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.

 labmouse42 wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:
I don't trust you, because I know damn well what happened in my local area.

Dude.

People are speaking their own experiences on this forum. The world is a vast and broad place. Its quite possible that he played those games he mentioned and they turned out the way they did.

The only time we should question people like that is when they start talking about national events. You can call people out when they are talking about the common lists at Adepticon or NOVA. When people are talking about their own metas, lets give em the benifit of the doubt.

NoArmourSave basically said my experiences were outright wrong, because obviously his local environment didn't start pulling out the available counters. (or deploy them properly)
Hence why I said I didn't trust his self-claimed 'expertise' on the issue of Fatecrusher being 'the solid counter to GK's'.

Fatecrusher was a great list no doubt. Until Warp Quake ended it in my area. If other areas didn't start using Warp Quake to counter the list, then those GK players weren't (ab)using their codex to it's full potential.

The new codex is certainly competitive, even if Flamers and Screamers have been nerfed. The daemons get lots of cheap troops and the heralds are not overly expensive either. Tested a few games today and it managed to beat both SW and SoB (damn Celestine for not getting up with two tries).

Experiment 626 wrote:

 labmouse42 wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:
I don't trust you, because I know damn well what happened in my local area.

Dude.

People are speaking their own experiences on this forum. The world is a vast and broad place. Its quite possible that he played those games he mentioned and they turned out the way they did.

The only time we should question people like that is when they start talking about national events. You can call people out when they are talking about the common lists at Adepticon or NOVA. When people are talking about their own metas, lets give em the benifit of the doubt.

NoArmourSave basically said my experiences were outright wrong, because obviously his local environment didn't start pulling out the available counters. (or deploy them properly)
Hence why I said I didn't trust his self-claimed 'expertise' on the issue of Fatecrusher being 'the solid counter to GK's'.

Fatecrusher was a great list no doubt. Until Warp Quake ended it in my area. If other areas didn't start using Warp Quake to counter the list, then those GK players weren't (ab)using their codex to it's full potential.

Actually, warp quake was only effective 50% of the time vs. Fatecrusher. If the GK player wen't first he could win (sometimes). If Fatecrusher wen't first, he would would most likely win.
In 5th, most GK players didn't play Warp Quake spam, because the TAC power builds (Draigo Wing, Purifier Spam) didn't use it, or used it in limited quantities. Sure you could tailor against Daemons, but that is another paradigm. I don't play competitively
against opponents that list tailor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spetulhu wrote:
The new codex is certainly competitive, even if Flamers and Screamers have been nerfed. The daemons get lots of cheap troops and the heralds are not overly expensive either. Tested a few games today and it managed to beat both SW and SoB (damn Celestine for not getting up with two tries).

But it's not competitive against Grey Knights. Which means taking a pure daemon list to a tournament with GK players is not going to go well.

A minimal daemon FOC with CSM allies can do much better against GK, but then what about the people that just want to play daemons. Shouldn't they have a fair chance?

Obviously no. 40K is beer and pretzels as far as GW is concerned.

Experiment 626 wrote:

 labmouse42 wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:
I don't trust you, because I know damn well what happened in my local area.

Dude.

People are speaking their own experiences on this forum. The world is a vast and broad place. Its quite possible that he played those games he mentioned and they turned out the way they did.

The only time we should question people like that is when they start talking about national events. You can call people out when they are talking about the common lists at Adepticon or NOVA. When people are talking about their own metas, lets give em the benifit of the doubt.

NoArmourSave basically said my experiences were outright wrong, because obviously his local environment didn't start pulling out the available counters. (or deploy them properly)
Hence why I said I didn't trust his self-claimed 'expertise' on the issue of Fatecrusher being 'the solid counter to GK's'.

Fatecrusher was a great list no doubt. Until Warp Quake ended it in my area. If other areas didn't start using Warp Quake to counter the list, then those GK players weren't (ab)using their codex to it's full potential.

