army because it makes up for their inexperience is really offensive. I'm not the greatest warhammer player to ever hit the scene but I'm not just staring the game and know how to play. I started a daemon army because I liked the background and models, with an army that I can play a couple games a week with, not so I can make a list that I can win easily with. So putting daemon players in catagories is does not give justice for people who play already of are just starting.

QFT

Daemons can have their cheese, but at least have the balls to play 'em and have some fun with it. And not all Daemon players are noobs, or WAAC Power gamers.

Jin wrote:@WarMonger -

Reread what Leith wrote. Those comments are from his experiences playing against Daemon armies. His comment is also that an unexperienced player can build a list with the DoC Army Book and still win against a competent opponent. He in no way made a blanket statement about Daemon Players.

I was just say'n what I thought. I wasn't in any way targeting Leith or anyone else on here. I've just heard so may people say that it just gets to me sometimes.

@40k - fair enough, but that's merely how I interpreted his use of "bad players who play very competitively" given the context of his post, keeping in mind that he mentioned this was from his personal experience with Daemon players.

You asked an honest question, and I tried to respond with my interpretation (no "re-interpreting") of what he meant (which I thought was fairly clear, but I suppose I was wrong about that). If my understanding of his post was wrong, I'll recant my previous statement.


@Warmonger - My apologies, then. The location of your post in relation to this thread made me assume you were directing your comment toward Leith.

Actually I've had VC, Daemon, and Dark Elf armies for a very long time, and all the cries of cheese lately have really turned me off from fantasy in general. Who wants to play when as soon as you break out your army, before you've put a model on the table, you get called a power gamer or cheesy.

It's sad but it's gotten so bad about the only fantasy army I will play with is BoC. I'm just waiting for someone to complain about that one.

Sorry bout that, I'll make sure to read previous posts before commenting next time to avoid confusion.

40kenthusiast wrote:What would be the distinction between bringing my Ogres to a tournament and dreading Vampries/Warriors of Chaos/Dark Elves/Empire and bringing them to a tourney and dreading Daemons of Chaos. None.

That was a considerably more interesting post. Thank you.

I agree with you on the majority of your points. Particularly in regards to the lack of skill needed to do well with Daemons, and the situation you face when planning for a tournament. Regardless of the list you’ve brought from any other book, you face the unpleasant reality that if you come up against a DoC player of equal skill to yourself, odds are that you’re going to lose.

To answer your question, the difference between that and the situation of me as a WoC player having a more powerful book than an Ogre player, is that, IMO, prior to Daemons (and to a lesser extent VC), the top lists from many books had more parity. That is to say, that most books had competitive builds which were not that far off from one another. Ogres were widely seen as one of the weaker books, but there is a qualitative and quantitative difference from a situation with lists from half a dozen or more books jockeying for the top spot, with Ogres down below*, vs a situation where one book sits undeniably on top of the heap, with a few others competing with one another while still being inferior to DoC.

It’s honestly not as interesting a competitive scene when one army so reliably dominates. Almost the way Necropotence decks dominated the MtG scene in ‘96-‘97. Except that in WH a) it's a greater investment of time and money to switch over to playing DoC, and B) it's a greater investment of time in playing out the DoC on DoC games, which are inherently less interesting than playing wide mix of lists throughout a tournament.

I also tend to disagree with your thoughts on a given book having a year of being competitive. I’m not sold on codex creep at all, and never have been. I certainly know my WoC and my WE have faced Ogre and TK players who were capable of giving me quite a good game. Matt Lew has been showing TKs’ quality for years, and Alex Schmid won the Crossroads GT with them just last year.

*And heck, Aaron Fishkow (among one or two others) have certainly demonstrated in the last couple of years on the Indy circuit that ogres can be competitive too.

I think there is one basic problem- daemons are unbreakable. The 'crumble' they are subject to when they lose CC just isn't damaging enough, and big blocks can easily stick around long enough for their supporting units to save the day.

