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.

UK GT Final players are drawn from the more succesful players of three separate UK GT events called heats. Special characters were allowed like usual. No composition scoring.

Here's the top10 results of the 2009 final tournament:

1. Andy Isherwood - Daemons
2. Fabio Panicucci - Daemons
3. Fabian Quinn - Vampire Counts
4. Ella Bonucci - Daemons
5. Tom Mawdsley - Daemons
6. Phil Manwaring - Dark Elves
7. Eddie Eccles - Daemons
8. Neil Peckett - Daemons
9. Adam Hall - Dwarfs
10. Russ Veal - Warriors of Chaos

See the following link if you're interested in the results:
http://warhammer.org.uk/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=54627

That's pretty sick, but not really surprising (except for the Dwarf). I find myself wondering what the percentage of Daemons to total entries was.

Edit: Of course the Dwarf was a Thorek list, so no surprises to be had there. Only surprise is that the list does so well vs. that sort of top tier competition.

I'm still not convinced that Daemons are overpowered, these tourney results obviously show that the army has no huge edge over the others. Games Workshop did an excellent job balancing that army.

I'm soo glad there seems to be a very "anti-daemon" vibe from my gaming group.. Although, it would leave me lacking as a general if I ever went to a larger tournament as I'm totally unfamiliar with their tactics and rules..

~60% of the armies in attendance were either Daemons (highest), DE, or VC. That's out of 125 People.

God damn...

One more nice tidbit of info:

They were playing Scenario's at all the UK GT Heats & at the Final this year. One of the scenario's was Table Quarters.

For the Final, they changed the rules and made it such that new units of Zombies raised up in a table quarter do not count for claiming/contesting it. That's a huge change and is probably why there are many more Daemon's in the top 10 rather than the mix of Vamps/Daemons.

For the Final, they changed the rules and made it such that new units of Zombies raised up in a table quarter do not count for claiming/contesting it.

It's a sensible move considering the fact that otherwise VC simply cannot lose in such a scenario.

There really is no match for Daemons in a tournament like this. Nearly all Daemon armies had Skulltaker and Blue Scribes, and many also had Kairos and/or the Masque. The situation is slightly better when special characters aren't allowed, although then people usually bring out the Standard of Chaos Glory. Heat 1 was the worst, when 9 top10 armies were Daemons.

Hey I'm all about anything that tones down VC's (I'm racist against Vamps, so sue me).

Still, I think that allowing Special Characters is really what puts the Daemons at the top of the list. As you said, the 4 big ones there really just put them over the top. In general that's one thing I'm sort of happy with in the Tournaments around here in the US, most ban special characters.

As for the Standard of Chaos Glory, do you really think it's worth it given the FAQ? I figure that in a tourney you're most likely to face other Daemon lists, and the FAQ says it affects them as well as you. While that's just plain slowed, it's in the FAQ so that's how it plays.

I think the major problem is that the special characters just aren't given the same sort of balance considerations that the rest of the units entries are.

I run a fluffy daemon army (hell, I even use a daemon prince for my lord!) and while the army is decently hard, specifically due to its lavish use of special rules, its far from unstoppable, when in a decently balanced context. It's difficult not to create an effective daemon list, which I feel is a hallmark of a job well done for the rules staff. However, it also leaves holes that allow one to make some glaringly broken armies, typically when you throw special characters in the mix.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:Hey I'm all about anything that tones down VC's (I'm racist against Vamps, so sue me).

Still, I think that allowing Special Characters is really what puts the Daemons at the top of the list. As you said, the 4 big ones there really just put them over the top. In general that's one thing I'm sort of happy with in the Tournaments around here in the US, most ban special characters.

As for the Standard of Chaos Glory, do you really think it's worth it given the FAQ? I figure that in a tourney you're most likely to face other Daemon lists, and the FAQ says it affects them as well as you. While that's just plain slowed, it's in the FAQ so that's how it plays.

That's indeed a slowed FAQ but I'd say it's still easily worth it. Some people give it to a Khorne Jugger Herald but I would usually like to give it to a flying Tz Herald. His flight move allows you to pretty much decide which units benefit from it and which don't. You make your charges and see which ones hit and then fly your herald into range of all the units that need the buff.

It's probably the most powerful banner in Warhammer, considering it makes the Daemons 'unbreakable' and there really isn't an army (not even other Daemons) that could kill so many Daemons in time. Even a BT would be stuck with 6 stubborn (with re-roll) Flesh Hounds for such a long time that I don't think the BT will make another succesful charge during the game.

