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 would rate it at an 8 or 9 for potential power, and about a 2 for user friendliness.

Necrons would be a 9 in both categories.

Orks a 6 or 7 in both categories.

IG 9 or 10 in potential power, about a 5 in user friendliness.

I've been finding them as excellent allies for my CSM.

I've been using one squad of plague bearers are deck chairs.
I've been using a GUO as a counter-assault or assault unit (depending on the army I'm facing) Ill either just camp it behind some PM or deep strike it.
You can add a soulgrinder.
You can add some khorne dogs to help protect your land raiders against deep striking melta

Totally agree Jim, I have started daemons last week as I wanted something different to play, I love psykers and wanted to do FMC list so it was either nids or these, I have chose these as I get more powers and 4 FMC's at 1750

 schadenfreude wrote:
I would rate it at an 8 or 9 for potential power, and about a 2 for user friendliness.

IG 9 or 10 in potential power, about a 5 in user friendliness.

IG are so consistently overvalued. People who know how to play guard know just how fragile their infantry and tanks are. Vendettas keep them king of the skies but they have many weakness. The reason you have see Guard shoot up on everyone's power rankings is the addition of allies to cover their weakness. I would rank guard up there in power when you ally in marines.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
Though I think when you see people get the models to run full on horde style lists for daemons their full potential will be realized.

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.

Agreed. I could see cleaning up at local events with Daemons. The average player is generally unprepared for the type of blitz that Daemons can put out there. In addition, lots of local events are battle point based and place emphasis on massacres--something Daemons can certainly do when they hit on all cylinders. However, I wouldn't want to take them to a GT. The chances of running into hard counters are just too high. Good players with balanced lists aren't going to roll over just because you have a bunch of fast assault.

I would rate it at an 8 or 9 for potential power, and about a 2 for user friendliness.

Necrons would be a 9 in both categories.

Orks a 6 or 7 in both categories.

I don't necessarily agree with these ratings, but it is true that some armies are more forgiving than others. I think more important than potential power is the likelihood of bad matchups. Bad matchups can be overcome, but it's hard to win if 2/3 games are against lists you don't want to play.

Daemons always have excelled at beating down MEQ. However, we are in an edition which has alot more diversity and played Xenos. In addition, good MEQ players are packing disposable bodies via Guard. Thus, Daemons aren't going to roll MEQ quite as often, yet face even more tough matches now.

Though I think when you see people get the models to run full on horde style lists for daemons their full potential will be realized.

If by "hoard style" you mean spamming troops, I vehemently disagree. Daemon troops are average on a good day. In regard to their troops, I don't think much has changed aside from the fact that players should take min 10 squads of less survivable Plaguebearers instead of the former min 5 squads of more survivable Plaguebearers.

The other troops got cheaper, but that doesn't mean they became competitive. I could see Daemonettes, but at the same time, I'd rather just take Seekers. Use the fast Cav units to tear up and keep the opponent pushed back, take objectives with min objective grabbers. This has been and will continue to be the successful Daemon way.

i just took 4th in a pretty good sized competive tourney, that enough for me to think they are good

nightsorrow wrote:
i just took 4th in a pretty good sized competive tourney, that enough for me to think they are good

Congrats.

What did you run?

What type of armies did you play against? I think this would give us good info on the types of matchups that are good or problematic for the new daemons.

 labmouse42 wrote:
I've been finding them as excellent allies for my CSM.

I've been using one squad of plague bearers are deck chairs.
I've been using a GUO as a counter-assault or assault unit (depending on the army I'm facing) Ill either just camp it behind some PM or deep strike it.
You can add a soulgrinder.
You can add some khorne dogs to help protect your land raiders against deep striking melta

Yea I feel that those two books truly become competitive when you use them together. For example a prescience forge fiend is amazing and very easily done now. I find that more often then not though, I would rather run demons as the primary and chaos SM as the allied detachment. Chaos HQ's and cult troops are so pricy you really don't need a full FOC, on the other hand multiple heralds and demon troops/heavies are great!