Now, I am not advocating a return to the old instability rules- I have had 400 point units of Horrors go POOF far too often to think those rules were fair or balanced.

I think an easy fix to the daemons would be to let them break from CC, just like any other unit, rather than crumble. In fact, I think I'll see if I can't get a few opponents to face me using that house rule, and see how it works... .

Actually 40K, Jin was spot on with his "interpretations." I thought my words were pretty clear.
Dont get me wrong I dont hate DoC, I just think the list needs some adjustments. I'm actually an advocate of dealing with what is not with what you wish, so I prefer not to focus on what sucks and annoys me about DoC but how to deal with it.

On the subject of those I see playing with the army, there are three types. Those who are new and either love the army for aestetics and fluff (not realizing the hate storm they are walking into) or else were simply told, "they are the best"; those who love to win but dont want to learn on their own and would build the same sort of repetitive, common place list no matter what army they chose (Skaven SAD, Thorek gunline, 2xstank + Pope mobile); and those experienced players who like the fluff or the models and tend to build themed armies. I actually had a friend from the UK who played a DoC list simply because it was the easiest thing for him to transport across the Atlantic at the time.

Note: Im not saying there is anything wrong with being any of the above, but playing those ultra competitive unimaginative armies get really old really fast. Its one of the reasons I only go to local tournaments, and not often.

Or they could crumble like VC...

Skulltaker killing my 700 point lord in one hit... YES!

All armies have units that don't belong fighting each other. Just because Skulltaker can kill you Lord doesn't mean that should happen; the Lord should never have been near him in the first place!

Lords are supposed to fight Heros and other Lords, that's what Chaos is about. They even have a rule stating they have to challenge.

Has anyone arguing for the Daemons looked at the stats and rules?

Blood Letters are Strength 5 and have killing Blow, according to the GW website.

Daemons are tuff, sure 'nuff...

But I still manage to find a way to lose with 'em!

BrotherStynier wrote:Lords are supposed to fight Heros and other Lords, that's what Chaos is about. They even have a rule stating they have to challenge.

My point exactly. If you have to fight, wouldn't you want to pick who you fight and where? As a Daemon player I want to hunt down your precious expensive Lords and Heroes. As someone who wants to keep them alive, you should keep them away from Skulltaker!

@BrotherStynier:

Bloodletters are actually pretty bad. Dunno if you play Daemons and they use Bloodletters and still beat you, or if you haven't played em much and are theorycrafting, but they are pretty much the wimpiest choice a DoC player can bring. t3 and a 5+ ward save won't let em swing back if you charge em with some tough guys, or just shoot em.

@Leith: Fair enough.

@Mannahnin: I sort of agree with your main point, but also sort of disagree. Let's say prior to DoC there was 4 or 5 top tier lists. Call em casty vamps, blitz vamps, thorek gunline, Empire goalie list and blitz brets. I'm oversimplifying (Thorek was probably out by that time, I think High Elves had come out, they ought to replace him), but not by too much. Nowadays the top tier looks something like: Blitz Daemons, Casty Daemons, Siren Daemons, Empire goalie list, High Elf goalie list, Dark elf "death star" list.

One dex being most of the top tier doesn't seem any different than multiple dexes sharing the top tier. Previous I got to choose between vampires and empire (and High Elves...), now its Tzeentch Daemons or Khorne Daemons (and the previous top tier...). What's the difference?

As a competative player myself, I'm thrilled by the DoC codex. First off, it threw 2-3 new list concepts into the top tier, and they are the best things in it. That expands the list of tough games I can have. (As a competitor my ideal game at a tourney is vs. a skilled player with a list slightly stronger than mine). Further, it means that my games with less skilled foes are far more fun. If I bring my Tomb Kings and run into a guy on his 5th game of WHFB I'd much rather have to deal with his Thirster blitz list (still somewhat fun), than kick his skaven around.