I think your experiences are atypical. I was one of the only people in my area that played Daemons, and never had an issue with people tailoring in casual games. I always used an all-comers list and never had a problem with GK lists (note that I've never played against a full on Warp Quake spam list). I have never lost to a GK list (about 10 games total, about half of those in tournaments).

I realize that my sample size is small, but from what I can see, GK died like any other MEQ army to the old Daemon Codex, before or after the WD update.

NoArmorSave wrote:

Actually, warp quake was only effective 50% of the time vs. Fatecrusher. If the GK player wen't first he could win (sometimes). If Fatecrusher wen't first, he would would most likely win.
In 5th, most GK players didn't play Warp Quake spam, because the TAC power builds (Draigo Wing, Purifier Spam) didn't use it, or used it in limited quantities. Sure you could tailor against Daemons, but that is another paradigm. I don't play competitively
against opponents that list tailor.

Coteaz lists were far worse due to his own rule to re-roll the 'sieze the initiative' dice.
But still, when we knew that the local tourny would be populated by a high number of GK's, that 50/50 chance for Warp Quake to end Fatecrusher ment it wasn't a good list to bring anymore. Even 2 smaller 5-man combat squaded Interceptors created enough of an area that it would be pretty much impossible to bring those huge 'Crusher units + Fatey down within support range of eachother. (and 'Cepters w/Psycannons became quite the thing to tackle SW Missilefang spam as well)

Hence why I just quit the local tourny scene because GK's were everywhere and simply don't make for even a remotely enjoyable game.

NoArmorSave wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spetulhu wrote:
The new codex is certainly competitive, even if Flamers and Screamers have been nerfed. The daemons get lots of cheap troops and the heralds are not overly expensive either. Tested a few games today and it managed to beat both SW and SoB (damn Celestine for not getting up with two tries).

But it's not competitive against Grey Knights. Which means taking a pure daemon list to a tournament with GK players is not going to go well.

A minimal daemon FOC with CSM allies can do much better against GK, but then what about the people that just want to play daemons. Shouldn't they have a fair chance?

Obviously no. 40K is beer and pretzels as far as GW is concerned.

And that's not a problem of our codex. We'll simply have to continue to suck it up and take our lickings until the real problem gets addressed. (ie: Codex: Herp-Derp Knights)
If Kelly had for example given us rules to pick-on GK's, (and likely by extension other psykers), and/or artificially deflated our pts costs in order to make us competitive against GK's then we'd in turn be absolutely broken against everyone else!

Hopefully GW has learned their lesson that introducing an outright hard-counter/beatstick codex that singles out an entire faction is a horrible idea.
So for now, if you expect to see even a few GK armies at a competitive event, then Daemons probably aren't the #1 army to bring.

I always thought the Codex: Deamonhunters rule that let Chaos players indefinitely recycle Daemon units was a great idea for balancing the GKs' obvious advantage and added a cinematic element of 'GKs being deployed because of the overwhelming Deamonic infestation'.

I was surprised that this spot-on cinematic element got dropped whilst various questionable random elements were being added under that remit.

But then, let's just step back a little, here. Remember when the last CSM book came out, and everyone with a traditional hybrid list was left stuck with generic lesser and greater daemons who couldn't use their wings, magic staffs, or tentacles? And then the CD book came out, and proper Daemons suddenly only hung out with CSM in Apocalypse battles?

Coming from a 2ED perspective, when Daemons needed to be summoned by the faithful and GKs were something that, like LotD, generally come in to support beleaguered defenders and were very rarely sighted en mass, I'm finding it very comfortable to accept a game in which Daemons are either auxiliaries to CSM or traitors or even Xenos worshippers, or else appear as a main force that still has some mortal backup.

It's how it's been, historically, and I think it's fair to say that the past few years of 'pure' Daemons entering tournaments has been a transitional period to CSM getting a much bigger range of gribblies to summon without having a preposterously massive Codex, and renegade IG being fieldable without relying on obsolete EoT or FW rules.