Don't think they're match-up dependent. I also don't rate on 1-10 scales as I find that with rare exception that most codexes are pretty much on the same scale. Then again I know a lot of people don't think that way so to each their own.

The Daemon book looks solid to me personally.

I think in some ways the randomness of the upgrades can be an advantage, since you can default into a generally useful weapon (I'm looking at you balesword). It also means your opponent is not 100% certain what he is going up against when you hand over your list. While none of the upgrades are tactics-shattering for your opponent it certainly might give them a bit of pause.

I am in the camp that Eldar are a thorn in the side of Daemons at the moment. Though when they get a new dex I imagine that board-wide psychic defense will at last be dead. But that's not pertinent to the topic.

Exalted versatility is amazing. Just choosing which relic based on mission and opponent.

Also used a unit of horrors with herald and they have some crazy output.

6d6 twin linked str 6 shots. Puts a lot of wounds on a unit. Pretty good chance of going off as well.

 Hulksmash wrote:
Don't think they're match-up dependent. I also don't rate on 1-10 scales as I find that with rare exception that most codexes are pretty much on the same scale. Then again I know a lot of people don't think that way so to each their own.

The Daemon book looks solid to me personally.

Yes I know your of the belief they are all balanced. Agree to disagree with tournament results as my platform for representation.


Also got another game in tonight and I have finalized a unit for my template when building a daemon Daemon list.

Herald of Slanesh (exalted Reward=Eternal Blade; exalted loci of beguilement) 105pts

Can be mounted if you want and thrown with some seekers but I usually put her/him/it in a unit of 20 daemonettes. Giving the whole unit re-rolls to hit being able to pick who accept challenges and averaging 6 attacks at WS and Init 9 all for a bargain 105pts is probably your best all round unit in the book atm. Though you can only have one with that exact load out and some armies can counter it. Look to see this a lot in just about any daemon list built for tournaments.

I beat a CSM list with 2 Heldrakes, a Khorne Jugger Lord in a unit of Chaos Spawn and a unit of Obliterators.

It was a close game but I won with my mono Nurgle Daemons.

XT, where abouts in London are you?, I am quite local to that area

 XT-1984 wrote:
I beat a CSM list with 2 Heldrakes, a Khorne Jugger Lord in a unit of Chaos Spawn and a unit of Obliterators.

It was a close game but I won with my mono Nurgle Daemons.

Was the list you used similar to the one you posted in Army Lists? Just curious as I am building a mono Nurgle force right now.

 Red Corsair wrote:
Yea I feel that those two books truly become competitive when you use them together. For example a prescience forge fiend is amazing and very easily done now. I find that more often then not though, I would rather run demons as the primary and chaos SM as the allied detachment. Chaos HQ's and cult troops are so pricy you really don't need a full FOC, on the other hand multiple heralds and demon troops/heavies are great!

You know, I did not even put thought into that. There are a lot of units in the CSM codex that are 'weak' by default due to a BS3. You can make them a lot 'better' with a prescience.

And I was just thinking that a grimoire on 20 possessed would be pretty cool.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tomb King wrote:
Can be mounted if you want and thrown with some seekers but I usually put her/him/it in a unit of 20 daemonettes. Giving the whole unit re-rolls to hit being able to pick who accept challenges and averaging 6 attacks at WS and Init 9 all for a bargain 105pts is probably your best all round unit in the book atm. Though you can only have one with that exact load out and some armies can counter it. Look to see this a lot in just about any daemon list built for tournaments.

Don't you need to make dangerous terrain tests for calvary every time your moving through difficult terrain? Would that not be every time you consolidate in a combat? You would be losing 1/9 of seeker unit ever time they have to move through cover.

In those cases would not the loci that lets you move through cover be better?

 Tomb King wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
Don't think they're match-up dependent. I also don't rate on 1-10 scales as I find that with rare exception that most codexes are pretty much on the same scale. Then again I know a lot of people don't think that way so to each their own.

The Daemon book looks solid to me personally.

