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.

http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2012/02/01/40k-video-battle-report-storm-the-kastle-practice-game-daemons-vs-chaos-space-marines-1500pts/

Italiaplaya’s Deamons wage war against Joel’s Chaos Space Marines in preparation for Storm the Kastle GT. Was a great game between two very good armies and players. Hope you guys enjoy and atay tuned in for more battle reports.

Fun looking game.

The CSM player in the last turn should have been able to Lash the Plague Bearers. It doesn't matter which model is within LOS, you always measure to the closest model to determine whether the unit is in range (BGB, p3). As long as at least one model was within 24" and at least one model was in LOS (and it doesn't have to be the same model), you should have been able to Lash.

Still, looked like a good battle. Sounds like the Daemon player had some pretty bad luck with those Fiends. It also just demonstrates the frustrating disadvantages of Bloodcrushers (as a Khorne Daemon player myself) in that he was forced to deploy them more or less in the open in front of the whole CSM army.

A bit of a facepalm on the initial DS position of the Crusher unit. I think the crater where the other crushers went would have been a much better initial starting point for them. Especially if the CnC objective was place in the opposite corner, it would force the CSM to move down to kill the crushers/fate and then try to walk all the way across the board.

Any thoughts on this? I think not having Fate near any of the crusher units really hurt as well, but I understand that Lash can potentially pull them out of cover/6" range anyway.

This game for the Daemons really emphasizes how critical it is to get multiple threats withing range of the opponents army (and how obnoxious Lash can be to an army with no psychic defense)

Cheexsta - I always thought you had to measure towards the nearest model you can see...

Looks like it was a good game. Surprised the Daemons were able to draw after such a rocky start.

That turn 1 Crusher mishap might seem like a big deal, but I doubt it actually mattered much. Since Lash can split up Fateweaver and the Crushers, the first wave of Crushers are all but guaranteed to either be wiped on arrival (pulled in close for clobbering) or ignored most of the game (pushed away for pointing-and-laughing).

I've faced double-Lash a lot with my Daemons (it's my roommate's main list), and I've found the most effective counter to be extremely aggressive play. Daemons are, by default, forced to arrive/fight in piecemeal and Lash only exacerbates that problem. Present too few threats (especially during turn 1 and 2), and you'll just see your army get pushed around and killed off one unit at a time. Unfortunately I don't think Italia's army offered enough threats to truly overwhelm the enemy...not to blame Italia--it's a hard balance. At 1500, Fatecrusher has so much overhead (333pt Big Bird, 40pt Crushers) that it's really difficult to work in a large number credible threats into both waves. I find I do a lot better with Daemons at the 1850-2000 pt level for this reason.

Anyway, good game and good batrep as always. Thanks for taking the time to put it together.

whigwam wrote:
That turn 1 Crusher mishap might seem like a big deal, but I doubt it actually mattered much. Since Lash can split up Fateweaver and the Crushers, the first wave of Crushers are all but guaranteed to either be wiped on arrival (pulled in close for clobbering) or ignored most of the game (pushed away for pointing-and-laughing).

I slightly disagree with this, I think the mishap let the CSM put the crushers in back where they could jump out of their vehicles and move away from the Daemons while still being in range to shoot/rapid fire. A 'good lash' may also have achieved this, but it also prevents other units from being lashed backwards. I probably would have made my first wave 2x crushers, 1x Fiends, 1x Fate. That way there are 3 credible threats to break transports and eat up anything that hops out of a Rhino. The heralds can then be used later int he game to contest objectives or if they come in turn 2 they can take on transports. Just my 2 cents, I am not a Daemon expert by any stretch of the imagination.

calypso2ts wrote:I slightly disagree with this, I think the mishap let the CSM put the crushers in back where they could jump out of their vehicles and move away from the Daemons while still being in range to shoot/rapid fire. A 'good lash' may also have achieved this, but it also prevents other units from being lashed backwards.

No doubt the mishap helped, but in my experience there is just no saving the Crushers. I might have been too dismissive of the effect, but the outcome of turn one just looks too familiar to me (and I often lead with 6-8 Crushers and have yet to mishap)!

I probably would have made my first wave 2x crushers, 1x Fiends, 1x Fate. That way there are 3 credible threats to break transports and eat up anything that hops out of a Rhino. The heralds can then be used later int he game to contest objectives or if they come in turn 2 they can take on transports. Just my 2 cents, I am not a Daemon expert by any stretch of the imagination.

Keep in mind that you only get your preferred wave on 3+. Front-loading the heavy hitters will blow up in a Daemons player's face 33% of the time---no good for competitive play. In this case, I think Italia split his forces correctly here...the problem (IMO) is, evenly split, neither half will have much punch by itself.

I think the Daemon player needed to be more aggressive.

Having the Fiends so far away was a bad idea.

As whigwam said, there werent enough threats, units could be singled out and focus fired.

Keep in mind that you only get your preferred wave on 3+. Front-loading the heavy hitters will blow up in a Daemons player's face 33% of the time---no good for competitive play. In this case, I think Italia split his forces correctly here...the problem (IMO) is, evenly split, neither half will have much punch by itself.

Against this enemy though you have 3x PB units and 2x heralds. His only ranged units over 24" are the Obliterators, which means you will have a low number of shots coming your way if you DS at range with these units and they want to be at range anyway.