CSM & Daemons looks great, has a rich history, and I see no reason to worry if their brief period of independence has ended and now they have to work together again to get results.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I guess what I'm trying to say is 'competitive Daemon army' feels to me kind of like 'competitive SM Scouts army' or 'competitive artillery company' or 'competitive Inquisitorial warband'. To me, there's a Chaos army that spans two codices and sometimes overlaps with others. There's nothing wrong with a 'pure' specialised army, but I'm not fussed if combined arms is the way to play effectively.

I have to admit the daemons dex is balanced, they added a table that has a random effect can be either interesting or humorous, I am not a WAAC kinda guy, in fact i am a khorne fan boy so already i am at a disadvantage when this edition is very good for shooting armies.

 wolfmerc wrote:
I have to admit the daemons dex is balanced, they added a table that has a random effect can be either interesting or humorous, I am not a WAAC kinda guy, in fact i am a khorne fan boy so already i am at a disadvantage when this edition is very good for shooting armies.

Considering Khorne now gets cheap soul grinders and a S8 cannon that ignores cover and basically gives you assault grenades, I wouldn't feel too bummed.

Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:

 wolfmerc wrote:
I have to admit the daemons dex is balanced, they added a table that has a random effect can be either interesting or humorous, I am not a WAAC kinda guy, in fact i am a khorne fan boy so already i am at a disadvantage when this edition is very good for shooting armies.

Considering Khorne now gets cheap soul grinders and a S8 cannon that ignores cover and basically gives you assault grenades, I wouldn't feel too bummed.

Not to mention that Bloodcrushers got buffed with the change to Cavalry unit type... And Flesh Hounds got amazingly good... Or how Heralds seriously buff those units with their Loci effects on top of gaining a 10pts initiative-order ap2 ccw.

Heck, even Bloodthirsters come pretty well fully loaded at base cost w/3+ armour, Axe of Khorne & a S6/ap2 Lash of Khorne shooting attack!

Experiment 626 wrote:

Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:

 wolfmerc wrote:
I have to admit the daemons dex is balanced, they added a table that has a random effect can be either interesting or humorous, I am not a WAAC kinda guy, in fact i am a khorne fan boy so already i am at a disadvantage when this edition is very good for shooting armies.

Considering Khorne now gets cheap soul grinders and a S8 cannon that ignores cover and basically gives you assault grenades, I wouldn't feel too bummed.

Not to mention that Bloodcrushers got buffed with the change to Cavalry unit type... And Flesh Hounds got amazingly good... Or how Heralds seriously buff those units with their Loci effects on top of gaining a 10pts initiative-order ap2 ccw.

Heck, even Bloodthirsters come pretty well fully loaded at base cost w/3+ armour, Axe of Khorne & a S6/ap2 Lash of Khorne shooting attack!

Well, seems like a mono-god Khorne is a viable option: Blood Thirster, winged DP, Blood Crushers, Blood Letters, Flesh Hounds, Soul Grinders.

And Heralds, don't forget the Heralds! They are fantastic and you can get four for a HQ slot (and taking the Bloodthirster makes your DP shift to Heavy Support, which is a rule that I adore) and are well worth taking.

Khorne also now have a chariot and a bizarre skullcannon thing, if that takes your fancy.

 wuestenfux wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:

Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:

 wolfmerc wrote:
I have to admit the daemons dex is balanced, they added a table that has a random effect can be either interesting or humorous, I am not a WAAC kinda guy, in fact i am a khorne fan boy so already i am at a disadvantage when this edition is very good for shooting armies.

Considering Khorne now gets cheap soul grinders and a S8 cannon that ignores cover and basically gives you assault grenades, I wouldn't feel too bummed.

Not to mention that Bloodcrushers got buffed with the change to Cavalry unit type... And Flesh Hounds got amazingly good... Or how Heralds seriously buff those units with their Loci effects on top of gaining a 10pts initiative-order ap2 ccw.

