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.

OH crap, its already listed up there
doh

Black Blow Fly wrote:Actually daemons are one of the most competitive armies, it's just that they are unpopular why people perceive them as weak.

G

Thats just a load of crap. Their not a top teir army by any means. People dont see them as weak because their unpopular. Thri unpopular because there's too much randomness in deployment. Having played it for a time it was fun, but too much left to chance to really make a solid plan when you want certain models and you roll a one and dont get your choosen set, delayed through reserve rolls, bad scatters.....

Thats more likely the reason for unpopularity.

My record in tournament play with daemons is one best overall, two second best overalls and one third best overall. One of the second place wins should have been first place but it was my first tournament with the list and I made a silly mistake in the last round. These are the only tournaments I have played them and I think those results are top tier. So you have not had much success but your experience does not apply to everyone. Bill Kim is also a daemon player and has done very well. Daemons have some huge advantages:

•Eternal Warrior across the list
•Invulnerable saves across the list
•Deep strike across the list

While you claim the army has an element of randomness due to the deep strike this can be greatly minimized and in my mind being able to deep strike your entire army is actually a huge advantage as your are totally exempt from the problems associated with deployment that other more conventional armies must deal with during the initial phase of the game. My waves are balanced so I am not adversely affected if my secondary wave comes in first.

I have been playing deep striking armies for over a decade so I think I know what I am doing. You have to be able to visual 3", 6" & 12" on the table to be a good deep striker. Because your entire army can deep strike daemons have a big advantage in objective based missions. You can also design a highly resilient army with a low number of killpoints. Daemons have all the right tools.

I think if more veterans played them you would see them at the top more often. Just because it is an uncommon army in no way shape or form means it is not a good army by any means. While there are some anti daemon options for some armies there is no bullet proof anti daemon army. On the other hand daemons almost guarantee an auto win versus certain armies if properly played and this is one of the reasons why i ranked them as top tier.

G

Black Blow Fly wrote:My record in tournament play with daemons is one best overall, two second best overalls and one third best overall. One of the second place wins should have been first place but it was my first tournament with the list and I made a silly mistake in the last round. These are the only tournaments I have played them and I think those results are top tier.

First, congradulations.

Second, so what. Your own andocal evidence doesnt make them top teir, its across the board results that count. My own sisters I'm pretty much undefeated, I know John has had great success with them in and out of tournments, but I dont think that sisters are top tier.

Strong? yes. Top teir? No. Neither are deamons.

So you have not had much success but your experience does not apply to everyone. Bill Kim is also a daemon player and has done very well.

Dont euqate experiences as non-success, I've done well with them. I dont think their a top teir list.

Daemons have some huge advantages:

•Eternal Warrior across the list
•Invulnerable saves across the list
•Deep strike across the list

While you claim the army has an element of randomness due to the deep strike this can be greatly minimized and in my mind being able to deep strike your entire army is actually a huge advantage as your are totally exempt from the problems associated with deployment that other more conventional armies must deal with during the initial phase of the game. My waves are balanced so I am not adversely affected if my secondary wave comes in first.

Those arent all advantages, when its across the board. For example- eternal warrior across the board doesnt really matter except in a very small handful of cases. No one cares that say, blood letters or mounted demonettes have eternal warrior. They only have one wound. It only helps in small handful of cases of DP and blood crushers and such(mostly the elite slots)

Invulnerable saves across the board is a double edged sward. Having played sisters and the ability to turn 3+(and a 2+) save Invulnerable, its great against the heavy weapons of lascannons and plasmaguns. But as I have learned over the years, none of that saves you against 9 heavy bolters(basically volume of fire).

Deep strike is again, a double edged sword. At times, when it works in your favor, it does indeed seem like a boon. But your coming down piecemeal(yes yes, even with half yoru army on the opening round) and if your opponent deals with you, with half an army with his full army, and the DS backfires- mishaps on deepstrike, bad reserve rolls, etc well then its not exactly an advantage.

I have been playing deep striking armies for over a decade so I think I know what I am doing. You have to be able to visual 3", 6" & 12" on the table to be a good deep striker. Because your entire army can deep strike daemons have a big advantage in objective based missions. You can also design a highly resilient army with a low number of killpoints. Daemons have all the right tools.

Deamons have tools. But at least two of them are double edged swords.

I think if more veterans played them you would see them at the top more often. Just because it is an uncommon army in no way shape or form means it is not a good army by any means. While there are some anti daemon options for some armies there is no bullet proof anti daemon army. On the other hand daemons almost guarantee an auto win versus certain armies if properly played and this is one of the reasons why i ranked them as top tier.

G

Did you ever think that it might be the other way around? Vets have spoken and arent playing it for 40k(fantasy being anotehr story), so that might be telling you something. I know several tournment players, including myself, that have picked up deamon armies. But they dont think its a top teir one. I could say the same thing about sisters of battle in the above statement you made, their advantages and if only more people played them.