Yes I know your of the belief they are all balanced. Agree to disagree with tournament results as my platform for representation.


Also got another game in tonight and I have finalized a unit for my template when building a daemon Daemon list.

Herald of Slanesh (exalted Reward=Eternal Blade; exalted loci of beguilement) 105pts

Can be mounted if you want and thrown with some seekers but I usually put her/him/it in a unit of 20 daemonettes. Giving the whole unit re-rolls to hit being able to pick who accept challenges and averaging 6 attacks at WS and Init 9 all for a bargain 105pts is probably your best all round unit in the book atm. Though you can only have one with that exact load out and some armies can counter it. Look to see this a lot in just about any daemon list built for tournaments.

You weren't around much the last time I really got into this but I'll make the same offer I did back then. If someone will pay for it I'll play the codex of their choice (difference is now I'll choose the allies, allies didn't exist in 5th edition the last time I offered this) at two large events(60+). If I don't finish top 10 in the general category in both of them I'll give the money back for the army.

Tournament results aren't a solid indicator. 6th edition is to young and the WD Daemon Update skewed the results pretty heavily. Not to mention that the constant state of flux of the game since 6th dropped what with now 4 codexes since October/November. Basically there is no meta right now. There are no power codexes right now. There are codexes people have been playing longer and had the ability to figure out and settle in with but there aren't codexes which stand head and shoulders above all the rest. It's personal opinion obviously.

The problem with Daemons right now is that there hasn't been enough time to build and play with it. It's been 3 weeks. I realize with Tau coming out people are in a tizzy to get an opinion on this before the next book drops but trust me. By itself or in use with CSM or IG you'll see Daemons start rocking stuff out in the next few months.

 Hulksmash wrote:
The problem with Daemons right now is that there hasn't been enough time to build and play with it. It's been 3 weeks. I realize with Tau coming out people are in a tizzy to get an opinion on this before the next book drops but trust me. By itself or in use with CSM or IG you'll see Daemons start rocking stuff out in the next few months.

Hulk, what have been your thoughts on how Daemons can assist CSM in an ally capacity?

Don't think they're match-up dependent. I also don't rate on 1-10 scales as I find that with rare exception that most codexes are pretty much on the same scale. Then again I know a lot of people don't think that way so to each their own.

The Daemon book looks solid to me personally.

Solid, I can agree with. I'm actually curious as to what you think is a winning GT Daemons build (not a callout, just genuinely interested to see what you have been running). So far, I have struggled to come up with a Daemons build that I felt could handle just about anything. I think of some of the good Nids, shooty IG/GK, and Eldar/DE that either I or people I know run and don't see much of an answer there. Though I will agree that the book is still young and largely untested.

 Hulksmash wrote:


You weren't around much the last time I really got into this but I'll make the same offer I did back then. If someone will pay for it I'll play the codex of their choice (difference is now I'll choose the allies, allies didn't exist in 5th edition the last time I offered this) at two large events(60+). If I don't finish top 10 in the general category in both of them I'll give the money back for the army.
.

So basically you want me to buy you an army to prove a point? Then if you can win 4 out of 6 games then I am wrong? I am saying this army cant win a GT by itself or with allies. It might do okay as an ally though.

 Hulksmash wrote:
You weren't around much the last time I really got into this but I'll make the same offer I did back then. If someone will pay for it I'll play the codex of their choice (difference is now I'll choose the allies, allies didn't exist in 5th edition the last time I offered this) at two large events(60+). If I don't finish top 10 in the general category in both of them I'll give the money back for the army.

Tournament results aren't a solid indicator. 6th edition is to young and the WD Daemon Update skewed the results pretty heavily. Not to mention that the constant state of flux of the game since 6th dropped what with now 4 codexes since October/November. Basically there is no meta right now. There are no power codexes right now. There are codexes people have been playing longer and had the ability to figure out and settle in with but there aren't codexes which stand head and shoulders above all the rest. It's personal opinion obviously.