Heck, even Bloodthirsters come pretty well fully loaded at base cost w/3+ armour, Axe of Khorne & a S6/ap2 Lash of Khorne shooting attack!

Well, seems like a mono-god Khorne is a viable option: Blood Thirster, winged DP, Blood Crushers, Blood Letters, Flesh Hounds, Soul Grinders.

All mono-god lists are like this. You just choose between hitting power (Khorne), speed (Slaanesh), durability (Nurgle) and trickery (Tzeentch). Otherwise, all mono-builds work exactly the same: fast heavy hitters (BCs, Fiends, Beasts, Flamers) supported by hordes of Troops, fast flankers (Hounds, Seekers, Drones, Screamers) and some big guy in the back (Grinder or Cannon).

Choosing a mono-god list is like that power distribution triangle in Wing Commander: you can have more oomph on shields/firepower/speed but you will still fly the same fighter craft.

Whether demons are competitive or not depends on where you live and what tournaments you attend.

In general I do not think demons are competitive enough to do well even at the local tournament environment where I live.

Playing them without allies has the following problems.

1) They are a hth combat centric army in a shooting centric game.

2) They do not have any real fliers and the "grounding rule" completely nerfs monst flying creatures

3) The soulgrinder is not sufficient AAA in a meta full of necron flyers, vendettas and heldrakes

4)Demons will struggle with a heavy mechanized opponent

5) the monst critters are way over priced for their durability and utility

6) As mentioned numerous times, the GK, a popular tourney army is a hard counter to demons

I have a huge collection of demons going back to third edition and can pretty much field an all metal army of any faction with the exception of models that were never in metal. The last 40k demon codex was a joke and I only played demons a couple of times just for laughs.

Perhaps the current codex is worse if not at least as bad as the last one. Except for getting rid of the crippling demonic assault rule the new codex did not really address any of the serious flaws the army had before.

I think the demon army is a very difficult one to write rules for in the 40k game. Frankly, it is probably far beyond the skill level of the current GW design team. After all what kind of monumentally incompetent designer would come up with the flamer chariot, an AV10 vehicle with a short range gun that cannot move and shoot?

I suppose the demon army is a good fluff ally for csm, but I wouldnt recommend that combination for a tournament because there are much better choices.

JWhex wrote:
Whether demons are competitive or not depends on where you live and what tournaments you attend.

In general I do not think demons are competitive enough to do well even at the local tournament environment where I live.

Playing them without allies has the following problems.

1) They are a hth combat centric army in a shooting centric game.

2) They do not have any real fliers and the "grounding rule" completely nerfs monst flying creatures

3) The soulgrinder is not sufficient AAA in a meta full of necron flyers, vendettas and heldrakes

4)Demons will struggle with a heavy mechanized opponent

5) the monst critters are way over priced for their durability and utility

6) As mentioned numerous times, the GK, a popular tourney army is a hard counter to demons

I have a huge collection of demons going back to third edition and can pretty much field an all metal army of any faction with the exception of models that were never in metal. The last 40k demon codex was a joke and I only played demons a couple of times just for laughs.

Perhaps the current codex is worse if not at least as bad as the last one. Except for getting rid of the crippling demonic assault rule the new codex did not really address any of the serious flaws the army had before.

I think the demon army is a very difficult one to write rules for in the 40k game. Frankly, it is probably far beyond the skill level of the current GW design team. After all what kind of monumentally incompetent designer would come up with the flamer chariot, an AV10 vehicle with a short range gun that cannot move and shoot?

I suppose the demon army is a good fluff ally for csm, but I wouldnt recommend that combination for a tournament because there are much better choices.

So you haven't played a single game with the new rules but you apparently know they're 100% useless crap?
Not sure if serious...

And the chariot is likely an oversight - at least wait for the FAQ before we declare the games devs complete idiots.

Experiment 626 wrote:

JWhex wrote:
Whether demons are competitive or not depends on where you live and what tournaments you attend.