Daemons, no matter which way you look at them, are at the top in everything. They have probably three magical banners (Chaos Glory, Despair, Sundering) equal to the feared Drakenhof Banner, they have some of the best magic items (that don't count as magic items) for both combat heroes (Firestorm Blade, Immortal Fury, Balesword, Noxious Vapours) and casters (Master of Sorcery, Tzeentch's Will, Power Vortex, Wings) plus utility (Siren Song). They have four of the top5 special characters in the game. All of their models get ward saves for free. They have the best heavy cavalry in the game (MR3 for absolutely no point cost whatsoever), the best multiple shot fire support unit in the game (especially when Salamanders and Razordons sort of flopped), 120 point fear causing level 1 wizards with 10 wounds and ward saves that can be taken as core choices, and four different Greater Daemons that when geared correctly all give unique problems to their opponents. Problems that often can't be overcome.

Again, I'm not saying Daemons can't be beat. Dark Elves and VC both have very viable anti-Daemon builds, but Daemons are easily the most reliable army for an average player to get above average results with. Naturally, the GT results these days are sort of inflated because a lot of the active and experienced players are playing Daemons. There were times when Wood Elves dominated the UK GT top10 results in nearly a similar manner, and VC has been a good choice for a guy aiming for overall victory for nearly a decade now.

I agree with you in terms of DoC having the most varied yet viable builds available from a single army book, but if I'm playing something that's not DoC/VC, I'd seriously rather fight against them than the Summon+Wraith VC army builds you see.

That WoC player is a huge stud. Even if he was Gateway spamming like the other WoC player!

Therion wrote:
9. Adam Hall - Dwarfs

wow!

That's really surprising. I wonder if with DE,VC, And Daemons on the rise the dwarfs have some options to make them competitive again?

Voodoo Boyz wrote:~60% of the armies in attendance were either Daemons (highest), DE, or VC. That's out of 125 People.

God damn...

Which I think accounts for the top ten results moreso than any percieved balance issues..

Which of those Daemon lists had which greater daemon, or rather, what was their gimmicks? Was it Khorne blitz on top? Tzeentch Blaster? Nurgle VP conservation? Some sort of hybrid?

I use 4 units of 6 flesh hounds, a thirster, 3 units of 10 pink horrors and a unit of 3 bloodcrushers w/HoK on jugger w/armor of khorne who's BSB w/sundering. Is that the sort of army that won, or is there a better list?

The daemon stuff that wins is the automatic stuff like the Masque, the scary -2 banner, Kairos and terror/fear checks. Everything else is just tough units to kill.

Dwarfs are a good counter to demons. They have lots of immunity to fear, lots of mid range shooting to down hounds, and lots of high str shooting to hurt the greater deamon. Not to mention tough to shift combat blocks and chars. They will have issues with the 0+ save khorn char but who doesnt.

On the other hand they just cant keep up with a summon horde. The shooting casualties just arent enough.

GreaterGood? wrote:

Voodoo Boyz wrote:~60% of the armies in attendance were either Daemons (highest), DE, or VC. That's out of 125 People.

God damn...

Which I think accounts for the top ten results moreso than any percieved balance issues..

Not sure that holds up. Stalker UK on warhammer.org.uk posted that there were 31 Daemon, 22 Dark Elf & 20 Vampire count armies.

And that out of the top 30 there were 16 Daemon, 5 Vampire Count, 3 Dark Elf, 2 Warrios of Chaos 2 High Elf, 1 Dwarf & 1 Tomb King

So half of the Daemon players were in the top 30, and they made up half of the top 30. And quite a drop for the rest. If player skill is fairly even, this would point out that there are some balance issues.

can you explain how what you said doesn´t hold up? what you said seems to support what the previous poster said

leighr3029 wrote:can you explain how what you said doesn´t hold up? what you said seems to support what the previous poster said

Sure!

Let me state that first off I haven't played Warhammer in a bit, and haven't read the Daemons book. So I have no opinion yet of whether it is OP or not. I'm just looking at the statistics.

60% of the top 10 were Daemon lists. 53% of the top 30 were Daemon lists. Now, assuming that player skill is roughly even we have to assume that there are two reasons for this performance.

1) The field was crowded with Daemon lists.
2) The Daemon lists are very strong.

There were apparently 31 Daemon lists out of 125ish players, about 25% of the lists. That means there were 1 in 4 armies that were demons.

So we'd expect about 2-3 Daemon lists in the top 10 ( And have more than twice that number. )

And we had 1 in 2 of the top 30 being Daemon lists. We'd have expected about 8, not 15.

I think those numbers definately support reason #1 and make a case for reason #2, no?

30 out of 125 is 24% (call it 25% because it is easier). So assuming all else equal you would expect a quarter of the original entries to be in the top thirty. This means 31 Daemon become 8, 22 Dark Elf & 20 VC become 5-6 each. Deamons pulled in nearly double that with 15. Vampire Counts did exactly what was expected with 5 and the Dark Elves pulled in below average with only 3 instead of 5.5 which is pretty close to what everyone else got. They had 52 armies to start so an expected 13 armies should be in the top thirty but only got 6.

