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.

I'm trying to make Fateweaver work, I think with the Grimoire he can be made obnoxiously durable, and his Warlord ability will help with poor results on the Warp Storm table. Although yesterday I rolled a 3 (random character with DI tests on 3D6), decided to reroll it and got a 2 (all units with DI make a DI test). Hopefully that doesn't happen again in a long time.

The point wasn't hey crap happens. The point of my post it is it is hard to be competitive if you can give up first blood/kp or even slay the warlord before the first shooting phase on 2 and 3. Though any of the main warp storm could hit ur own units to a similar effect. A late game 2 result could kill units off objectives. Sure not likely but a serious risk in a competitive environment.

 Tomb King wrote:
The point wasn't hey crap happens. The point of my post it is it is hard to be competitive if you can give up first blood/kp or even slay the warlord before the first shooting phase on 2 and 3. Though any of the main warp storm could hit ur own units to a similar effect. A late game 2 result could kill units off objectives. Sure not likely but a serious risk in a competitive environment.

I think this is the reason I'll be trying to include Fateweaver in my lists for a bit. Getting a late-game 2 or 3 result could be game ending. The ability to reroll that will help smooth things out.

 Tomb King wrote:
The point wasn't hey crap happens. The point of my post it is it is hard to be competitive if you can give up first blood/kp or even slay the warlord before the first shooting phase on 2 and 3. Though any of the main warp storm could hit ur own units to a similar effect. A late game 2 result could kill units off objectives. Sure not likely but a serious risk in a competitive environment.

But it can swing the other way as well and hit and/or hurt your opponent just as hard. So wouldn't the equal chance of something happening to either hurt or help you out kind of negate the whole warp table in terms of being competitive altogether?

undertow wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:
The point wasn't hey crap happens. The point of my post it is it is hard to be competitive if you can give up first blood/kp or even slay the warlord before the first shooting phase on 2 and 3. Though any of the main warp storm could hit ur own units to a similar effect. A late game 2 result could kill units off objectives. Sure not likely but a serious risk in a competitive environment.

I think this is the reason I'll be trying to include Fateweaver in my lists for a bit. Getting a late-game 2 or 3 result could be game ending. The ability to reroll that will help smooth things out.

I have rolled the daemon table every match and havent gotten that trait yet. Fateweaver is a big point sink to start with. This is only made worse if you face an anti-psyker army and he cant get any of his powers off.

WhiteWolf01 wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:
The point wasn't hey crap happens. The point of my post it is it is hard to be competitive if you can give up first blood/kp or even slay the warlord before the first shooting phase on 2 and 3. Though any of the main warp storm could hit ur own units to a similar effect. A late game 2 result could kill units off objectives. Sure not likely but a serious risk in a competitive environment.

But it can swing the other way as well and hit and/or hurt your opponent just as hard. So wouldn't the equal chance of something happening to either hurt or help you out kind of negate the whole warp table in terms of being competitive altogether?

That isnt competitive that is playing craps and hoping you dont roll craps. One of my games I lost was against Draigo wing Grey Knights. I went first and got an 11 on the chart and Draigo was removed from play and replaced with a herald. So yes it can go both ways but in either case it can really swing the game and its totally random. I prefer to take more reliable options.

Dont get me wrong guys this book is one of the funnest books I have played with in a while but imho it will not win a single GT unless the person rolls lights out a majority of his games.

The best HQ combo I have derived so far is:
Bloodthirster ER; GR (might switch to two GR)

Tzeentch Herald ER(grimiore of true names usually) Level 3 Psyker Conjuration

Tzeentch Herald ER(Portalglyph game dependent) Level 3 Psyker Conjuration

Herald of Slannesh Beguilment and ER(Eternal Blade Usually)

4th herald as you see fit. I run the above with 3 of those troops maxed out.