In general I do not think demons are competitive enough to do well even at the local tournament environment where I live.

Playing them without allies has the following problems.

1) They are a hth combat centric army in a shooting centric game.

2) They do not have any real fliers and the "grounding rule" completely nerfs monst flying creatures

3) The soulgrinder is not sufficient AAA in a meta full of necron flyers, vendettas and heldrakes

4)Demons will struggle with a heavy mechanized opponent

5) the monst critters are way over priced for their durability and utility

6) As mentioned numerous times, the GK, a popular tourney army is a hard counter to demons

I have a huge collection of demons going back to third edition and can pretty much field an all metal army of any faction with the exception of models that were never in metal. The last 40k demon codex was a joke and I only played demons a couple of times just for laughs.

Perhaps the current codex is worse if not at least as bad as the last one. Except for getting rid of the crippling demonic assault rule the new codex did not really address any of the serious flaws the army had before.

I think the demon army is a very difficult one to write rules for in the 40k game. Frankly, it is probably far beyond the skill level of the current GW design team. After all what kind of monumentally incompetent designer would come up with the flamer chariot, an AV10 vehicle with a short range gun that cannot move and shoot?

I suppose the demon army is a good fluff ally for csm, but I wouldnt recommend that combination for a tournament because there are much better choices.

So you haven't played a single game with the new rules but you apparently know they're 100% useless crap?
Not sure if serious...

And the chariot is likely an oversight - at least wait for the FAQ before we declare the games devs complete idiots.

The question be addressed was whether or not the demons were competitive. If you read my post you will note that I gave the caveat that they were not competitive in my local game environment followed by a list of reasons. Like many if not most people that have been wargaming for nearly 20 years and playing GW games for most of that time, I do not need to play games with obviously crappy units in order to conclude that they are crap.

You do not have to be a gaming genius to know ahead of time what kinds of threats other armies bring to the board and what kinds of tools you need to counter those threats and win games. So yes I can identify some things as 100% useless crap without playing 14 games with them. In any event, I didnt say they were 100% crap, I said they were not competitive in my local play environment.

There are other reasons why I do not believe the demons are competitive and this stems from playing a huge number of 40k games of various editions. Now the fact is that demons are especially poorly designed for 6th edition because they dont have any fliers and also do not have much in the way of AAA. Also they have a 5+ save, big whoop-de-do so does practically everything else on a board with a decent amount of terrain.

Broadly speaking the demons are a T3 army with a 5+ save and very minnimal shooting. Also they dont have any vehicles for moving around their troops and their AAA capability sucks. So what are you going to do as a demon player against marines, IG or any other army that has transport vehicles, fliers, decent shooting or heavy armour. Your going to run across the board and get the crap shot out of you in mid-field. Oh yeah, then run toward me some more and not assault me because your running. Maybe deepstrike in front of me and stand around so I can shoot you to pieces, then shoot you some more on overwatch when you assault with a depleted unit. Just maybe if you were T4 and with a better save you would have a reasonable and consistent chance. T3 and 5+? LOL @ that.

Close combat is worse in 6th edition, not better. The demon army just didnt stand a chance. If you live in an area where the good players are not capable of exploiting all these weaknesses of demons then go ahead and enjoy playing them. You do not even have to build a list specific for demons in order to have a huge advantage over them, all you need is a decent "all comers" list and your good to go.

Well if the chariot is an oversight, I guess then they are idiots because only an idiot would publish a hardback book without proof reading it first.

Dont worry dude he gave me the same line after pointing out the same. Its senseless in arguing with someone that cant see logic.

And I watched daemons get owned by guard and necrons with the main problems being everything you noted. If you go back you go back you'll since Billy the kid here say "Our daemons or our army", not to mention he claims that the entire toronto tournament scene was filled with fatecrusher vs warp quake gk lists *glances over at where Im from and my trophies*, odd I dont remember that at all. Ever.