If anything the suprise here is that the Dark Elves didn't do a better job of protecting their spots from being stolen by Deamons. although the common thought the Dark Elf army is harder to use (but still has the ability to handle VC/Deamons) than the VC would make player skill more of a factor. And the bandwagon factor would dilute that to some extent.

DE v. Demons? My money is on the Demons: "having the ability to handle demons" is not the same as being able to deal with them every time, reliably. Demons, on the other hand, can usually handle DE quite well. The math is far too complex to compare Army to Army, but Demons are rock solid (except for Furies) and DE are not, and do not cause Fear with everything in the Army (oh, and Demons don't run away, ever).

So, I'm not surprised to see the statistics shown above.

I just came back from a tournament where a quarter of the armies were Daemons, and 4 of the top 5 were Daemons too. I played VC, and 3 of my 4 games were against other VC.

Normally, I'm not a comp nut and I think if it's legal, bring it.

But the recent tournament I went to was boring, boring, BORING and it got me thinking.

What if a tournament said "no Daemons allowed." Would players retract support and not go? Would they all take VC instead? Would there be a better mix of armies? Or...would the bottom tier armies (Ogres, Orcs...) still have no showing?

Does anyone know what was in Fabians VC list?

Mannfred Von Carstein.

Zoned wrote:I just came back from a tournament where a quarter of the armies were Daemons, and 4 of the top 5 were Daemons too. I played VC, and 3 of my 4 games were against other VC.

Normally, I'm not a comp nut and I think if it's legal, bring it.

But the recent tournament I went to was boring, boring, BORING and it got me thinking.

What if a tournament said "no Daemons allowed." Would players retract support and not go? Would they all take VC instead? Would there be a better mix of armies? Or...would the bottom tier armies (Ogres, Orcs...) still have no showing?

I've heard the same rumblings about banning Daemons. I don't think it really does much except make VC even better by comparison and piss off a bunch of hard core gamers who've spent hard earned cash on metal models (for the most part). The meta game is going to adjust for the preponderance of Daemons, VC, and DEs. There's so many right now that's it's more than viable to bring a fairly targeted counter list and to expect to use against who it's built to kill at least half or more of the games you play (assuming you're at least a top half player). I don't think that the bottom feeders get a huge boost either, because a lot of the guys who play Daemons would just switch to VC or DEs because they're playing to win as much as anything else) - that kind of player just doesn't bring Orcs or Ogres to a major event.

Therion wrote:Mannfred Von Carstein.

So he got in the top 10 with just a 600 or so point character, that guy's uber. Now does anyone have the actual list contents?

Zoned wrote:I just came back from a tournament where a quarter of the armies were Daemons, and 4 of the top 5 were Daemons too. I played VC, and 3 of my 4 games were against other VC.

Normally, I'm not a comp nut and I think if it's legal, bring it.

But the recent tournament I went to was boring, boring, BORING and it got me thinking.

What if a tournament said "no Daemons allowed." Would players retract support and not go? Would they all take VC instead? Would there be a better mix of armies? Or...would the bottom tier armies (Ogres, Orcs...) still have no showing?

Well, I wouldn't go. My all-Slaaneshi, all-5e crabwomen army predates the current daemon supremacy (though I do remember the Ravening Hordes list with a mixture of fondness and horror). And it's my only WHFB army.

*shrug*

Please do remember that not every daemon player is a cheesey git. I will cheerfully acknowledge, however, that there is a lot of room to abuse the current army book.

Zoned wrote:I just came back from a tournament where a quarter of the armies were Daemons, and 4 of the top 5 were Daemons too. I played VC, and 3 of my 4 games were against other VC.

Normally, I'm not a comp nut and I think if it's legal, bring it.

But the recent tournament I went to was boring, boring, BORING and it got me thinking.

What if a tournament said "no Daemons allowed." Would players retract support and not go? Would they all take VC instead? Would there be a better mix of armies? Or...would the bottom tier armies (Ogres, Orcs...) still have no showing?

And after you played 3\4 of your games vs other VC (Not that top 5 Daemons), you put all guilt on Daemons? No Demons Allowed - will make your playing experience like 100% opponents will play same VC as you.
ps. At least Daemons can make pretty different lists.. thing that VC can't handle

Here in Australian Tournaments we have Composition points to kill off the OTT cheesy armies.

I've not seen a greater daemon for the last 3 tourneys and have not yet seen a blood thirster at any tournament because a BT gets you minimum comp no matter what else you take and that knocks off about 20% of possible points for the tourney.