That's, ultimately, why I don't get the complaining. You are a tourney player, right? Presumably you are similar to me, you'd prefer to play tough games to walkovers? More strong lists is good. More strong lists that bad players can do alright with is better than good. As a bonus, you get a desperate struggle when you meet someone as good as yourself who brought a good Daemon list.

Well, those 4-5 top tier Pre-DoC Lists could be beaten by lower-tier lists if you outplayed them.

Leith wrote:Actually 40K, Jin was spot on with his "interpretations." I thought my words were pretty clear.
Dont get me wrong I dont hate DoC, I just think the list needs some adjustments. I'm actually an advocate of dealing with what is not with what you wish, so I prefer not to focus on what sucks and annoys me about DoC but how to deal with it.

On the subject of those I see playing with the army, there are three types. Those who are new and either love the army for aestetics and fluff (not realizing the hate storm they are walking into) or else were simply told, "they are the best"; those who love to win but dont want to learn on their own and would build the same sort of repetitive, common place list no matter what army they chose (Skaven SAD, Thorek gunline, 2xstank + Pope mobile); and those experienced players who like the fluff or the models and tend to build themed armies. I actually had a friend from the UK who played a DoC list simply because it was the easiest thing for him to transport across the Atlantic at the time.

Note: Im not saying there is anything wrong with being any of the above, but playing those ultra competitive unimaginative armies get really old really fast. Its one of the reasons I only go to local tournaments, and not often.

You forgot the other option. They already had the army. I've had daemons for a very very long time. So here's the worst part. I will take my favorite chaos god Tzeentch (followed closely by Nurgle). There has never been a "fun" Tzeentch Daemon army. Even building it out of the black book 10 years ago it got complaints, and every iteration since. I built the army I painted it, and I've yet to have an edition where people don't complain about a pure Tzeentch list. So it's not just the newest DOC book that has had these issues.

The difference now is that there is no more inherent fluff restriction and the other gods are just as nasty especially when mixed together. I personally still have a very hard time mixing units and you will never see me put nurgle daemons in a tzeentch army and vice versa. Same thing with Khorne and Slaanesh. The funny part is that those daemon pairings are some of the nastiest you can do with the daemon book.

@Cryonic: But that's also true of Daemons.

40kenthusiast wrote:@Mannahnin: I sort of agree with your main point, but also sort of disagree. Let's say prior to DoC there was 4 or 5 top tier lists. Call em casty vamps, blitz vamps, thorek gunline, Empire goalie list and blitz brets. I'm oversimplifying (Thorek was probably out by that time, I think High Elves had come out, they ought to replace him), but not by too much.

In addition to HE, I would certainly also include some WE, HoC, and Lizard builds.

40kenthusiast wrote:Nowadays the top tier looks something like: Blitz Daemons, Casty Daemons, Siren Daemons, Empire goalie list, High Elf goalie list, Dark elf "death star" list.

Pretty close. I think new Lizards are pretty solid too. So we go from ~9 builds out of 8 books, to ~7 lists out of 5 books. Less variety, pure and simple.

40kenthusiast wrote:One dex being most of the top tier doesn't seem any different than multiple dexes sharing the top tier. Previous I got to choose between vampires and empire (and High Elves...), now its Tzeentch Daemons or Khorne Daemons (and the previous top tier...). What's the difference?

As I said, IMO there’s a quantitative difference (fewer different armies now compete), which creates a qualitative difference (less variety at tournaments, creating a less varied and enjoyable overall play experience).

40kenthusiast wrote:That's, ultimately, why I don't get the complaining. You are a tourney player, right? Presumably you are similar to me, you'd prefer to play tough games to walkovers? More strong lists is good. More strong lists that bad players can do alright with is better than good. As a bonus, you get a desperate struggle when you meet someone as good as yourself who brought a good Daemon list.

