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.

Hey guys,

So this is more of a plea for advice more than anything else. I'm looking at starting two armies simultaneously, one Space Marine and one Daemon. The Space Marines I think I've got sussed, but Daemons I have little/no experience with, having only seen them on Vassal once and never in real life.

A quick note: Since reading the Daemon codex I simply cannot bend my head around the fact that all the Chaos Gods are now perfectly chummy with each other. Whilst I get that this is probably to increase model variety in a particular army, it just doesn't sit well with me and as such I will be dedicating my army entirely to one of the Gods, namely Khorne or Slaanesh. My question to you all is; what do you think are the advantages and disadvantages of either force?

What I've gleaned so far is that Slaanesh relies upon fragile, nimble units with lots of Rending to get the job done, they seem like quite the glass cannon, able to throw out a bucketload of attacks but with only a T3 on the basic Daemonettes they aren't able to take punishment all that well. Fiends are awesome. Khorne on the other hand seems to be a little tougher, able to take a beating or two (especially on the chunkier units like the Bloodthirster and Bloodcrushers) and seem to universally wield power weapons. To offset this though they seem to be very, very slow. I'm guessing accurate and aggressive deepstrikes are in order to make sure that they actually make the most of their killing power?

Other than those bare facts I really don't have a lot to go on. Any tactical nuances you guys can give me about either of the two Gods or how to get the most out of a Daemons army in general would be very much appreciated.

Cheers,

L. Wrex

...Anybody? ...Anything? ...No?

Awwwww....

L. Wrex

Well personally I don't recommend going mono god. Its better to cherry pick what the best choices are for each FOC slot.

HQ: Heralds of tzeentch are the no brainder, giving them a chariot and bolt, cheap and good
Elite: Fiends for speedy hard hitting guys. Crushers for slow hard hitting guys.
Troops: Plague bearers since you need scoring guys more than killing power
FA: seekers or hounds. Hounds are stronger and tougher, but seekers have more attacks and rending. I prefer hounds since S5 on the charge is good enough against vehicles, and rending is something I've learned to not rely on
HS: Bolt of tzeentch princes. Don't recommend grinders since they are the only AV in the army, and they have huge footprints (mishaps).

Deepstriking assault units leaves you with the problem of sitting out in the open looking stupid. Beast and cav movement units are good for hiding during that turn, and still having a huge assault range.

DakkaDakka wrote:

As a bit of a Daemons player myself, go with their strengths. I personally use Khornate demons such as bloodletters and bloodcrushers. Nurglings then take the rear, pick up and hold objectives, Flamers are great anti-tank and all-around ranged destruction, and beyond that, it depends on your metagame. Khorne MCs will eat tank armies alive, especially if they've got wings. If you have more elite infantry based opponents, you may be interested in Nurgle MCs. They roll with punches extremely well, and a few kitted out Nurgle DPs with addons like Noxious touch (poisoned, wounding on 2+), and Iron hide are going to be tough, dangerous and good against whatever infantry is being thrown at you.

There are also a lot of boons to playing a Tzeentch army, you can do a lot of damage the turn you arrive, you can shoot down a lot of tanks, and you aren't reliant on assaults for victory.

I can't say much about Slaanesh, unfortunately. I don't have a lot of experience, and they don't fit with my playstyle. But Khorne is great.

Did I mention Bloodletters have this strange tendency to eat through any Space Marine army I've ever played against? Yeah. Blood Angel assault armies have got NOTHING on WS 5, invulnerable save-having power weapon attacks. Not to mention furious charge.

EDIT: I guess Slaanesh would be good against some clunkier, slower horde armies like Orks or any IG that doesn't have a lot of armor to run with.

I like the idea of a mono god list, however the reality of it is that mono Tzeentch is the only really viable one. Even that's tough.

I personally run a Tzeentch/Slannessh build that works nicely. Khorne obviously packs more punch and staying power than Slannessh, but are so incredibly slow. I like the fact that Daemonettes and Fiends can actually reach combat and aren't completely hurt by enemies hiding in cover.