The problem with Daemons right now is that there hasn't been enough time to build and play with it. It's been 3 weeks. I realize with Tau coming out people are in a tizzy to get an opinion on this before the next book drops but trust me. By itself or in use with CSM or IG you'll see Daemons start rocking stuff out in the next few months.

I also believe that any army can win a tournament (or just make it to the Top10) if the general is skilled enough. However, the trick is to do it consistently and with different generals. What will be telling is to see how consistently the new daemons can make it to the Top 10 of the larger tournaments, and I'm talking about the GT's, not the 3-game smaller tournaments. Although it is still too early to tell, I suspect that it won't be too often. Daemons have some tough builds, but IMO, they just aren't balanced enough to handle a wide range of balanced TAC builds run by skilled generals.

 JGrand wrote:

Don't think they're match-up dependent. I also don't rate on 1-10 scales as I find that with rare exception that most codexes are pretty much on the same scale. Then again I know a lot of people don't think that way so to each their own.

The Daemon book looks solid to me personally.

Solid, I can agree with. I'm actually curious as to what you think is a winning GT Daemons build (not a callout, just genuinely interested to see what you have been running). So far, I have struggled to come up with a Daemons build that I felt could handle just about anything. I think of some of the good Nids, shooty IG/GK, and Eldar/DE that either I or people I know run and don't see much of an answer there. Though I will agree that the book is still young and largely untested.

Hey! Where are necrons in that list?

Hey! Where are necrons in that list?

Honestly, I think Daemons will be pretty good against Crons. Fast assault units that can get into CC quickly and beat Crons by 4+ in combat resolution will generally break and sweep them. Fast Daemon lists can also run to the Cron edge against flyers and ensure that they get one pass tops before having to fly over and off. Plaguebearers in cover won't care too much Tesla Destructors either. Not saying that it's an auto-win/loss either way, but I wouldn't fear Crons too much as Daemons.

 JGrand wrote:

Hey! Where are necrons in that list?

Honestly, I think Daemons will be pretty good against Crons. Fast assault units that can get into CC quickly and beat Crons by 4+ in combat resolution will generally break and sweep them. Fast Daemon lists can also run to the Cron edge against flyers and ensure that they get one pass tops before having to fly over and off. Plaguebearers in cover won't care too much Tesla Destructors either. Not saying that it's an auto-win/loss either way, but I wouldn't fear Crons too much as Daemons.

Not even against a list like this (at 2K)?

Destroyer Lord, - 2+, Mindshackle Scarabs, Res Orb
Destroyer Lord, - 2+, Mindshackle Scarabs, Res Orb

5x Warriors - Night Scythe
5x Warriors - Night Scythe
5x Warriors - Night Scythe
5x Warriors - Night Scythe

6x Wraiths - 2x Whip Coils
6x Wraiths - 2x Whip Coils
6x Wraiths - 2x Whip Coils

Annihilation Barge
Annihilation Barge
Annihilation Barge


They have all the tesla shooting to take down MC's. D-lords with MSS can potentially mess up daemon assault brutes. Wraiths will take care of business against most daemon units with their volume of S6 attacks. There is nothing on the ground for daemons to assault besides wraiths and AB's.

Wraiths seem pretty tricky for Daemons to handle. Unless you happen to have some Nurgle psykers and roll enfeeble, I don't think that a Daemons army can generate enough wounds to ID out, or to force enough saves, to kill even 2 wraith units.

 jy2 wrote:

 JGrand wrote:

Hey! Where are necrons in that list?

Honestly, I think Daemons will be pretty good against Crons. Fast assault units that can get into CC quickly and beat Crons by 4+ in combat resolution will generally break and sweep them. Fast Daemon lists can also run to the Cron edge against flyers and ensure that they get one pass tops before having to fly over and off. Plaguebearers in cover won't care too much Tesla Destructors either. Not saying that it's an auto-win/loss either way, but I wouldn't fear Crons too much as Daemons.

Not even against a list like this (at 2K)?