So far I am 8 and 2 with my daemons and have won a 1k tournament with them despite losing to a guard player who had 2 guardsman left. IMHO daemons are better at lower points due to cheap units.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 L0rdF1end wrote:
We had similar complaints about Chaos Codex, now look at the triple heldrake and taking advantage of allies to create competive builds.
We will also have to wait for an FAQ which also might change things, for instance, the Fiend -5 to 0 Ini, if you do not get to strike back that is incredibly poweerful not including using the Exalted Slaanesh locus with that also plus a greater etherblade. That would allow you to have a very good chance at killing any character you wish.

Also the faq regarding the chariot of tzeentch is needed as the rider is the one that fires. So if you move 12" your doing snap shots.

1K tournaments are really distorting. Nids win regualarly at 1K with multiple MCs and spawning. I rarely win with my DE/Eldar because it is near impossible to create a competitive 1k list with Eldard and Vect and Baron and have enough points for anything useful (beastpack/seercouncil) and troops. So emasculate a good list.

I actually like what they have done with daemons. Granted im only focusing on khorne but Skarbrand got a massive boost (increased initative and instant death CC to name a few) and points decrease. Bloodthirster got a boost (increased initiative attacks and instand death on 6s plus access to rewards) and bloodletters are now 37.5% cheaper! Admittedly bloodcrushers got nerfed but realistically due to their increased speed they just have a new role. If played right a daemons army can put out an insane ammount of turn two pressure on your opponent plus the addition of warp storms that can do damage across the board....run double force and ally in some CSM and you can bring serious turn 2 pressure on your opponent.... I currently run
-Skarbrand
-bloodthister
-4 x 10 bloodletters
-2 x CSM daemon princes with daemon weapons
-2 x helbrutes
-2 x maulerfiends
-2 x 10 cultists
Reserve all the troops to keep them safe from enemy shooting. By the time they arrive the enemy should be engaged with 3 FMCs and 2 maulers with Skarbrand and the helbrutes closing in fast

Herald of slaneesh, beguilement, and eternal blade in a unit of fiends is a beat stick.

A good unit to accompany them would be csm nurgle spawn with prescience or khorne spawn with a juggy riding chaos lord with the deamon axe. Either way the unit gets nasty once prescience is cast on it.

The deamonic bumrush is scary, unless you're going up against GK termies and DK

Deamons will not put an insane amount of turn two pressure on a competent opponent. Turn three maybe. But you are proposing a CSM list with some daemon allies. That might be the way DoC has to go to avoid warp storm nonsense. I again have to agree with Tomb King ...

Two squads of twenty horrors with herald with prescience/2 warp charge pumping out 7D6 shots a turn is probably the most viable setup with two squads of deamonettes as backup. But you take a chance with Horrors. Like all the daemon rules ... you can be denied, you can give away FNP, you have to be within bolter range yourself ... so ...

We take a GD HQ at 1500 and likely a DP heavy (mini BT) at 1750 and at 2000 we add another DP or a few Skull Cannons. Is this competitive? Well, it could be or it could be a disaster.

If we take DoC as allies we can only get one Herald or the GD. We avoid warp storm but neuter the effectiveness of the list. So we go with DoC as prinmary and hope for good rolls and take some cultists and a Drake and an HQ from CSM codex. Hardly a powerhouse list.

I'm going to need some convincing to play Chaos as my primary army.

I think someone else already already said this so I'll just say it again.

CSM was declared DOA when the codex first hit the shelves. Last month 2 of the top 10 at BAO were csm armies, and that was in a heavy foreword heavy saber lots of anti air meta which didn't benefit the csm players.

The deamons codex is not user friendly. It's not noob friendly, it's not even veteran friendly, but it does have potential. It's going to take me a while to build a new deamon list, but I think I can eventually make one work.

