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.

@Labmouse42

Two ways. One is the super cheap durable scoring units in the form of plaguebearers w/a Slaanesh herald and a huge unit of seekers with other random support. The other role is all offensive and involves large hard hitting units with the Chaos inclusion being minimum outside of it's best/most useful units.

@Jgrand

Honestly it's to early. I'm currently playtesting a couple of builds I think can hang. Leaning heavily on 3-4 heralds, large brick of horrors, smaller units of pb's, with 2 soulgrinders and a full fast attack portion of my force org. But honestly I need to give it a go against a few of the other lists I've built to endure and haven't had the time yet with two GT's in 3 weeks and getting ready for Adepticon.

@Tombking

I don't think any army can consistently win GT's. No one did in 5th and no one is currently doing it in 6th. My point about picking an army book is more to do with my belief the game is actually quite balanced, especially with allies involved. I'm sure you'll see my daemons once their finished at some events later this summer (i.e. Nova or Bugeater) and I'm sure you'll see Daemons pull down some high finishes 6 months after the book is out (how long it takes quite a few people to analyze and build a list they like).

@jy2

I think that if a single person can make any book work then it's balanced. Balanced doesn't mean ease of play. Balanced means books can be won with. Multiple people winning with a codex doesn't make it more balanced than one person winning with it.

And I agree. You won't see a ton of higher finishers with Daemons. The main reason likely being they are an outlier army to start with and have been squeezed between 2 other book releases in 4 months. Not as many people are going to pick them up and run with them as they aren't the new shiny, not because they aren't good. I'd bet though that you'll see a higher percentage of high placement out of the codex than many others though.

 labmouse42 wrote:

 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.

Yeah, I agree with you for the most part. In my experience Wraiths tend to struggle vs large blocks of infantry that can put out a fair amount of attacks. Some of the Loci and Banners can really swing things in favor of the Daemons.

Who goes first is definitely a pretty big deal. But if the Daemon player takes an aegis they can easily place it towards the middle and get a 4+ across their units or 3++ on a specific one with a Grimoire. 5-6 Destructors really wont do that much damage at that point.

I honestly think Daemons will be at their best combating armies that invest too many points in air superiority. For a lot of armies they are simply going to be too fast to fend off and will eventually get stuck in combat and thus avoid a lot of the Flyer shooting. Not to mention that Plaguebearers can easily laugh off Vendettas/SRs/Scythes and even Heldrakes with proper spacing.

LValx wrote:


I'm not saying Necrons will have an auto-lose match-up vs Daemons, but I do think it is a bit unfavorable. .

I seriously lol'd here. Necrons perhaps the strongest army out right now don't exactly have any codex that they have to worry about an auto lose situation against. Let alone a middle-tier daemon codex.

LValx wrote:

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.

Alright with my necron/csm army I would say the seekers are probably my target priority on turn 1. 240pts per 20 man seeker squad. I shoot 270pts of annihilation barges and on average dice you take 17+ wounds and lose 11.5 on turn 1. This isnt including the ripple effect of arcing to other units or the possibility of rolling hot for a turn. Ide have to know the rest of your list really but I am not worried about that build in the least. Depending what upgrades or buffs my prince got I would send him into the block of fleshhounds.

Viewing the new daemon codex my 1750 list would not change:

HQ:
1 Destroyer Lord, 160 pts = (Sempiternal Weave + Mindshackle Scarabs)

Troops:
5 Warriors, 65 pts
1 Night Scythe, 100 pts

5 Warriors, 65 pts
1 Night Scythe, 100 pts

5 Warriors, 65 pts
1 Night Scythe, 100 pts

5 Warriors, 65 pts

Fast Attack:
5 Canoptek Wraiths, 175 pts

Heavy Support:
1 Annihilation Barge, Tesla/Tesla 90 pts

1 Annihilation Barge, Tesla/Tesla 90 pts

1 Annihilation Barge, Tesla/Tesla 90 pts

HQ: Daemon Prince
1 Daemon Prince (HQ) [Chaos], 365 pts = (Power Armour + Wings + Increase Mastery Level x3 + Daemon of Tzeentch+ Gift of Mutation+Spell Familiar)
1 The Black Mace [Chaos]

Troops:
9 Chaos Cultists (Troops) [Chaos], 50 pts
1 Cultist Champion

Fast Attack:
Heldrake (170 pts) (baleflamer)

1750pts

LValx wrote:
I honestly think Daemons will be at their best combating armies that invest too many points in air superiority. For a lot of armies they are simply going to be too fast to fend off and will eventually get stuck in combat and thus avoid a lot of the Flyer shooting. Not to mention that Plaguebearers can easily laugh off Vendettas/SRs/Scythes and even Heldrakes with proper spacing.