Fewer different armies at tournaments (or at the top tables, which is close to the same thing) = less interesting tournament. More monotony. Yes, I enjoy a nice desperate game too. Though I will confess to becoming a little annoyed when I find myself fighting uphill against someone who is a manifestly inferior player when it comes to actual skill at the game. Fewer things are more irritating than having to teach someone the rules while they beat you (or make you work your ass off). Maybe that's uncharitable of me, and I need to reorient my internal compass on it. Maybe not.

In my opinion people don't like daemons because they are the counter to all the other power armies out there and because they have a couple cool rules.

Vampire counts army relys on fear to push over the enemy...deamons don't care about it.

Swordmasters rely on high str attacks...Daemons don't care about high str vs low strength because of ward save (as opposed to armor save which does care)

Got a great beat stick unit to hit the enemy with...Deamons have one that is just as good if not better depending on the situation.

Got a crazy shooting army that hopes the enemy breaks before they hit you...Deamons wont break and most units can kill shooting units prety easily.

Crazy blitz army that relys on breaking them on the charge...Daemons aren't reliably broken without overwhelming power.

And then they have the whole army wide ward save. Realistically they have always had it. So what. And whats the justification for it going away against magical attacks...because it use to? That is just a classic resistance to change.


There are a few bad things about the deamon army. Most people bitch about other things but ok...

There are easy counters to deamons. Try playing any daemon list against skaven. Take 10 jezzeles, one WLC,. and then as many clanrats and slaves as possible (with whatever chars you wish). The skaven will brutalize the deamons. Any deamon list out there in fact...

Deamons are the counter to the idiotic power lists that were out there before. The balanced lists that rely on ranks and flanks will easily beat daemons.
They just require a different mindset to play against. Most players don't want to adjust to that mindset. They think their beat stick army should still win but doesn't against daemons so daemons are therefore cheesy.

And all that talk about giving a new guy a deamon army and he will beat up on vets...not true.
Give one new guy a deamon army and another a bret army and I bet you that bret will smack the deamons around all day long.

Really, Cypher? Skaven is your answer?

Ld Bomb Slaneesh will see your little rats running...

You can't flank Plaguebearers with a Herald and Slime Trail (err...something)

Ok, Ill give you that.

Although conventional tactics work, Cypher, Daemons have easy answers to almost all of them.

Leadership bomb revolves around special char which is its own level of problems. Throw them in and teclis will ruin most daemon builds out there.

You can flank plaguebearers, you just dont get the +1 for flanking them. You still break ranks so 3 ranks + outnumber over the plague bearer. Are they gonna kill 4 guys a turn or are they gonna slowly lose guys to instability... (by the way, instability is worse than crumbling against small losses).



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Remember, rats next to the warlord are LD=10

Cypher, whether you know it or not, you hit the problem with the demon list right on the head. They are the counter to all the other lists. They have no weakness. That is not the makings for a fun, fluffy army that people want to play. It is the makings of a WAAC army that appeals to all the power gamers out there. No army should be able to do it all. Elves hit hard, but can't take a beating. Dwarves are stolid and solid, but are easily outmanuvered. Vamps have wicked good characters, but their battles rely on those characters living. Every army has a strength and a weakness. Except demons.

40kenthusiast wrote:@BrotherStynier:

Bloodletters are actually pretty bad. Dunno if you play Daemons and they use Bloodletters and still beat you, or if you haven't played em much and are theorycrafting, but they are pretty much the wimpiest choice a DoC player can bring. t3 and a 5+ ward save won't let em swing back if you charge em with some tough guys, or just shoot em.

I play WoC I have no shooting. I was theoryhammering on Bloodletters but still they look like they have potential to be dangerous, at least on paper where theoryhammer is played.

I was also just using them as an example, apparently Daemonettes can get always strikes first if they have the Squad Champion, and all Tzeentch units have flaming attacks. Maybe my theoryhammer is out of hand but the whole codex looks over powered.

Loki_TBC wrote:
My point exactly. If you have to fight, wouldn't you want to pick who you fight and where? As a Daemon player I want to hunt down your precious expensive Lords and Heroes. As someone who wants to keep them alive, you should keep them away from Skulltaker!