 Tomb King wrote:
The point wasn't hey crap happens. The point of my post it is it is hard to be competitive if you can give up first blood/kp or even slay the warlord before the first shooting phase on 2 and 3. Though any of the main warp storm could hit ur own units to a similar effect. A late game 2 result could kill units off objectives. Sure not likely but a serious risk in a competitive environment.

Was the game supposed to be easy? Its always been challenging to run Chaos Daemons. And are you really saying that 1 VP is breaking your game?

Like I said, if you don't like too much randomness, Chaos may not be your army.

Just got done with another game and took my third loss. Tried out a block of plague drones. They can be effective but have to have support because their saves really suck.

Played against an army with an allied Eldrad. Got wrecked. Any sort of Eldar can really nerf daemons pretty good. Even beyond your shooting attacks they can get re-roll to hit and to wound on you as well as re-rolling their own saves.

This army is fun to play but if the dice arent going well for you it can get really dull fast.

This army is fun to play but if the dice arent going well for you it can get really dull fast.

Interesting comment. Is there in army in this game that doesn't apply to?

ShadarLogoth wrote:

This army is fun to play but if the dice arent going well for you it can get really dull fast.

Interesting comment. Is there in army in this game that doesn't apply to?

I think it's better to say that one bad dice roll can basically give away the game or a good roll will likely win you the game.

ShadarLogoth wrote:

This army is fun to play but if the dice arent going well for you it can get really dull fast.

Interesting comment. Is there in army in this game that doesn't apply to?

Maybe Necroms have a specisl rule for that... Otherwise, ummm. No.

ShadarLogoth wrote:

This army is fun to play but if the dice arent going well for you it can get really dull fast.

Interesting comment. Is there in army in this game that doesn't apply to?

Makutsu wrote:

ShadarLogoth wrote:

This army is fun to play but if the dice arent going well for you it can get really dull fast.

Interesting comment. Is there in army in this game that doesn't apply to?

I think it's better to say that one bad dice roll can basically give away the game or a good roll will likely win you the game.

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

ShadarLogoth wrote:

This army is fun to play but if the dice arent going well for you it can get really dull fast.

Interesting comment. Is there in army in this game that doesn't apply to?

Maybe Necroms have a specisl rule for that... Otherwise, ummm. No.

Alright to draw the story board. Some armies can handle a few bad dice rolls coming through. What people sometimes refer to as armies that are a little more forgiving. In addition, the amount of dice that can be game changing are less in other armies. This army has the ability to nullify the skill level of the person playing the army. Big picture is you need decent to above average dice rolls to keep this army competitive. That is not something you can really count on for the duration of more then a few games. If you can roll like the girl who won the BAO you should be good to run this army in GT's. Not saying she needed the dice but hers were hot from what I have seen of the reports.

I don't think I've ever seen a battle report for a best general winner who had consistently crappy rolls. Like ever.

A lot of people do average the dice rolls out when planning their lists, necrons can do this a little better with their re roll cryptek thing.

Lots of high rate of fire with twin linked shooting is good in this hence why I was taking three land raider crusaders with the salvo banner, 72 twin linked bolter shots from those three alone, plus 30 tac marines 10 of which can be twin linked, so thats another 40 twin linked bolter shots and 80 normal bolter shots, plus 12 TL assault cannon shots and 6 twin linked skyfire interceptor krak missiles from hyperios was my overall army, plus I had the resilience of the power field gen and I could afford to lose a land raider before things got serious. So a certain amount of bad dice rolls can be mitgated, eldar also do this a LOT better.

Anyway back on topic, Horrors, how should I run these, my first game I had two groups of 20 both with heralds (only lvl 1 and yes I relised what a waste and they are now lvl 2!), but only two scoring units at 1750 is a big worry for me, I am trying three units tomorrow, one at 17 two at 11 each with blasted standard but only one lvl 2 herald with the bigger squad.

