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.

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.