Your best bet is click ignore. It makes life better.

PM me for a competitive daemon build.

EDIT: was response to previous post's list
I'd hardly call that a daemon list though, what with just 24 demon models. roughly 800 points of demons, 1200 CSM.

JWhex wrote:
I have a huge collection of demons going back to third edition and can pretty much field an all metal army of any faction with the exception of models that were never in metal. The last 40k demon codex was a joke and I only played demons a couple of times just for laughs.

As mentioned -- if you have only played daemons a few times since 2008, how are you an expert on if they are good or not. The last codex was not a joke. Daemons won the bay area open.

JWhex wrote:
Close combat is worse in 6th edition, not better. The demon army just didnt stand a chance. If you live in an area where the good players are not capable of exploiting all these weaknesses of demons then go ahead and enjoy playing them. You do not even have to build a list specific for demons in order to have a huge advantage over them, all you need is a decent "all comers" list and your good to go..

Tourney results for large events will show this. If we see chaos damons in the top 10 at major events (64+ players) in the next few months then we will know the codex is competitive. I think after NOVA 2013 we will be able to make a solid answer.
At this point its just speculation.

I see your keep talking about the T3/5++ save as a big limitation. You know that most damon builds people are talking about will give the opponent only 1 turn to shoot at them. Your right, running 20 bloodletters up the board will get shredded by a shooty army. You have far to many turns to get shot.

What you do is use 20 seekers, 20 khorne dogs (or nurgle flies), grimoire the seekers (3++ save). If you have the points, bring either fiends or beasts of nurgle. Your opponet will be crashed by all the units on the following turn. Before you assault, deep strike your GUO/damonettes/etc off your icon. That's the way I think your going to see damon armies work.

Assault based armies can do well in this edition. Look at the templecon results from February. It was a dark eldar/eldar assault list that won the event. These major events are the best indicators for what works and what does not.

I don't like the look of Grimoire per se. I find unreliable things like that work best in a big pile, like loads of Night Goblin Fanatics, Stupid Trolls, etc. That way I can be sure something's going to go right. Sending Seekers to dance in a clearing and hope I don't effectively remove their meagre save feels like a worrying risk, when there's no failsafe. I'd want to have something like Invisibility on hand to cast on them as a backup plan. And that itself relies on a Telepath rolling well; strikes me as something that'll compliment a psychic-heavy force and free up a caster to do something else when it works, but otherwise will hand your opponent an easy unit wipeout in a third of games.

 lindsay40k wrote:
otherwise will hand your opponent an easy unit wipeout in a third of games.

It does not hand your opponent an easy unit. This is due to the rule of resilience -- which states that the resilience of unit, the greater its overall effect. Raising a save from a 3+ to a 2+ doubles it survivability. Lowering it from a 5++ to a 6++ does not half its survivability.

This is how many shots 20 bolters will kill when directed to a squad of seekers
6++ save........7.40
5++ save........5.92
3++ save........2.96

As you can see, when you lower the save to a 3++, you cut the number of failed saves by 50%. When you fail, you increase the number of failed saves by 25%. The price of failure is half of benefit of success.

Sometime when I read you guys, I got the feeling that you only want WS/BS/T of 6, save of 2+ and removed all weakness in the book. I find the codex not bad and logic. The daemons doesn't move across the battlefield, they just warp at your side. They don't have flyers or a lot of shooting, used allies.

hellpato wrote:
Sometime when I read you guys, I got the feeling that you only want WS/BS/T of 6, save of 2+ and removed all weakness in the book. I find the codex not bad and logic. The daemons doesn't move across the battlefield, they just warp at your side. They don't have flyers or a lot of shooting, used allies.

Daemon shooting is still pretty mean, especially against anyone lacking psychic defenses... 7D6/S6 shots with re-rolls to-hit will grind down even 5-6 man Terminator units.
Where I've found Tzeentch shooting in particular to fall apart at the seems is against T5+ units like Nob Bikers or high save/multi-wound units like Pallys. or else anything already rocking a FnP save, at which point you're simply asking for trouble by hitting said unit/s with Warpflame.