Regardless I'm gonna throw my Lord, or one of my Heroes at Skulltaker, them or a large unit of Special Troops are likely to kill him best. Sure it could be costly but its a roll on the "Eye of the Gods" if I win.

Oh and I don't play tourney so that might have something to do with my idea of what Lords should do.

I'm on board with Loki on the Skulltaker point. Even if you have a killy character, you always have to evaluate whether he should be fighting other characters, or (more usually) whupping rank & file guys. Skulltaker's not that terribly hard to avoid, and choosing to walk into him with an important character is bad tactics.

I'm with Mann/Loki. Skulltaker is a known quality. When you see the mini, you can look at his rules, make a decision on whether your chars can beat him. If they are specced for dueling, you've got a shot (as you probably have a good protection from KB, which is his main deal), if you are specced for infantry killing, you've got to avoid him. He rarely gets max overkill vs. a champ, for example.

A thought occurs, not really relevant to this discussion, but vaguely related, as it concerns Daemons. This is a problem in microcosm for all the Daemons. You see their lists, and there aren't any surprises. All their guys have basically one proper loadout.

Spec chars are gimmes, as you can look them up, and most Daemon lists have one or two.

Thirster: Rerolls, 3+ armor save and 2 of 3 of the following (obsidian armor, KB, flaming attacks at +1 str)
Keeper: Siren song, and don't attack unless you pass leadership, and don't attack unless you pass leadership if I hit you
GUO: Balesword, ugolast
LoC: Won't show up, it'll be Kairos
HoK: +1 flame blade, jugger, 0+ armor save
HoS: Siren song, mount
HoN: level 1 mage, ugolast, no flanks
HoT: +1 to pool, or choose your lore, lvl 2 mage, flying

If they have a flying BSB and a keeper they've got the -2 leadership banner. Otherwise they've got the GSS. If they don't call the GSS before the first round, and have a BSB, then its actually hard to guess, probably the big stubborn one, but they are doing it wrong.

The only unit that'll have any upgrades is Nurgle blocks, they'll have the poison wounds count double banner. If they have big tzeentch blocks, which is rare, they'll have the +1 to cast banner.

They are the counter to all the other lists. They have no weakness.

They are not the counter to ALL lists. There are plenty of counters for them. They are just the counter to all beat stick lists that rely on killing your opponent outright in a shower of blood.

Try numbers on them
Try lts of low str shooting (high str shooting doesn't help much).
Try an anvil army
Try any number of a dozen things that give deamons pain. They are out there.


Any time I see someone bitching about daemons I ask them what they play. The answers are always something equally crazy:
Black knight buss
Bretonians with 4-5 long lances (the shooting brets wip daemons without effort).
Multiple black guard backed by dual hydras
Dual treemen
High elves with 12-15 lvls of magic
The list goes on.
Deamons beat these lists but not all lists.

Hmmm the only problem Ive had with trying to avoid Skulltaker was when he was put into a daemonett (think thats spelled wrong) unit with herald (thought it was illigal to put a character w/ MoK into a plague bearer unit for example. But aparently only goes for heralds) And whatever that lash thing is that pulls you directly to the unit. And since my WoC cant back down from challanges <_<

I learned my lesson though... sigh

cypher wrote:

They are the counter to all the other lists. They have no weakness.

They are not the counter to ALL lists. There are plenty of counters for them. They are just the counter to all beat stick lists that rely on killing your opponent outright in a shower of blood.

Try numbers on them
Try lts of low str shooting (high str shooting doesn't help much).
Try an anvil army
Try any number of a dozen things that give deamons pain. They are out there.


Any time I see someone bitching about daemons I ask them what they play. The answers are always something equally crazy:
Black knight buss
Bretonians with 4-5 long lances (the shooting brets wip daemons without effort).
Multiple black guard backed by dual hydras
Dual treemen
High elves with 12-15 lvls of magic
The list goes on.
Deamons beat these lists but not all lists.