In context the rest of my list is 3 souped up daemon princes and a lord of change, I did want to try fateweaver but just dont have the points at 1750, at 1850 I could squeeze him in but not really sure after reading his profile yesterday, yes he has all the tzeentch powers and one each from divi pryo tele and bio but only one isnt brilliant but I guess it is better then a Lord of change.....

I am not trying a tourny level list with these, more of something different as I have only ran marines before, the general game plan is to deploy the DP's LoC and a unit of horrors, probably the bigger squad and maybe reserve the other horror units depending on the mission, the DP's fly forward with the LoC and draw fire, DP's then land to wreck face, any firepower directed at my troops they will then have to face three tooled up DP's (2 greater rewards armour wings lvl2 on biomancy) and a LoC buffing them or going after armour (he will have portalglpyh deploying that first turn in my deployment and staff of change/lesser reward)

But if they fire on my flying DP's then my troops are fine and they should hopefuly waste lot of firepower to kill one and maybe wound another,

Of course eldar are going to butt feck me and tau will like the look of my toughness 5 DP's with railguns but hey like I said its more of a learning curve then anything.....

ShadarLogoth wrote:
I don't think I've ever seen a battle report for a best general winner who had consistently crappy rolls. Like ever.

Read game 6 of my indy report. Lost my daemon prince that had FnP and re-roll failed saves of 1 to the first 4 wounds that came his way. Then a rhino survived 2 annihilation barge's for two turns. You can roll poorly throughout a game and still win if your army is built well enough.

Another army that cant afford to roll poorly for an extended period of time is Dark Eldar. however, Dark Eldar can counter that with loads of dakka and longe range. Daemons have shorter range less dakka and require psychic test to shoot.




Quick question: If you all could rate the daemon army in competitiveness from 1 to 10(1 being , 5 being middle of the pack, 8 being top tier etc...) what would you rank them and why? What factors do you think place them there?

No idea, dont have enough data points to reach such a conclusion.


Basically until we see a major tournament, or something along those lines that gives us a decent amount of data as well as how all the "randomness" standardizes across the game. We really cant say for sure how competative it is. Also we need to see how GW will FAQ some things, who knows if something as powerful as the heldrake FAQ will come out?

Also what will Tau do to the meta in a month? To many things in flux to really say for sure right now.

Overall however I would say they are on par with the current 6th edition books so far but not anywhere near things like the necrons airforce(which is a good thing IMO)

 Tomb King wrote:



Quick question: If you all could rate the daemon army in competitiveness from 1 to 10(1 being , 5 being middle of the pack, 8 being top tier etc...) what would you rank them and why? What factors do you think place them there?

Too early to say?, saying that personnaly I havent had a chance to go through the rest of the dex, mainly been concentrating on tzeentch units. I do think slaanesh could be good, played against a mixed list and was very suprised at the speed of the slaanesh units

 Tomb King wrote:

ShadarLogoth wrote:
I don't think I've ever seen a battle report for a best general winner who had consistently crappy rolls. Like ever.

Read game 6 of my indy report. Lost my daemon prince that had FnP and re-roll failed saves of 1 to the first 4 wounds that came his way. Then a rhino survived 2 annihilation barge's for two turns. You can roll poorly throughout a game and still win if your army is built well enough.

Another army that cant afford to roll poorly for an extended period of time is Dark Eldar. however, Dark Eldar can counter that with loads of dakka and longe range. Daemons have shorter range less dakka and require psychic test to shoot.




Quick question: If you all could rate the daemon army in competitiveness from 1 to 10(1 being , 5 being middle of the pack, 8 being top tier etc...) what would you rank them and why? What factors do you think place them there?

Too early to tell.

Leth wrote:No idea, dont have enough data points to reach such a conclusion.


Basically until we see a major tournament, or something along those lines that gives us a decent amount of data as well as how all the "randomness" standardizes across the game. We really cant say for sure how competative it is. Also we need to see how GW will FAQ some things, who knows if something as powerful as the heldrake FAQ will come out?