The new codex may not be able to topple Necrons or IG or GK's and replace them as the next newest top tier army, but overall the book is capable of giving most armies a real run for their money.
It's almost as if the new book is balanced.

Experiment 626 wrote:

Daemon shooting is still pretty mean, especially against anyone lacking psychic defenses... 7D6/S6 shots with re-rolls to-hit will grind down even 5-6 man Terminator units.

Even without dedicated psychic defenses, you're still looking at a 23% chance that you'll do NOTHING after declaring your attack. (8.3% that you fail your psychic test, and then 1/6 that the witch is denied). That's pretty bad when you think about it.

Where I've found Tzeentch shooting in particular to fall apart at the seems is against T5+ units like Nob Bikers or high save/multi-wound units like Pallys.

Pallys are even worse. Not only does the chance that you fail your psychic test go up (due to aegis, or reinforced aegis), they're getting a +1 on their Deny roll too by virtue of being psykers, so your chance of doing nothing at all increases significantly. If I was playing Grey Knights and had a dread anywhere close, I'd completely ignore horrors, the odds are that bad that they'll do anything.

It's almost as if the new book is balanced.

Yes, based on GWs new concept of balance. Sometimes, you roll well on a random table and win. Sometimes you don't, and lose. One win, one loss = balanced game, right? In my last two games with this codex, I scored First Blood due to the warpstorm table. Hey, that took real skill.

hellpato wrote:
Sometime when I read you guys, I got the feeling that you only want WS/BS/T of 6, save of 2+ and removed all weakness in the book. I find the codex not bad and logic. The daemons doesn't move across the battlefield, they just warp at your side. They don't have flyers or a lot of shooting, used allies.

^^^THIS

You're not allowed to complain about Matt Ward Codices being OP and broken and then complain when new codices aren't. And the Warp Storm is the most overrated new feature since basic overwatch.

 labmouse42 wrote:

 lindsay40k wrote:
otherwise will hand your opponent an easy unit wipeout in a third of games.

It does not hand your opponent an easy unit. This is due to the rule of resilience -- which states that the resilience of unit, the greater its overall effect. Raising a save from a 3+ to a 2+ doubles it survivability. Lowering it from a 5++ to a 6++ does not half its survivability.

This is how many shots 20 bolters will kill when directed to a squad of seekers
6++ save........7.40
5++ save........5.92
3++ save........2.96

As you can see, when you lower the save to a 3++, you cut the number of failed saves by 50%. When you fail, you increase the number of failed saves by 25%. The price of failure is half of benefit of success.

I know, but I'm not approaching this from a pure math perspective, I'm approaching this from an 'I want my Seekers to momentarily tank in the open to open up a charge next turn' perspective.

Grimoire alone is not enough, because in a third of games your figures show that their casualties per bolter round will spike from an acceptable 1.5 to a potentially crippling 3.7.

That's not good enough. If I wanted to pull off a 3++ Seekers trick, I'd have to take the Grimoire and two or three good Telepaths so that when the Grimoire carrier decides to troll its companions, I should have an Invisibility safety net. If it's not needed, I cast Invisibility on something else as a nice bonus, or else troll my opponent with Puppet or suchlike.

Even then, the risk of stuff like Runes makes it a worrisome choice to deal with all-comers. It's striking me as something that compliments a particular build that pushes a lot of unreliable win buttons, but on its own is a big risk.

In the end who cares. Look at the scoreboard and then tell me whether they are competitive or not. Thats all that matters in the end.

So THEORY aside, maybe some Daemon players could tell us how its ACTUALLY going?

 Jancoran wrote:
In the end who cares. Look at the scoreboard and then tell me whether they are competitive or not. Thats all that matters in the end.

So THEORY aside, maybe some Daemon players could tell us how its ACTUALLY going?