But the reality is, they dont, for a variety of reasons. Their not top teir, either one.

I never said it wasnt a good army, deamon armies. But I do think

Ye gods! How can invulnerable saves across the board be anything other than an advantage?!? Sure, it's vulnerable to massed shooting -- but what isn't?

An invulnerable save is always better than no save.

G

Ian Sturrock wrote:Ye gods! How can invulnerable saves across the board be anything other than an advantage?!? Sure, it's vulnerable to massed shooting -- but what isn't?

The problem is that invulnerable save is figured into the units' costs. Because of how easy it is to get cover saves for infantry in 5th edition there are fewer plasma weapons out there. Combined, this increases the value of a good armor save, which is unlikely to be negated. It also decreases the value of a low invulnerable save because you can gain a better save by simply, say, hiding your unit's feet behind the crest of a hill.

Cover saves work for daemons just like every other Army. I have won more than my fair shAre of games with a huge squad of Bloodletters (T4) camped out on the winning objetive taking the SM save since my opponent didn't have hte gumption to assault my Blood Crushers shielding them. Basically what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

G

I don't recall saying they operated differently for Daemons. What I did say was that they are relatively less valuable given how easy it is to claim cover saves, which serve essentially the same function. In fact, your anecdote is a perfect example of why that invulnerable save is meaningless in so many cases. If your Blood Crushers are shielding your Bloodletters then the latter already enjoys the benefit of a 4+ cover save making their 5+ invulnerable save both inferior and redundant.

Not really and I think you missed the point that my Bloodletters go to ground for the 3+. it's almost as good as the 3++ when absorbing enemy firepower except versus flamers and other shooting that ignores cover. You might be thinking there isn't much that ignore cover besides flamers but IG have at least two tanks that fire ordnance ignoring cover and SM have the thunderfire cannon... Maybe the Whirlwind also has a round that ignores cover, I'm not sure. The thing about templates versus Khornate daemons is you must get into charge range to shoot them which is a big no no. My Bloodletter squads are usually 15 apiece so they can stand up to a lot of shooting. Now versus those ordnance weapons that ignore cover the 5++ is still pretty darn good and much better than the alternative of simply picking up the models & putting them away. So basically a large squad of T4 models is quite resilient, especially when they have a cover save & GtG. These are the kind of things some people don't seem to take into consideration in general. If you think about T4 is one of the main reasons why mutant heavy L&tD armies were so strong back in hte day.

Ian Sturrock wrote:Ye gods! How can invulnerable saves across the board be anything other than an advantage?!? Sure, it's vulnerable to massed shooting -- but what isn't?

Having the ability to get one, its not always the best thing. Some days its great, other days its not as good. 5+ invulberable is rgeat vs those power weapons and plasmagns.....but really not that good against 6 orks or a couple of bolters. Its a mixed bag.

Thats just your opinion though and it has alreadyvbeen been denoted often daemons will have access to a better save.

G

Ok so think of it this way. If you could give your squad of space marines all power weapons and invul saves, would you? I sure would. Bloodletters are awesome, especially if you can give them a better save via cover or whatever. The problem with daemons isn't their units (although they do lack anti tank) its their consistency. But used correctly daemons are enormously powerful and provide a player with a flexible gameplan. The whole deepstrike thing is good and bad, but other armies use it to their advantage (drop pod SM anyone?) and it doesn't seem to hurt them too much.

Grey Knight Luke wrote:Ok so think of it this way. If you could give your squad of space marines all power weapons and invul saves, would you? I sure would. Bloodletters are awesome, especially if you can give them a better save via cover or whatever. The problem with daemons isn't their units (although they do lack anti tank) its their consistency. But used correctly daemons are enormously powerful and provide a player with a flexible gameplan. The whole deepstrike thing is good and bad, but other armies use it to their advantage (drop pod SM anyone?) and it doesn't seem to hurt them too much.

You mean your squad of space marines without a transport, no ranged weapons and no 3+ armor save?

Its a good thing you have that 5++ in combat, for when you run into those assault units with only power weapons. (so daemons and TH/SS terminators)

Exactly. Daemons will never be a top tournament army, because while they can really steamroller anyone in any given game, in a set of three games, they're going to screw you over once.

You lose a lot of control with daemons. You lose the ability to reserve everything, like some armies can - you have to drop half your units on turn 1. (In turn, your opponent can go all-reserve against you, knowing you'll have to drop half). You can't pick where you arrive, only where you hope to.

They're also never going to be top-tier because if they get too good, it's trivial for any imperial army to meta-game them back down a tier - by fielding mystics, null zoners, and other specific anti-daemon tech. No other army can be metagamed as easily (or cheaply - adding 40 points to any imperial army for free shots on any unit that arrives close enough to hurt you, for example).