I wouldn't say Tzeentch is the only choice for a mono list, but it is the best IMO. Mono-Tzeentch gives a lot of ranged AT shooting and better Inv. saves for it's troops.

Mono Khorne and mono Slaanesh are both viable.

Arbitorian has a good article and some good posts detailing his mono-slaanesh army. You should check those out.

I have never played mono Khorne simply because I just don't like bloodletters. I prefer horrors for troops but plaguebearers are most people's number one pick.

DakkaDakka wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:

JGrand wrote: Khorne obviously packs more punch and staying power than Slannessh, but are so incredibly slow

They aren't though. Be ballsy with your Deep Strikes, and make good use of your icons...and they'll do just fine.

Being ballsy with your DS just means you will lose your more expensive units more often, to mishaps or rapid fire death.

6 inch move and assault units are slow in an army full of 6 inch move, d6 fleet, 12 inch assault units.

DakkaDakka wrote:

None of which are Troops. None Do you even play Daemons?

Being bold with Deep Strikes doesn't result in lost units. As a general rule, it means dropping your units into terrain that opponents weren't expecting, dropping them close as a suicide unit for several units to use their Icon the following turn, or at worst dropping a unit 10-12 inches away from enemy models (before scatter, naturally.)

While Daemonettes are good, for 14 points, they pale in comparison to the utility of Bloodletters at 16. Being able to Fleet isn't as useful as you'd think if you are playing your Deep Strikes correctly. They have the option to Rend things that Bloodletters can't touch, which falls to AV12/AV11(if the Bloodletters are not charging), and that is one of their best uses.

Against Genestealers (upgraded as they should be.), they don't have the Initiative lead that they depend on.
Against most Ork units, they need to assault in a large number themselves, or they are simply overwhelmed.
And truth be told, they either won't, or barely will win their points back against an IG blob.

Obviously Bloodletters are stronger and tougher than Daemonettes, but it's so much easier to mitigate them. Say you successfully deepstrike within 7" of an opponent. They can simply choose to move away. Even if you are within 6" and DS into area terrain (which I do a lot and you advocate as well) you still need a good roll to get out. If you DS close and you opponent sits in cover and shoots out is devastating too. That may actually be the worst for Bloodletters. Daemonettes can actually reach CC and assault into cover. They are also better anti infantry.

I like Bloodcrushers as they are more survivable with a T5 and 3+ 5++. I don't mind Flesh hounds as they can close the gap. I just think Bloodletters are too easily stopped against an opponent with good tactics.

Che-Vito wrote:

notabot187 wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:

JGrand wrote: Khorne obviously packs more punch and staying power than Slannessh, but are so incredibly slow

They aren't though. Be ballsy with your Deep Strikes, and make good use of your icons...and they'll do just fine.

Being ballsy with your DS just means you will lose your more expensive units more often, to mishaps or rapid fire death.

6 inch move and assault units are slow in an army full of 6 inch move, d6 fleet, 12 inch assault units.

None of which are Troops. None Do you even play Daemons?

Being bold with Deep Strikes doesn't result in lost units. As a general rule, it means dropping your units into terrain that opponents weren't expecting, dropping them close as a suicide unit for several units to use their Icon the following turn, or at worst dropping a unit 10-12 inches away from enemy models (before scatter, naturally.)

While Daemonettes are good, for 14 points, they pale in comparison to the utility of Bloodletters at 16. Being able to Fleet isn't as useful as you'd think if you are playing your Deep Strikes correctly. They have the option to Rend things that Bloodletters can't touch, which falls to AV12/AV11(if the Bloodletters are not charging), and that is one of their best uses.

Against Genestealers (upgraded as they should be.), they don't have the Initiative lead that they depend on.
Against most Ork units, they need to assault in a large number themselves, or they are simply overwhelmed.
And truth be told, they either won't, or barely will win their points back against an IG blob.

I don't even know where to start...

Yes, I play daemons. Did at any point I say anything about troops? The only thing I said about troops is to take plague bearers... which aren't supposed to attack anything unless they have to.

Being bold does't result in lost units? Whatever happened to the mishap chart, or the "I landed in rapid fire range of the entire army when they have mystics?"