Last time I played HE's, I had a combat list. Very little magic, lots of bodies. I was wiped off the map. Lost every model, and inflicted maybe 5 casualties. So if they slaughter HE magic lists and slaughter HE combat lists, then what are HE's supposed to use?

I'm sorry, but everything that I've seen leads me to believe that the book is way over powered compaired to others. When total "newb" players can get outmanuevered all game, fail to make any charges, and all in all just sit there the whole game, and can still pull off victories then there is something wrong.

40kenthusiast wrote: You see their lists, and there aren't any surprises. All their guys have basically one proper loadout.

Spec chars are gimmes, as you can look them up, and most Daemon lists have one or two.

GUO: Balesword, ugolast
HoS: Siren song, mount
HoN: level 1 mage, ugolast, no flanks

The only unit that'll have any upgrades is Nurgle blocks, they'll have the poison wounds count double banner. If they have big tzeentch blocks, which is rare, they'll have the +1 to cast banner.

These aren't the only builds, there are:

GUO: awesome saves, I bleed you bleed- mucus, breath weapon(he never needs to strike first)
HoS: Siren song, can't hit me without leadership test,mount or just the etherblade
HoN: level 1 mage, staff of nurgle

Bloodletters may have the banner of extra charge range. Nurgle blocks only have the poison wounds count double banner if they are using Epidemius, otherwise they have the re-roll wounds banner. If they have big tzeentch blocks, which is rare, they'll have the +1 to cast banner or the bound spell in hth banner.

Question: So are Daemons only "unbeatable" at 2000pts+ or do they still retain their "unbeatable" standard when you can't use Lord choices?

They don't need to greater daemons to be nasty...they are just easy buttons.

Bat Manuel wrote:They don't need to greater daemons to be nasty...they are just easy buttons.

My favourite easy button:

Bloodthirster w/ Dark Insanity (2D6 + 2 Attacks), Immortal Fury (Re-roll failed to hits), and Armour of Khorne (3+ Armour save).

Potentially 14 attacks at WS 10 and S 6 that re-rolls all failed to-hits and wounds just about anything on a 2+.

Hit it on the head right there: Demon's ARE the easy button. They have a no brainer counter for most things in the game. That's why people don't like them.

An entire army, that has ward saves, magic attacks, heralds with statline's of Lords, herald's with str 7 and 0+ save's for under 200 pts that are on highly mobile mounts, units of cavalry (flesh hounds) with good movement, good toughness, high str attacks and number of attacks, a bsb that also is a negative modifier to casting, and negate's their greatests threat Lore of Light.... and I haven't mentioned flying rank breakers who auto break units.

Demon's are the easy button. I play them, I have a balanced, if you can say that, list. I still recognize that I have many advantages to other armies, and only play them at GT or RT level.

And I didn't even mention casting a base 4+ magic missile... oh I did

Daemons = Über cheese of dOOm.
Totally overpowered, an army book made sheerly and purely for abuse. 'nuff said.

Any time I see someone bitching about daemons I ask them what they play. The answers are always something equally crazy:
Black knight buss
Bretonians with 4-5 long lances (the shooting brets wip daemons without effort).
Multiple black guard backed by dual hydras
Dual treemen
High elves with 12-15 lvls of magic
The list goes on.
Deamons beat these lists but not all lists.

Partially true but there in lies the problem is that you have to build a specific list just to hold your own against Daemons. That is how you know it is over powered because you should be able to build a take all comers list and hold your own and if you build specifically against Daemons in a tournament you are in trouble against standard competetive lists.

Just a point to anyone who believes in 'codex creep'-that an army is only competitive for a year.

People have been taking Dark Eldar armies to tournaments since it came out, and winning a large number of them(when viewed comparatively for the number of actual players of Dark Eldar).

And their codex is how old?

*rests case*

So I hope you're all ready for the 'Decade of Daemons!'

