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.

Not necessarily plenty of people out there will take the same list that GT winners have taken previously. Also with the amount of information floating around on the net some one can take a really hard list but not win a single game with it. List composition and Generalship are mutually exclusive, you can in fact have one without the other.

Well I would say its 50/50. You can be the best player in the world and lose regularly with a bad list. Also a very very hard list will be very forgiving and will help someone who isnt as good or is new win a lot more games.

Also don't forget that every once in a while, no matter how good your list, no matter how good your tactics....

You....

Roll.....

Ones....

Seeing the daemons took best general in 40k at Vegas I can't dis-credit them as a potent army. I respect what an Inq with a couple of mystics brings to a game but to say this unit can solely bring down a daemon list comes across as farfetched. To play it right using the Inq means you have to castle your army... which is exactly what a daemon player wants. I think you can exploit the strength of Inq unit as a weakness against said Imperial army. As has been said the average spotting roll on 4d6 for the mystics is 14... not a game winner versus a wise opponent.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Seeing the daemons took best general in 40k at Vegas I can't dis-credit them as a potent army. I respect what an Inq with a couple of mystics brings to a game but to say this unit can solely bring down a daemon list comes across as farfetched. To play it right using the Inq means you have to castle your army... which is exactly what a daemon player wants. I think you can exploit the strength of Inq unit as a weakness against said Imperial army. As has been said the average spotting roll on 4d6 for the mystics is 14... not a game winner versus a wise opponent.

G

Except, pushing the demons away so you get 2 rounds of shooting is what a DH army wants.

Land, get shot, then get shot again.

Or get shot, then get shot again.

Either way, you are either dead or completely crippled.

Really gotta try it. When we were playtesting the demon book, we just tossed mystics out the window.

It's not like the Demons did well against 5th edition lists, they mostly played against 4th edition lists--which is what Demons are very strong against.

Not disparaging anyone, just being realistic about what they did and did not achieve at Vegas.

They acheived the best general award. You can try to talk around that by constantly flaunting how great Mystics are as anti daemon but:

1) not every army is going to have mystics and in all likelihood there will only be a small percentage of armies that have them. Did any armies that placed in the top ten for battle points have Mystics included? If not the chances are fairly low that someone fielding daemons and playing on the top tables by round three would face off against the almighty Mystics. I will look over the results to verify. Most every army list has a weakness but that in itself is no reason not to bring it.

2) there are plenty of methods available to field a daemon army that can negate the power of the almighty Mystics... for example a Tzeentch herald on a chariot with an icon - put one of those in each block of daemons. The second block daemonic units will be all over you by the 3rd and 4th turns plus you still have to deal with all the daemons that came in first. They are going to get their cover saves so basically it all comes down to how much you can shoot before they assault your castle. Throw Kairos into the mix just to make things a bit more challenging for the Imperial castle. A solid daemon army should easily be able to outflank a static castle... and if the Imperial army has to start moving that means they are shooting a lot less much to the chagrin of those Mystics.

Heh.

G

Okay so out of the top 10 armies by battle points there were only two that could field Mystics, both were Witch Hunter lists which yourself have disregarded as comptetive versus the daemons seeing this is a 4th edition codex... as you said that is what the daemons beat the best.

G

Uh...he means lists designed for 5th edition rules instead of 4th edition rules...not lists from 5th edition/4th edition books. Otherwise DH wouldn't count either! Hah.

To be honest I have a hard time following his logic since has the tendency to flip flop when hard pressed to defend his original position.

So sure you can tailor a list from an older codex for 5e but wouldn't a list written for 5e from a 5e codex generally fare better against all comers?

G

WH are 3rd edition but a top performer.

They are but can the same best said for other 3e arimes:

SW
DE
DH
Necrons

I'm not saying no just asking the question in general. Seeing that WH had two in the top ten is good proof of their ability noting that is has been stated most armies were built for 4e. I did notice that both DA and BA did not make the top ten list and they are both 5e IMO.

G

Actually, GBF, if someone makes a good enough point I can agree with it.

Others here can't seem to.

So my point is the Demons were playing in a 4th edition list environment, and they excel at killing those.

In a 5th edition list environment, they do not excel at killing those.

Taking Best General with a new codex impresses you, does it?

The rest of us, not so much.

Green Blow Fly wrote:To be honest I have a hard time following his logic since has the tendency to flip flop when hard pressed to defend his original position.

God I thought I was the only one...

It's entirely possible that the Demon player had good match ups as well, but you still can't argue with the best general award. Give the guy props.

I am very impressed with the daemon player taking the award. I saw that two others made the top 10 as well... which you did not manage to do. I think daemons are a solid army for 5e.

G

does anyone know the daemon army list and what armies he fought?

G

I didn't lose any games, he did.

He was in a target rich environment (bad lists).

You keep on touting just how uber demons are and you aren't fooling anyone.

the numbers don't lie. In fact daemons overall had the second highest average for battle points. Maybe the best general also easy matchups such as yourself but his battle points were way ahead of yours. Get over it already.

G