Destroyer Lord, - 2+, Mindshackle Scarabs, Res Orb
Destroyer Lord, - 2+, Mindshackle Scarabs, Res Orb

5x Warriors - Night Scythe
5x Warriors - Night Scythe
5x Warriors - Night Scythe
5x Warriors - Night Scythe

6x Wraiths - 2x Whip Coils
6x Wraiths - 2x Whip Coils
6x Wraiths - 2x Whip Coils

Annihilation Barge
Annihilation Barge
Annihilation Barge


They have all the tesla shooting to take down MC's. D-lords with MSS can potentially mess up daemon assault brutes. Wraiths will take care of business against most daemon units with their volume of S6 attacks. There is nothing on the ground for daemons to assault besides wraiths and AB's.

Not really.. You will have over 600 PTs that don't contribute until turns 2-3. If the Daemon player is going mass cavalry or other fast CC options he will be stuck in with your wraiths. From my few experiences Seekers do very well against wraiths and I also imagine Fleshhounds doing alright. I think the lists that Daemons will excel at beating are the ones that happen to invest large amounts of points into flyers, such as yours. The Daemon ground presence is just going to be much better than yours. Another weakness of Crons is the fact that they don't have cheap and diverse Str. 8 options, Tesla is nice but it isnt particularly good against mass infantry lists (each destructor averages less than 5 wounds I believe) and they cannot double out things such as Bloodcrushers/Fleshhounds/Screamers/Fiends.

I think the worst match-ups for daemons will be GK/IG, Salvo DA, SW/IG and Nids.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jifel wrote:
Wraiths seem pretty tricky for Daemons to handle. Unless you happen to have some Nurgle psykers and roll enfeeble, I don't think that a Daemons army can generate enough wounds to ID out, or to force enough saves, to kill even 2 wraith units.

I don't agree with that at all. 6 Wraiths - 210 points. 16 Seekers are about equivalent. On the charge the Seekers will kill 2-3 Wraiths before they even get to strike back. The Seekers will also get a 5+ against all the wounds Wraiths can cause. Obviously it isn't as good if the Wraiths charge, but I think the Seekers will still do quite well as they will be hitting first (Coils can mitigate that but it will also increase price very quickly). WS5 is pretty nice and you can buff them up very easily with the re-roll locus. Fleshhounds on the charge can also do quite a few wounds. Wraiths are good but I have always found them to be a little weak vs. large blocks of CC-based infantry (i.e Orks).

 jifel wrote:
Wraiths seem pretty tricky for Daemons to handle. Unless you happen to have some Nurgle psykers and roll enfeeble, I don't think that a Daemons army can generate enough wounds to ID out, or to force enough saves, to kill even 2 wraith units.

Yeah, Enfeeble is what would hurt wraiths. Enfeeble combined with Tzeentch Herald+pink horror shooting can really do a number on them. Experienced necron players will definitely know to go after the sources for Enfeeble, which will mainly be the super-expensive DP's and Nurgle psykers. Either that or to get locked in combat.

LValx wrote:
Not really.. You will have over 600 PTs that don't contribute until turns 2-3. If the Daemon player is going mass cavalry or other fast CC options he will be stuck in with your wraiths. From my few experiences Seekers do very well against wraiths and I also imagine Fleshhounds doing alright. I think the lists that Daemons will excel at beating are the ones that happen to invest large amounts of points into flyers, such as yours. The Daemon ground presence is just going to be much better than yours. Another weakness of Crons is the fact that they don't have cheap and diverse Str. 8 options, Tesla is nice but it isnt particularly good against mass infantry lists (each destructor averages less than 5 wounds I believe) and they cannot double out things such as Bloodcrushers/Fleshhounds/Screamers/Fiends.

I think the worst match-ups for daemons will be GK/IG, Salvo DA, SW/IG and Nids.