Most witty sir. I'm sure that Decade of Daemons(or DOD, as it shall come to be known) will be a feature for many many years to come...

Most witty sir. I'm sure that Decade of Daemons(or DOD, as it shall come to be known) will be a feature for many many years to come...

It will be over when the new scaven come out. Trust me.

Last time I played high elves with a combat list vs deamons I tabled the guy.

An entire army, that has ward saves, magic attacks, heralds with statline's of Lords, herald's with str 7 and 0+ save's for under 200 pts that are on highly mobile mounts, units of cavalry (flesh hounds) with good movement, good toughness, high str attacks and number of attacks, a bsb that also is a negative modifier to casting, and negate's their greatests threat Lore of Light.... and I haven't mentioned flying rank breakers who auto break units.

Well, with the exception of the hearld of korn which i agree is OP lets list the drawbacks too (only listing benefits is a little one sided):
Best save - 5+ (4+ if you combo a 200 pt unit with a 150 pt char with altogether less than stellar killing power)
Virtually no shooting
No cheep effective redirection such as eagles
No fast cav option.
Best war machine hunter dies instantaneously upon losing combat.

Virtually no shooting? Except you have magical shooting (that is core, and gives you dispel) and y9ou have the best skirmishing missile unit in the game, Flamers, who can also fight stupidly well in combat (except against WS5+ opponents) given they have high S, T and wounds.

Best save 5+? Yes but most block troops have 5+ AS, which is halved in effectiveness vs S4 and negated by S5+. Their ward save is constant. BIG BIG BIG difference.

No fast cav option? Oh noes! cheap fleshhound Khorne Delivery systems are soooo rubbish.

Best 60 points of fear causing flyers die instantly? well only if you lose combat - and against war machine crew the outnumber +1, plus probably 1 kill, is all you need.

No fast cav?? Seekers of slaanesh! They are movement 10, have a 6+ then a 5+ ward, the model has 3 attacks, 1 which can poisen, and they are armor piercing. A unit of 5 is awesome for the cost.

Flesh hounds can march 16, they are essentially a wonderful in between for heavy cav, and are BETTER than most other cav.

No shooting is a crock: Tzeentch/ Horror gun line, flamers shooting d6 shots per flamer

And they have furies to take a charge, they do not need march blockers.

The best warmachine hunter is NOT furies, its steeds of slaanesh because they charge 20 inches, cause fear, and are unit str 10. Also screams are great because you can slash multiple warmachines in a turn. Lastly, the best warmachine unit is 1 heralds of khorne on a juggarnaut, cheap, mobile, hatred, str 6.

The thing about Daemons not having a weakness is that you have to know that, and remember it. I once watched a game where VC charged a unit of 10 Black Knights into a Bloodletter unit only to be flanked next turn by the Bloodletter unit sitting right next to it. This from a veteran gamer who has won most of out local tournaments. For some unknown reason he thought the Bloodletters would break. Had he been thinking straight instead of just hating daemons he would have realized that a better place for that unit of Black Knights was lying in wait for the Bloodthirster or some similar counter attack.
Daemons break a lot of conventional rules and expectations, that is why people dont like them. They are above the rest in the same form that 40kEnthusiast implies, but its the players and the way people perceive these broken conventions that makes them so obnoxious. When my opponent pulls out a Daemon army I know this isnt going to be a game of WHFB it's going to be poker. Im going to out wit him by guessing what stupid abilities he's brought and what sorts of tactics he'll try, and rather than out playing him with manouvering and careful spells and shooting Ill just try to kill everything he has on the table, while keeping anything that cant help with that goal tucked neatly in a corner.
I do the same with VC, the only way to get the undead or Daemons off your table is to kill them all.

Daemons break a lot of conventional rules and expectations, that is why people dont like them.

Thus the cries of broken. As for the rest of your post please clarify how you out think a competent Daemon player and with what army. You must have a good bag of tricks because all our top players lose consistently to our top Daemon player with the excetion of VC's and TK's and thats mostly due to thier ability to tie up his best units with cheap res skeletons/Ghouls ect.