I completely agree with this statement.

I may (and have been many times) way off base, but I predict that in 3 months daemons will be to flyer heavy lists what helldrakes are to MEQ spam lists today. Facing one may completely knock you out of the running if your running 'cron air and run into a daemon army early.

The question is, "Will daemon armies have what it takes to handle enough of the armies to still make it up to the top, or will they be a 1-2 hit wonder with more bad match ups than good match ups"

 Tomb King wrote:

LValx wrote:


I'm not saying Necrons will have an auto-lose match-up vs Daemons, but I do think it is a bit unfavorable. .

I seriously lol'd here. Necrons perhaps the strongest army out right now don't exactly have any codex that they have to worry about an auto lose situation against. Let alone a middle-tier daemon codex.

LValx wrote:

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.

Alright with my necron/csm army I would say the seekers are probably my target priority on turn 1. 240pts per 20 man seeker squad. I shoot 270pts of annihilation barges and on average dice you take 17+ wounds and lose 11.5 on turn 1. This isnt including the ripple effect of arcing to other units or the possibility of rolling hot for a turn. Ide have to know the rest of your list really but I am not worried about that build in the least. Depending what upgrades or buffs my prince got I would send him into the block of fleshhounds.

How does someone take 17+ Wounds to 3 Anni Barges? Each destructor averages 5 hits, so 15 Str7, the bottom gun snapfires and assuming you took Tesla that will net 3 Str5 hits, so 18 total hits for around 15W on T3. If the Daemon player takes an Aegis or there is Nightfight his casualties will be quite low.

A DP certainly helps VS Daemons because they cannot ground him, but DP's aren't a Necron unit. We have been discussing Crons specifically.

I think Necrons are great, I never said it was an auto-loss, maybe you read it wrong? If you deny that Necrons have tough match-ups you are delusional. Necrons have a very tough time against Tyranids. Lack of AP3 and below and STR. 7 isn't particularly good vs MCs. Enfeeble wrecks Wraiths and Flyrants are mobile enough to avoid you tanking with the D Lord.
Necrons also have a tough time vs horde Orks, I've seen this on plenty of occasions. Destructors are good vs Marines and high T models but it isn't great at whittling down large blocks of infantry.

Are Necrons probably the best stand-alone army? Sure. But they do not "dominate" GTs. They tend to to do well, but there are a lot of diverse codices doing well. Just like any other army I think Necrons have favorable and unfavorable match-ups. This is completely unavoidable in 6th edition 40k.

Alright with my necron/csm army I would say the seekers are probably my target priority on turn 1. 240pts per 20 man seeker squad. I shoot 270pts of annihilation barges and on average dice you take 17+ wounds and lose 11.5 on turn 1. This isnt including the ripple effect of arcing to other units or the possibility of rolling hot for a turn. Ide have to know the rest of your list really but I am not worried about that build in the least. Depending what upgrades or buffs my prince got I would send him into the block of fleshhounds.

On planet bowling ball, without night fight, the aegis, ruins, LOS blocking terrain, and the ability to start those three Anni Barges a guaranteed 30" or less away...still probably not.

Come on man, you are a smart guy and play in GTs, you gotta know that there is so much to factor in here. What kind of schlub is going to just give you that? So many GTs use Nova type terrain with the center LOS blocker that this just doesn't happen.

I'd agree that Cron are among the best "stand alone" codices, but I do think that they are susceptible to Daemons. Troops on foot will fold to Daemons. Wraiths are amazing, but Daemons have the dedicated CC to take them out as well. Finally, tesla destructors just don't do well at killing armies with gobs of wounds/bodies. Hence, the reason that so many people started to put gobs of bodies on the table in the first place. I know that my Crons always struggled against Orks and high model count builds because Destructors are only averaging 5 hits and 4-5 wounds. That's still only about 3 wounds on Daemons with a 5++, less if they have the Grimnoire, Aegis, or Invisibility active.

By no means an auto loss, but Crons should be concerned. Daemons, on the other hand, shouldn't particularly fear Crons (at least not more than some of the other things out there).

LValx wrote:

 labmouse42 wrote:

 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.

Yeah, I agree with you for the most part. In my experience Wraiths tend to struggle vs large blocks of infantry that can put out a fair amount of attacks. Some of the Loci and Banners can really swing things in favor of the Daemons.