The best way to lose (imo) with daemons is to drop down 2 waves of units with conflicting abilities, target profiles and missions. This means you field half a mediocre army against all of your opponenets army and let them maximize their firepower against you. In this case Fate needs to be with the crushers, who need to be together for maximum saturation, knowing they can rip apart vehicles and if they get even one unit in the open be stuck in against the PM like you want. The Fiends provide a threat to do the same thing, although less durable, they are also less susceptible to lash with their speed and Hit and Run gives them a lot of mobility.

Whats up guys. Thanks for the comments. The first turn mishap did screw me. Joel got to throw them where he wanted them to be, and cleaned them up pretty good. I had initially wanted them all to be out in the back field like Calypso2ts had mentioned. Allowing me to wait till next turn. (Which of course didnt happen haha)

I would have had a lot more survivability landing in the back field. Having damn near half his army shoot then assault me is brutal. Especially with lash pushing fateweaver away.

I ended up going 3 and 2 at the tournament. 3 and 0 on the first day. Losing both games day 2. To a Nid player that won the tournament and was found to be 300 points over the day later. And losing to a draigowing pally list on game 5 because the game went to turn 7.

@Cheexsta,

I believe you may be incorrect. If you cant see a model you cant measure range to it.

lol I lost a killpoint game to a Draigowing army in the last comp I was at, the guy had a single pally...on 1 wound left, just couldnt quite kill the bugger.

italiaplaya wrote:
I ended up going 3 and 2 at the tournament. 3 and 0 on the first day. Losing both games day 2. To a Nid player that won the tournament and was found to be 300 points over the day later. And losing to a draigowing pally list on game 5 because the game went to turn 7.
.

What amazes me is that he made it through 2 days while he was 300 points over. When you were playing the game did it 'feel' like he just had more momentum going forward?

On a related note, what armies did you beat on the first day? I find Dark Eldar to be the most challenging matchup (ignoring the GK board quake case which doesn't count as a game)

calypso2ts wrote:

italiaplaya wrote:
I ended up going 3 and 2 at the tournament. 3 and 0 on the first day. Losing both games day 2. To a Nid player that won the tournament and was found to be 300 points over the day later. And losing to a draigowing pally list on game 5 because the game went to turn 7.
.

What amazes me is that he made it through 2 days while he was 300 points over. When you were playing the game did it 'feel' like he just had more momentum going forward?

On a related note, what armies did you beat on the first day? I find Dark Eldar to be the most challenging matchup (ignoring the GK board quake case which doesn't count as a game)

His list did seem a little odd. I just assumed it was the correct points though. He had 2 terivgons, 2 units of 20 genestealers with a broodlord and 3 tygon primes. I played kan wall orks, blood angels, and space wolves the first day. Our teammate frankie was playing dark eldar. We had thought we were more then likely going to be playing each other in the final game. Dark Eldar are up there with my lists worst match ups.

IMO dual lash is still a strong tournament build, even against the latest and greatest. Foot armies such as daemons and tyranids are especially vulnerable to them. One of my greatest losses as a tyranid player was against a good dual lash player, though I couldn't help but feel that he was tailoring against my nids by taking all plasmas and combi-plasmas on his plaguemarines and rhinos.

I would have thought taking plasma would be tailoring for playing against MEQ.

Xeriapt wrote:I would have thought taking plasma would be tailoring for playing against MEQ.

No. It was tailoring against my army...with 2 tyrants, 2 tervigons and 3 trygons. Against MEQ, you normally take meltas to destroy tanks.

Or plasmas to kill the infantry? Either way plasma will be good for both.

italiaplaya wrote:

@Cheexsta,

I believe you may be incorrect. If you cant see a model you cant measure range to it.

I disagree. You need to satisfy two conditions: the unit must be in line of sight, and the unit must be within 24".

The unit had one model in line of sight, so the unit was in line of sight, and the unit was within 24" (see the rulebook, p3: you always measure from closest model to closest model to determine whether one unit is "within" a certain range). Therefore, both conditions were satisfied.

Cheexsta wrote:

italiaplaya wrote:

@Cheexsta,

I believe you may be incorrect. If you cant see a model you cant measure range to it.

I disagree. You need to satisfy two conditions: the unit must be in line of sight, and the unit must be within 24".

The unit had one model in line of sight, so the unit was in line of sight, and the unit was within 24" (see the rulebook, p3: you always measure from closest model to closest model to determine whether one unit is "within" a certain range). Therefore, both conditions were satisfied.

I'd reread page 17. Under "Check Range". You measure range to the nearest visible model in the target unit.

italiaplaya wrote:

Cheexsta wrote:

italiaplaya wrote:

@Cheexsta,

I believe you may be incorrect. If you cant see a model you cant measure range to it.

I disagree. You need to satisfy two conditions: the unit must be in line of sight, and the unit must be within 24".

The unit had one model in line of sight, so the unit was in line of sight, and the unit was within 24" (see the rulebook, p3: you always measure from closest model to closest model to determine whether one unit is "within" a certain range). Therefore, both conditions were satisfied.

I'd reread page 17. Under "Check Range". You measure range to the nearest visible model in the target unit.

Ah, good point. Sorry, I had missed that.

(I was going to point out that Lash isn't a shooting attack and so wouldn't follow those rules...but then remembered that the FAQ clarifies that it is. Damn.)

Carry on