Also what will Tau do to the meta in a month? To many things in flux to really say for sure right now.

Overall however I would say they are on par with the current 6th edition books so far but not anywhere near things like the necrons airforce(which is a good thing IMO)

MarkyMark wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:



Quick question: If you all could rate the daemon army in competitiveness from 1 to 10(1 being , 5 being middle of the pack, 8 being top tier etc...) what would you rank them and why? What factors do you think place them there?

Too early to say?, saying that personnaly I havent had a chance to go through the rest of the dex, mainly been concentrating on tzeentch units. I do think slaanesh could be good, played against a mixed list and was very suprised at the speed of the slaanesh units

Sasori wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:

ShadarLogoth wrote:
I don't think I've ever seen a battle report for a best general winner who had consistently crappy rolls. Like ever.

Read game 6 of my indy report. Lost my daemon prince that had FnP and re-roll failed saves of 1 to the first 4 wounds that came his way. Then a rhino survived 2 annihilation barge's for two turns. You can roll poorly throughout a game and still win if your army is built well enough.

Another army that cant afford to roll poorly for an extended period of time is Dark Eldar. however, Dark Eldar can counter that with loads of dakka and longe range. Daemons have shorter range less dakka and require psychic test to shoot.




Quick question: If you all could rate the daemon army in competitiveness from 1 to 10(1 being , 5 being middle of the pack, 8 being top tier etc...) what would you rank them and why? What factors do you think place them there?

Too early to tell.

Alright so the book is been out for 3 weeks. In your opinion based on what you know currently what would you rank the codex. Obviously this can be subject to change if you see something that might improve or decrease your score given. Personally I would rate the book a strong 6. Reason being is the army as it is now lacks consistency and sometimes you find yourself playing against you opponent and the codex itself. No other army in the game currently has the ability to self destruct and beat itself.

Well, I have yet to play guard list but I think that will be a big challenge, they have high str and ignore cover blasts which hurts elites (multi wound models as they have lost EW) the ignore cover will hurt as then we are down to 5 plus invul normally rather then juciy cover saves (looking at your nurgle).

Also eldar will hurt my list A LOT!, as everything I have relies on psyhic powers (LoC DP's and horrors), runes will be horrible.

I would tend to agree with you though, around a 6, troops are cheap and you can knock out a lot of troops if you wanted, I have seen a slaanesh list with a hell of a lot of models, really horde style, they can do orks but better (always have a save, quicker and hit hard in CC). We have half decent FMC's, I will one day get a Bloodthirster as he is a beast on paper, we have some very strong units (GUO and the other GD's I even killed kharn with a lord of change the other day....).

The thing is, as with all the new codex's, you can get strong lists out of them but you have to pay the points, there isnt much thats cheap and a must take (i.e wraiths or AB's) so I think it is a bit more of a challenge to get a balanced list so good scoring resilent troops, heavy hitting units and good shooting units, I am hoping to see a list like that in action soon?,

 schadenfreude wrote:

CSM was declared DOA when the codex first hit the shelves. Last month 2 of the top 10 at BAO were csm armies, and that was in a heavy foreword heavy saber lots of anti air meta which didn't benefit the csm players.

Just curious if anyone can see the trick here. For those who can't: Codex: Chaos Space Marines is 'meh'-ish (at best). Codex: Nurgle and Baledrakes is top-notch though .

In our gaming club, a new terror arose in the horizon: the 5 FMCs CD build. 1 Bloodthirster, 1 LoC or Fateweaver, 2 Tzeentch Princes, 1 Khorne Prince, Rewards and Biomancy everywhere, two minimal-whatever Troops and let the slaughter commence! This combo won the last "pressure weekend" (a huge series of battles where our top players bring their top armies), so I think it is toruney-viable.