Daemons are the same way. Most of their army won't really contribute until at least turn 2 as well. Both army builds are a beta-strike army. Turn 1 is just getting into position and getting ready. Turn 2 is where the fireworks start. I've no doubt that seekers can do well against wraiths. However, wraiths can mitigate that somewhat by waiting behind cover or just by having the D-lord in the unit for PE and to suck up normal wounds while LOS-ing rends to the wraiths. As for the investment in flyers, they only take up 660pts out of 2K and is mainly used as protection for the troops. Against daemons, their role - besides to drop off troops at the end - isn't really to go after daemon troops. Rather, it is to surgically strike the more dangerous daemon units like FMC's and such. The volume of tesla they can generate along with the AB's can be very potent.

LValx wrote:
I don't agree with that at all. 6 Wraiths - 210 points. 16 Seekers are about equivalent. On the charge the Seekers will kill 2-3 Wraiths before they even get to strike back. The Seekers will also get a 5+ against all the wounds Wraiths can cause. Obviously it isn't as good if the Wraiths charge, but I think the Seekers will still do quite well as they will be hitting first (Coils can mitigate that but it will also increase price very quickly). WS5 is pretty nice and you can buff them up very easily with the re-roll locus. Fleshhounds on the charge can also do quite a few wounds. Wraiths are good but I have always found them to be a little weak vs. large blocks of CC-based infantry (i.e Orks).

Don't forget the D-lord, who would tank most of the wounds and LOS the rends to the wraiths. Then MSS and whip coils will take away some of the attacks (every bit helps). However, if I felt that your cavalry are going to get the charge off, then I'd just stick my wraiths behind or in cover.

 jy2 wrote:

 jifel wrote:
Wraiths seem pretty tricky for Daemons to handle. Unless you happen to have some Nurgle psykers and roll enfeeble, I don't think that a Daemons army can generate enough wounds to ID out, or to force enough saves, to kill even 2 wraith units.

Yeah, Enfeeble is what would hurt wraiths. Enfeeble combined with Tzeentch Herald+pink horror shooting can really do a number on them. Experienced necron players will definitely know to go after the sources for Enfeeble, which will mainly be the super-expensive DP's and Nurgle psykers. Either that or to get locked in combat.

LValx wrote:
Not really.. You will have over 600 PTs that don't contribute until turns 2-3. If the Daemon player is going mass cavalry or other fast CC options he will be stuck in with your wraiths. From my few experiences Seekers do very well against wraiths and I also imagine Fleshhounds doing alright. I think the lists that Daemons will excel at beating are the ones that happen to invest large amounts of points into flyers, such as yours. The Daemon ground presence is just going to be much better than yours. Another weakness of Crons is the fact that they don't have cheap and diverse Str. 8 options, Tesla is nice but it isnt particularly good against mass infantry lists (each destructor averages less than 5 wounds I believe) and they cannot double out things such as Bloodcrushers/Fleshhounds/Screamers/Fiends.

I think the worst match-ups for daemons will be GK/IG, Salvo DA, SW/IG and Nids.

Daemons are the same way. Most of their army won't really contribute until at least turn 2 as well. Both army builds are a beta-strike army. Turn 1 is just getting into position and getting ready. Turn 2 is where the fireworks start. I've no doubt that seekers can do well against wraiths. However, wraiths can mitigate that somewhat by waiting behind cover or just by having the D-lord in the unit for PE and to suck up normal wounds while LOS-ing rends to the wraiths. As for the investment in flyers, they only take up 660pts out of 2K and is mainly used as protection for the troops. Against daemons, their role - besides to drop off troops at the end - isn't really to go after daemon troops. Rather, it is to surgically strike the more dangerous daemon units like FMC's and such. The volume of tesla they can generate along with the AB's can be very potent.

LValx wrote:
I don't agree with that at all. 6 Wraiths - 210 points. 16 Seekers are about equivalent. On the charge the Seekers will kill 2-3 Wraiths before they even get to strike back. The Seekers will also get a 5+ against all the wounds Wraiths can cause. Obviously it isn't as good if the Wraiths charge, but I think the Seekers will still do quite well as they will be hitting first (Coils can mitigate that but it will also increase price very quickly). WS5 is pretty nice and you can buff them up very easily with the re-roll locus. Fleshhounds on the charge can also do quite a few wounds. Wraiths are good but I have always found them to be a little weak vs. large blocks of CC-based infantry (i.e Orks).