I personally deepstrike units 1" away from the enemy quite often. Is that being bold? Not really, its either being stupid, or i expect that if I scatter, I will end up either farther away, or on the other side the enemy. Its quite entertaining when I do this with my bolt and breath princes. I only do this with units I expect and want to lose. (daemon princes draw a lot of fire, I expect them to last a single turn, but it keeps my assault units alive)

Icons are crutches, I haven't used them for a long time. Why pay a tax on your list that you aren't even sure will land where you want it, half your amry can't use, and might come in on the wrong wave?

Daemonettes and bloodletters both suck unless you take a bunch of them. I use both in my "friendly" list, but only use plague guys in my serious list. Why? I would rather spend my points on units that are better at killing things, and score with min sized plague bearer units that are much more resilient. Assaulting anything serious with a troops choice is a recipe for disaster.

Also, winning their points back doesn't matter in standard missions.

DakkaDakka wrote:

I play a mono slaanesh list that is a 'sampling' of all the slaanesh options in the codex. KoS, Chariot, Masque, 'nettes, 6x Fiends, Seekers et cetera.

The fleet move does make Daemonettes a fair bit faster than Bloodletters although the real difference in my opinion between them is the presence of grenades.

'letters certainly tear up any MEQ they reach, but what I like about the 'nettes is they usually do enough wounds to win combat, but not by so much that they are not still in combat and safe from shooting. The 'letters tend to massacre a unit and then get shot to pieces.

That said I think the best option for troops are Horrors (5 man squads with Bolts) since they are rather resilient, and they can shoot which most Daemon lists are weak in.

Regardless of Khorne or Slaanesh, if you are playing a Mono list w/o Tzeetch I would recommend SoulGrinders for their shooting.

DakkaDakka wrote:

As Notabot has said, the most competitive choice is Plaguebearers. You can cheaply add in the most resilient troops and use them for the sole purpose of objective capturing. The saved points can be used to spend on the more killy units in the codex. It's not that the other troop choices are bad. I don't think any of them besides Nurglings are. But from a competitive standpoint I feel like a min maxed list would make use of Plaguebearers.

As to the point of the thread, I still find Daemonettes to be more effective than Bloodletters on the troops side. The lack of nades, speed and initiative just hurt them too much in my mind. They can be decent though. In terms of elites I prefer Fiends to Bloodcrushers as well. Speed is the key here again. My Fiends can threaten a 19-24" radius and put the hurt on opponents with a massive amount of st 5 and 6 attacks. I don't have lots of experience with Seekers or Flesh hounds but both seem pretty solid if a bit unspectacular.

I think one thing that can be agreed upon is the fact that Daemons are a rare army where we actually get to debate the merits of builds and almost every unit instead of just re-hasing some generic powerlist. This is why they are my favorite army

Che-Vito wrote:

notabot187 wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:

JGrand wrote: Khorne obviously packs more punch and staying power than Slannessh, but are so incredibly slow

They aren't though. Be ballsy with your Deep Strikes, and make good use of your icons...and they'll do just fine.

Being ballsy with your DS just means you will lose your more expensive units more often, to mishaps or rapid fire death.

6 inch move and assault units are slow in an army full of 6 inch move, d6 fleet, 12 inch assault units.

None of which are Troops. None Do you even play Daemons?

Being bold with Deep Strikes doesn't result in lost units. As a general rule, it means dropping your units into terrain that opponents weren't expecting, dropping them close as a suicide unit for several units to use their Icon the following turn, or at worst dropping a unit 10-12 inches away from enemy models (before scatter, naturally.)

And even then, it's not likely your units will just DIE outright. The worst that could happen is you'll be stuck with your units in reserve, and get only a few units on the field.

I actually put my bloodletters about 8-12" away on purpose, between the enemy and the objective and in some sort of cover. That, or I put the funny little plaguebearers up front. It's so cute when people try to shoot at them, or funnier still, assault them.