I'm having a blast with the new codex.

Sure Tzeentch has some horribad match-up right now, namely Runes of Win, Rune Priests & GK's... But using some 'counts as' to play some Beasts & Plaguedrones as Firewyrms & Changebringers has given me some solid counters to tarpit really scary assaulters and absolutely demolish any non-flyer vehicle.
Plaguedrones are actually the outright best anti-tank unit in our codex IMHO. Say all you want about rending or Screamers or MC's or LoC/Prince w/Bang-stick, Drones put 'em all to outright shame. Plagueswords with their Touch of Rust rule make everything cry! (though I'll still leave Dreads to my MC's due to S10 insta-poop'ing the Drones)

The Warpstorm table, contrary to popular net-rage has yet to ruin any games for me. I haven't yet rolled a single snake-eyes or boxcars yet, nor have I pooched any characters. Most of the time, it's been either nothing or God 'X' shows up and maybe steps on a unit, or else I'll get the -1/+1 save results.

And the random gift rolling/recording, it only takes maybe 2-3 minutes tops to get everything recorded.

So far I've mangled Orks and Marines multiple times with few problems. (large Nob Biker units are terrifying however!) I've had a close victory over Ravenwing and gotten pasted by Deathwing. (my buddy litterly only failed 4 saves from turn 3 onwards...)
The new book is hardly going to curbstomp the tourny scene like SW/GK/IG/Newcron have been the past couple of years, but I try my best to avoid cut-throat tourny play because I find the majority of tourny lists boring as feth to play against.

Experiment 626 wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
In the end who cares. Look at the scoreboard and then tell me whether they are competitive or not. Thats all that matters in the end.

So THEORY aside, maybe some Daemon players could tell us how its ACTUALLY going?

I'm having a blast with the new codex.

Sure Tzeentch has some horribad match-up right now, namely Runes of Win, Rune Priests & GK's... But using some 'counts as' to play some Beasts & Plaguedrones as Firewyrms & Changebringers has given me some solid counters to tarpit really scary assaulters and absolutely demolish any non-flyer vehicle.
Plaguedrones are actually the outright best anti-tank unit in our codex IMHO. Say all you want about rending or Screamers or MC's or LoC/Prince w/Bang-stick, Drones put 'em all to outright shame. Plagueswords with their Touch of Rust rule make everything cry! (though I'll still leave Dreads to my MC's due to S10 insta-poop'ing the Drones)

The Warpstorm table, contrary to popular net-rage has yet to ruin any games for me. I haven't yet rolled a single snake-eyes or boxcars yet, nor have I pooched any characters. Most of the time, it's been either nothing or God 'X' shows up and maybe steps on a unit, or else I'll get the -1/+1 save results.

And the random gift rolling/recording, it only takes maybe 2-3 minutes tops to get everything recorded.

So far I've mangled Orks and Marines multiple times with few problems. (large Nob Biker units are terrifying however!) I've had a close victory over Ravenwing and gotten pasted by Deathwing. (my buddy litterly only failed 4 saves from turn 3 onwards...)
The new book is hardly going to curbstomp the tourny scene like SW/GK/IG/Newcron have been the past couple of years, but I try my best to avoid cut-throat tourny play because I find the majority of tourny lists boring as feth to play against.

Thank you for giving an honest approach to having play tested and not just crying doom. It is honestly appreciated to see something that isn't full of venom. I'm looking forward to trying the book out.

I've played against the new book multiple times now, against various different builds, and nothing has stuck out as being over or under powered. The book on a whole has been fun to play against, the book keeping it needs has never been a problem, the warp storm has never done anything silly. The only thing I've had any real problem with is the Soulgrinders gettting cover behind ADL thing, but that's a whole other debate.

O and also something I don't think anything any one has mentioned, the biggest fail in this book, the artwork in the unit entries. Seriously! It's like one of the designers had bring your kid to work day, and let them go run around with some crayons.