This isn't just speculation, I've played them since the codex came out, in all manner of different configurations, and this is just how it works out.

Black Blow Fly wrote:Thats just your opinion though and it has alreadyvbeen been denoted often daemons will have access to a better save.

G

And as you have noted, its nothing more than your opinion that deamons are top teir.

Black Blow Fly wrote:Here is how I would break down the tiers:

Tier1/ IG, SW, BA, Daemons

Tier2/ SM, CSM, Orks

Tier3/ Nidz, BT, DE, SoB

Tier4/ all hte rest

I know some people will say old armies like Necrons & Tau are still top tier but really they are just diehards and you never see either winning best overall or best general at a GT level competition.

G

If we are going by tiers then I'm thinking

Tier1/ IG, BA

Tier2/ SM, Orks, SW, Daemons, Eldar, Tau

Tier3/ CSM, Nidz, BT, DA

Tier4/ DE, WH, DH, Nec

ummm why do you rank things that way? any reasoning would be great.

I'm rating based on what I have heard, how well the armies i've played have done and the number of competitive builds.

carmachu wrote:

Black Blow Fly wrote:Thats just your opinion though and it has alreadyvbeen been denoted often daemons will have access to a better save.

G

And as you have noted, its nothing more than your opinion that deamons are top teir.

my opinion is based upon my track record and other successful daemon players like Bill Kim plus they took home the 2nd hard boys title. Redbeard is like you, no big wins so you blame the army not hte general.

G

Black Blow Fly wrote:
my opinion is based upon my track record and other successful daemon players like Bill Kim plus they took home the 2nd hard boys title. Redbeard is like you, no big wins so you blame the army not hte general.

G

You keep dragging up that 2nd 'ardboyz tournament, and while I'm not making any sort of accusation of wrongdoing at the event, I think we can all agree that the way they were played that day differs significantly from how they're supposed to be played, so we can just discount that event.

Furthermore, that event was two years ago, at least. Since then...

Many new codexes have been released, and adopted. Marines, Guard, Wolves - each weaken the daemons in some way. Marines have the omni-present nullzone power going for them. Guard can delay your reserve rolls. And wolves can JotWW away your expensive crushers and greater daemons fairly easily.

With each of these codexes, mech has become far more prevalent. Daemons struggle with mech. They lose something if they're spending time assaulting 35 point rhinos rather than 200 point Tac squads.

Of course, good players can win with anything, provided they get a little luck. And that's the big problem with daemons if you play a series of games. In one of the games, the luck will go against you. You'll get the wrong assault wave. Read battle reports from daemon players and one thing that you find is that, when they win, their daemonic assault rolls were on, or their reserves were super-hot. Read Bill's report from Bashcon last year, and count how many times he says that he got lucky. Game 1: Got the wrong wave, but all reserves but one on turn 2. Game 2: Got the primary, and all reserves by turn 2. Game 3: Got primary, and a healthy dose of 2nd turn reserves.

Go figure, when daemons are on, they'll give anyone game. But what you don't see are the games where you're pretty much SOL because the wrong wave came down, and then your other reserves don't show. No amount of great generalling lets that work, and you see that from the results of good players who also have some of their worst finishes at major events with this army too. That's part of the balance built into the army, and in any given game, that's fine. But it's that 1/3rd chance, compounded over the course of multiple games, that prevents Daemons from being top-tier.

well at least you guys agree that

T1/ IG, BA
T2/ SM, Orks
T3/ Nidz, BT
T4/ Necrons

I find it interesting that even though there are two armies that have been ranked T1 by black blow fly and T2 by other people Daemons and SW. But we don't have the same talk going on about SW and why it is not a T1 army.

Secondly, is CSM really on the same tier as SM? How so? I would assume that we are putting power lists together so a Vulcan SM army against a CSM army and thats a really fair fight? Discuss...

DE, tier 3 or tier 4 respectively?

Oh and here is the actual talking point that I wanted everyone to get out of this. What constitutes a T1 army? What criteria apply to a T2 army? a T3 army? a T4 army? Once we figure out objective criteria in which to rate these armies. Everything else should fall into place. So on the armies that you agree are T1, T2, etc.. what characteristics do each have that make them that tier?

Redbeard I find your view wrong on mulitple levels. I want to address what you have said in detail. Ihave read many of your daemon batreps and feel you never really got your head around the army. Every army actually has some randomness... We are rolling dice. about ard boys you sound like you are simply reiterating hearsay, the win should not be discredited. Witch hunts are still very much envogue today and it makes me sad panda to see you tossing more coals onto the flames. No daemons were deployed prior to the start of turn one and they all arrived via deep strike.