Anyways, I know you don't want to accept multiple gods in one army, but it's the best possible option. Think about it this way, would you field an army of JUST assault Space Marines? Or an army of Tau without battlesuits? Or, a better example still, an army of Eldar with nothing but Guardians and Striking Scorpions? None of these are balanced, and none of them are likely to win unless you're a really good tactician.

DakkaDakka wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:

crazypsyko666 wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:

notabot187 wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:

JGrand wrote: Khorne obviously packs more punch and staying power than Slannessh, but are so incredibly slow

They aren't though. Be ballsy with your Deep Strikes, and make good use of your icons...and they'll do just fine.

Being ballsy with your DS just means you will lose your more expensive units more often, to mishaps or rapid fire death.

6 inch move and assault units are slow in an army full of 6 inch move, d6 fleet, 12 inch assault units.

None of which are Troops. None Do you even play Daemons?

Being bold with Deep Strikes doesn't result in lost units. As a general rule, it means dropping your units into terrain that opponents weren't expecting, dropping them close as a suicide unit for several units to use their Icon the following turn, or at worst dropping a unit 10-12 inches away from enemy models (before scatter, naturally.)

And even then, it's not likely your units will just DIE outright. The worst that could happen is you'll be stuck with your units in reserve, and get only a few units on the field.

I actually put my bloodletters about 8-12" away on purpose, between the enemy and the objective and in some sort of cover. That, or I put the funny little plaguebearers up front. It's so cute when people try to shoot at them, or funnier still, assault them.

Anyways, I know you don't want to accept multiple gods in one army, but it's the best possible option. Think about it this way, would you field an army of JUST assault Space Marines? Or an army of Tau without battlesuits? Or, a better example still, an army of Eldar with nothing but Guardians and Striking Scorpions? None of these are balanced, and none of them are likely to win unless you're a really good tactician.

I run Slaanesh/Khorne, as posted earlier. The combination works pretty well, Slaanesh is pretty much there to be a meatshield for the Khorne units...granted a meatshield that if it actually makes it into assault...will also do some damage!

While Plaguebearers may be better at "meatshielding", at the end of the day they are not able to be a mobile one.

Exactly, they're a tarpit, cover and objectives holders. I've played through games where the enemy threw everything it had at three squads of plaguebearers, and only the equivalent of one squad went down. They aren't supposed to kill anything. They're the supposed to be a stick in a pile of concrete that is rapidly drying. And while that's happening, if you manage to get them into assault, you can then Furious Charge in with some bloodletters or something equally nasty. OR, in a battlefield with some heavy terrain, you can block off entire armies from advancing. I remember playing against an old DE army, 2500 point game. The plaguebearers were up front, and I assaulted them into a few warrior squads. We had a lot of the imperial buildings set up in the hobby shop we were playing at, and the army could not physically advance. This lasted about two or three turns, I can't quite remember. It was hilarious, though.

Essentially, your initial findings were right. Korne units are slower than most, but are absolute beasts in combat. Slaanesh are mush faster, and can hit just as hard, but need a bit of help (Sophorific Musk..) to aid their survivability. Right now, I'm experimenting with a Slaanesh/Tzeench mix splashing a bit for Bloodletters and Skarbrand. Tzeench gives me some OK shooting and a shot at taking out armour. Skarbrand makes Fiends and Deamonettes a real threat, and bloodletters are brilliant with tougher units.

I have have some experiments with the Masque, and she has worked quite well with Korne, as she can use her Pavane on 3 seperate units and get them within assault range.

As stated mono-god is a tuff row to hoe. Combinations of marks cover for each others weaknesses. That stated I would lean to slaanesh. Speed kills while the power of khorne is diminished when you face less well-armored opponents. You are paying for power weapons and frankly that may be scary to a marine but it really is not much scarier to an ork or guardsman.

Fiends are a very nasty elite choice as I am sure steeds are though I have little experience with them. Fleet, initiative and the number of attacks coupled with rending makes daemonettes still a scary proposition for heavy armored opponents. Keepers are a bigger beast than the khorne equivalent and with fleet almost as fast as their winged counterpart.

If I were to go mono. Slaanesh is the most capable choice to stand on its own although situationally khorne will be better slaanesh is less exposed to all opponent choices.