From a demon player: I do not play pick up games with my demon except by request. I provider a copy of a typed army list to my opponent, and review my units in depth. I then offer insight as to the strong points of my army, and suggest ways to destroy them. I also do not take lord choices, and always take 1 less character.

I do this to put the game on an even level. Most tournment players are not surprised by demons, and they being the poker dance. Winning by VPs, winning by objects, killing the general.

In Europe at least, it seems that there certainly isn't going to be a decade of the daemons due to heavy comping becoming a necessity for a varied/interesting enough tournament enviroment. Of course this doesn't apply to the few GW-run tournies (UK GT in particular).

I have played daemons twice with my O & G, and won a massacre and a minor victory. The deamon army is ridiculously point and click for design and execution and the magic items are not magic item thing is cheese. However, you can beat it, you just have to accept that whatever the daemon army is designed to do, cc magic ect, it will do better then you, and you need to hit them on another front, so a balanced list will work better. Taking CC High Elves against a Khorne army is a losing battle, and I hope you have plan b. Does the Army need a slight tweaking, yeah, a little bit, is it the most awsome unstoppable thing ever, no, you just have to play your best game and get a little luck. As a waaaagher, that is my lot in life on the best of days.

WarMonger33 wrote:It really does start ruining the game when you start a game and your opponent looks like your crazy because you have a daemon army. At the gameing store I go to daemons are one of the armies that get a bad rep and people do not want to play because they heard that daemons are cheesey and overpowered. I'm not saying that daemons are not any of those things but, people should at least make their own decision if daemons are crazy or not by acctually playing a game against them.

Also the assumption that daemon players do not have any skill at all and play the army because it makes up for their inexperience is really offensive. I'm not the greatest warhammer player to ever hit the scene but I'm not just staring the game and know how to play. I started a daemon army because I liked the background and models, with an army that I can play a couple games a week with, not so I can make a list that I can win easily with. So putting daemon players in catagories is does not give justice for people who play already of are just starting.

This!

People seem to forget that all-daemon armies are NOT new - my only complete WHFB army is composed of 5th ed crabwomen models (and their closest friends). And because of the instant disdain (which, granted, appears more online than in actual venues), I haven't played with my daemons in Fantasy since the end of the SoC list.

It's an embarrassment of wealth - I merely hoped for something playable, and ended up with military-grade hardware.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Warmaster wrote:Actually I've had VC, Daemon, and Dark Elf armies for a very long time, and all the cries of cheese lately have really turned me off from fantasy in general. Who wants to play when as soon as you break out your army, before you've put a model on the table, you get called a power gamer or cheesy.

It's sad but it's gotten so bad about the only fantasy army I will play with is BoC. I'm just waiting for someone to complain about that one.

And this, too. Except I lack a complete other Fantasy army, and the current (over-)reaction to Daemons, DE, and VC doesn't inspire me to collect another.

Well, this is the uncommon flip side of GW's occasional problems with army book/codex imbalance. It is what it is.

As noted, complaints in-store are less vehement than complaints online. People b*tch more on the internet.

If you choose to deliberately undergun your army, competent opponents will be able to recognize that, and give you credit for it. Taking substantial numbers of Daemonettes is a good way to start. Taking a Daemon Prince is another. Just going mono-slaanesh tends to make a less nasty army (though the LD bomb army does bone certain enemies), as you pass up the Thirster, Flamers, Flesh Hounds, and Khornate Heralds on Juggers, which are some of the best things in the book.

I've played chaos for a long as time as in csm, daemons, warriors, beastmen etc and no offense guys but daemons definately aren't as speacial in 40k.. So really the only way I tend to play them is in fantasy. Though for most tourneys cause of the hating I tend to go with my warriors lol I love chaos and always will and I won't quite playing these armies I have collected for years cause of one codex.