Stuff like null zone & mystics are no big deal if you know what you are doing. Psychic hoods are utterly useless. I don't see much of any advantage BA have and it is a myth that daemons struggle against mexh. Go to my blog, there are plenty of tactics there proven that explain how to beat mexh with daemons.

G

You're right, every army has some associated randomness. But, there's a huge difference between having some randomness be how well a unit shoots, or if it can pull off a charge through difficult terrain, and having the choice of which models you want on the table go wrong 1/3rd of the time.

Okay, so lets just say, to avoid arguments, that there was nothing funny about 'ard boyz two years ago. That the bloodcrushers were on the right sized bases, and that they deployed to the exact letter of what the codex says. It was still two years ago. It was still before any of the codexes that are listed as 'better than daemons' had been released. As a data-point, it's extremely dated. How often in that event did he not get the daemonic assault waves that he wanted?

Saying Null Zone is no big deal is generally right - you will take extra casualties, but you can eventually play through it. Mystics force you to alter your entire drop strategy. If you bring, say, suicide flamers, mystics make a huge impact. Depending on what the mystics are giving free shots to, a lucky sighting roll could decimate any unit (Imagine the mystics designating the shots to a plasma executioner, for example, while your deep strikers are all neatly packed together.)

Again, I'm not saying that they're not a solid army that can win games, especially when played well. But to say that they're in the top tier, without acknowledging that an entire tournament can hinge on one die roll in the third game (when you're likely to be facing a skilled opponent) is just foolish. It's a big glaring weakness for a tournament army.

The only thing keeping demons back is the possibility for extreme randomness, no amount of skill will win you games when you get the wrong wave and almost nothing else shows up til turn 4 or 5.

The other problem is the extreme levels of derp in the imperial guard. Inquisitor with mystics and officer of the fleet can stop demons dead. As can null zone librarians.

I have balanced waves with icons in each. For me there is not really a preferred wave, just one will come in first twice as often as the other.

G

Grey Knight Luke wrote:
Oh and here is the actual talking point that I wanted everyone to get out of this. What constitutes a T1 army? What criteria apply to a T2 army? a T3 army? a T4 army? Once we figure out objective criteria in which to rate these armies. Everything else should fall into place. So on the armies that you agree are T1, T2, etc.. what characteristics do each have that make them that tier?

As I mentioned I'm going on what I see and heard about the number of successful builds. Thats not to say the other tiers don't have succeful builds because they do just the choices are limited, limiting your chances.

As for space wolves. Simple the codex has a heavy emphasis towards alot of HQ character (you can have 4 instead of 2) and some are required to make your army perform well. Some are just dead good but as so are almost a requirement. They also have something of a lack of heavy weaponry making long fangs or a tanks with plenty of fire power a requirement. This reduces the number of potentially successful builds in the dex. I know this can be said of other armies (generally the tier 2 armies and def tier 3) With some armies always relying on certain units the codex is broken more quickly than an army that could field anything and win, making them less competitive.

Tau only really have one good build which is Mech.

Gunline is useless for a lot of circumstances.

Gundam Wing can be fun but like most armies based around a Deathstar unit, its performance is very variable depending on luck factors.

That said, having only one good build may be dull but it can be competitive if it is competitive.

Mech Tau is less competitive than some other armies is because the vehicles are more expensive for what you get.

So I would not place Tau in tier 1.

I think they are one of the weaker armies around these days, though I also think most armies are closer together than they were a few years ago.

Overall I have to go with Redbeard on the Daemons debate, though I think GBF has some valid points which many players less-experienced with Daemons do not consider. They can certainly be built and played in a way that makes them less vulnerable to randomness, particularly so as to minimize the effect of a failed 3+ roll on turn 1. That said, scatters and bad reserve rolls happen. Bill Kim is an excellent player, and we met in the final round of the ‘Ard Boyz final last year, and his unit of 8 Bloodcrushers scattered into different terrain and died turn 1. That’s a huge handicap, and was the single most important element in me getting a Massacre in that game. The metagame considerations of the cheap Inquisitor/Mystics combo and Null Zone (which is seen in a very large percentage of SM armies) crop up enough to be important too.

One of the biggest things people seem to be failing to address is that the older books not only suffer from a previous version of the game's rules, but also the points cost. When I put my BT down on the table vs. SM, SW, BA, I know I'm going to struggle because they are getting some of the same units in their army for cheaper...thus their army has more units, better abilities for less points. This creates a sort of handicap. The same can be said for other armies. This points void IMHO, is one of the biggest problems. It immediately puts those older armies at a disadvantage because they were balanced "points-wise" for a version of the game that no one is playing anymore. 5th edition armies are well balanced amongst themselves, but are definitely not vs. older codexes...thus those armies get placed in lower tiers.