Don't forget the D-lord, who would tank most of the wounds and LOS the rends to the wraiths. Then MSS and whip coils will take away some of the attacks (every bit helps). However, if I felt that your cavalry are going to get the charge off, then I'd just stick my wraiths behind or in cover.

I believe well-built Daemons will have invested almost all of their points into FA/Elites for fast moving cavalry. Which means that by turn two they SHOULD be stuck in. I think the Daemons will out-assault even 18 Wraiths with DLords. I made the mistake of charging a large seeker block with 6 Wraiths + DLord and got absolutely shredded, I tried them out myself a couple of times now and I think they are very, very dangerous. I also belive it will be a good idea to take Skull Cannons/Fiends to mitigate the problem of charging through terrain.

Tesla Destructors aren't super good vs. Daemons. They will do well vs Daemon MC's but I think Daemon MC's are overpriced and that the better lists will gravitate away from them. Destructors won't do a whole lot of damage to big blocks of Seekers or Fleshhounds, especially if the Daemon player invested in an Aegis to keep them behind early.

I'm not saying Necrons will have an auto-lose match-up vs Daemons, but I do think it is a bit unfavorable. I just see Necrons having a tough time dealing with something like 2x 20 Seekers, 20 Fleshhounds, 2x3 Fiends or Skull Cannons and a bunch of Heralds to buff the assault squads.

Really is too early to tell yet.
People still dont have enough time to run through all of the possible combinations of units.
Granted people have picked out key units that can really shine, but single units still need support and can be taken out easily.

Daemons used to be an army that had to support each unit with another one, they still are.
Granted most of the assault has been cut back, which means they are a bit more soft and need to pick targets alot more, but they can still hit pretty damn hard.

Warpstorm is just one of those things.
A bit of randomness isnt a real game changer, and since its pretty much 50/50 on the good/bad scale its no big deal.

I think the new deployment is a nice one though.
No more getting the wrong wave, you can set up a small firebase if you want then DS what you need.



Overall, i dislike it, but thats just because im changing my list yet again haha.
Started out with pure tzeentch when the book was released.
After the update i tamed it down a bit because people disliked 18 flamers.
Now i might change it about again.

 jy2 wrote:
They have all the tesla shooting to take down MC's. D-lords with MSS can potentially mess up daemon assault brutes. Wraiths will take care of business against most daemon units with their volume of S6 attacks. There is nothing on the ground for daemons to assault besides wraiths and AB's.

Do you really think 6 wraiths will be able to do work on 20 seekers?

Assuming you get 15 seekers into assault (which is reasonable) your going to have 4.4444 wounds taken by the wraiths, killing 2 of them. The other 4 wraiths will kill 3.38 seekers. The combat goes downhill from there.

While the necrons can bring a 'scarab lord, the seekers also can bring the banner that lowers WS, causing the wraiths to hit on a 5+ 2/3 of the time for the first round, lowering the dead seekers to 2.25. Don't forget that the scarab lord will be spending his first round killing the seeker herald, so he will not be able to tank.

Wraiths are vulnerable to massive amounts of low STR attacks. Seekers are not what they want to be fighting.

The real question is who goes first. If the 'cron player goes first, their flyers will come on before the seekers assault. (unless the 'cron player moved his wraiths within 20" of the seekers) If the daemon player goes first, then the daemons will be in assault on turn 2, limiting the night scythes targets.

Khorne hounds are great against wraiths, seekers also as mentioned. running a bloodthirster + DP of khorne.

Bloodthirster can have up to 10 attacks on the charge. Hitting on 3's and instant killing wraiths. If a daemon player pics his angle he could effectively stop wraiths from attacking back on the first round of combat. But combo charges with Dp's + X other unit or 15 Khorne hounds alone charging in = 45 attacks WS5, Str5 on the charge.

Not saying that wraiths are gonna get walked on, but imo they are far from having a superior advantage on a lot of units in the 6th ed. daemons.