Alright so the book is been out for 3 weeks. In your opinion based on what you know currently what would you rank the codex. Obviously this can be subject to change if you see something that might improve or decrease your score given. Personally I would rate the book a strong 6. Reason being is the army as it is now lacks consistency and sometimes you find yourself playing against you opponent and the codex itself. No other army in the game currently has the ability to self destruct and beat itself.

6.5-7, if Necrons and IG are considered 10.

I myself have only lost one game, running:
2 Keeper of secrets (Practically as good as the other GD's, but much much cheaper points wise. Gift's can make them super resillient for their cost, and the extra run and fleet get's them places quick)
1 flying daemon prince of slaanesh w 2 gifts (Substituting the worst for the 2d6 whip) Great against flyers, great against ground units, vector striking and whipping joy.
10 plaguebearers
20 horrors
Aegis line
CSM Daemon prince of nurgle with wings/armour and black mace, for utter nastyness in combat
10 cultists mandatory troops+ extra scoring.

Bunker up my troops in the aegis, plaguebearers at the front get a 2+ for aegis+shrouded, pink horrors 2+ for aegis and being behind the bearers, 2+ on the cultists for being behind the horrors)

Letting loose all the monstrous creatures, really messes many people up, and with greater gifts, they are real tanks.

I can say that as an IG player the lists that focus on FMCs are stressful to play. I can't afford to make a single mistake, and a single round of poor dice rolls on either side can sway the out-come drastically.

I'm definitely considering air-cav more and more with all these FMCs.

Alright so the book is been out for 3 weeks. In your opinion based on what you know currently what would you rank the codex. Obviously this can be subject to change if you see something that might improve or decrease your score given. Personally I would rate the book a strong 6. Reason being is the army as it is now lacks consistency and sometimes you find yourself playing against you opponent and the codex itself. No other army in the game currently has the ability to self destruct and beat itself.

I stated earlier in the thread that I think Daemons have some really bad matchups, but some awesome ones as well. For instance, I see lots of players folding to a heavy threat Daemon list. I also see Daemons getting destroyed against players who know how to speed bump. Finally, I see Nids, Seer Council, and well built GK/IG as almost unwinnable matches.

As for a list at 1850:

Bloodthirster, Exalted Reward (take Portalgyph)
Herald of Slannessh, Steed, ML 2
Herald of Khorne, Juggernaut, Exalted Reward (Grimnoire)

2x 18 Seekers
15 Khorn Dogs

3x10 Plaguebearers

ML3 Sorcerer
20 Cultists
5 Nurgle Spawn

1842

The above list can hypothetically hit very hard and very fast. With the right rolls (Invisibility, Grimnoire), it is also near invincible. However, I could also see the list failing miserably. Lack of grenades, the warpstorm table, and lack of shooting all contributes to massive weaknesses.

 JGrand wrote:

I stated earlier in the thread that I think Daemons have some really bad matchups, but some awesome ones as well. For instance, I see lots of players folding to a heavy threat Daemon list. I also see Daemons getting destroyed against players who know how to speed bump. Finally, I see Nids, Seer Council, and well built GK/IG as almost unwinnable matches.

I agree.

Daemons, like before, are really matchup-dependent. That is just the nature of their codex. The army is just inherently unbalanced by design. It is also this "unbalance" which attracts people to playing their particular play-style. If I want an army with good assault, just as much mobility and better shooting, then I'd just play my wraithwing necrons. Daemons provide a unique experience of speed, hard-hitting units, flying monstrous creatures and a psychic-heavy army. Unfortunately, due to their nature, daemons will kick a$$ against many armies but will just have problems against some of them (like the ones JGrand mentioned above).

On a scale of 1-10 in terms of competitiveness, I'd also rate them a 6.5 - 7. Due to the nature of the codex and the randomness in the army, they lack the consistency and balance to win a long series of games against a wide range of armies. But it is precisely because of the nature of their codex and the randomness of the army why I personally find the army so appealing to play.

In short, play them because you like them, not because you want to consistently win tournaments with them.