Who goes first is definitely a pretty big deal. But if the Daemon player takes an aegis they can easily place it towards the middle and get a 4+ across their units or 3++ on a specific one with a Grimoire. 5-6 Destructors really wont do that much damage at that point.

I honestly think Daemons will be at their best combating armies that invest too many points in air superiority. For a lot of armies they are simply going to be too fast to fend off and will eventually get stuck in combat and thus avoid a lot of the Flyer shooting. Not to mention that Plaguebearers can easily laugh off Vendettas/SRs/Scythes and even Heldrakes with proper spacing.

I don't think who goes first has anything to do with it. If the Crons go first the flyers will shoot up the seekers. If the Daemons go first, the the Crons will deploy as far as possible from the seekers which means the flyers will still shoot up the seekers before they reach combat.

Here are the problems with daemons.

1) They take to long to play. To many rolls, to many charts, to long to play. I don't care that you have everything memerized, I don't and I want to see the tables. That takes time.

2) Daemon troops are not resilient. If you have plagues hiding in area terrain, then they can be resilient, just like Blood Angel Marines are resilient (you see they have the same save and the same FnP if the plagues buy the upgrade and the BA buy the priest while in area terrain. Same resilience, yet I don't see a ton of tactical posts on the resiliency of BA tacticals)

3) Null zone is still part of the game

I think Daemons can be fine as an ally force to CSM. In that regard they shine. Otherwise after the new car smell is gone, the army will be in the back ranks playing spoiler.

 JGrand wrote:

Alright with my necron/csm army I would say the seekers are probably my target priority on turn 1. 240pts per 20 man seeker squad. I shoot 270pts of annihilation barges and on average dice you take 17+ wounds and lose 11.5 on turn 1. This isnt including the ripple effect of arcing to other units or the possibility of rolling hot for a turn. Ide have to know the rest of your list really but I am not worried about that build in the least. Depending what upgrades or buffs my prince got I would send him into the block of fleshhounds.

On planet bowling ball, without night fight, the aegis, ruins, LOS blocking terrain, and the ability to start those three Anni Barges a guaranteed 30" or less away...still probably not.

Come on man, you are a smart guy and play in GTs, you gotta know that there is so much to factor in here. What kind of schlub is going to just give you that? So many GTs use Nova type terrain with the center LOS blocker that this just doesn't happen.

I'd agree that Cron are among the best "stand alone" codices, but I do think that they are susceptible to Daemons. Troops on foot will fold to Daemons. Wraiths are amazing, but Daemons have the dedicated CC to take them out as well. Finally, tesla destructors just don't do well at killing armies with gobs of wounds/bodies. Hence, the reason that so many people started to put gobs of bodies on the table in the first place. I know that my Crons always struggled against Orks and high model count builds because Destructors are only averaging 5 hits and 4-5 wounds. That's still only about 3 wounds on Daemons with a 5++, less if they have the Grimnoire, Aegis, or Invisibility active.

By no means an auto loss, but Crons should be concerned. Daemons, on the other hand, shouldn't particularly fear Crons (at least not more than some of the other things out there).

All math hammer is in a vacuum. Either way if you dont know how to avoid giving cover in 6th edition then your probably already having a bad day. As for the aegis. That is a 50pt investment that a daemon player is taking and then deploying in mid field for all to use. I could see some armies using it but it will also slow you down and force you to take dangerous terrain checks. 40 dangerous terrain checks for those horrors and your losing at least 4.

DarthDiggler wrote:

LValx wrote:

 labmouse42 wrote:

 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.

Yeah, I agree with you for the most part. In my experience Wraiths tend to struggle vs large blocks of infantry that can put out a fair amount of attacks. Some of the Loci and Banners can really swing things in favor of the Daemons.

Who goes first is definitely a pretty big deal. But if the Daemon player takes an aegis they can easily place it towards the middle and get a 4+ across their units or 3++ on a specific one with a Grimoire. 5-6 Destructors really wont do that much damage at that point.

I honestly think Daemons will be at their best combating armies that invest too many points in air superiority. For a lot of armies they are simply going to be too fast to fend off and will eventually get stuck in combat and thus avoid a lot of the Flyer shooting. Not to mention that Plaguebearers can easily laugh off Vendettas/SRs/Scythes and even Heldrakes with proper spacing.

I don't think who goes first has anything to do with it. If the Crons go first the flyers will shoot up the seekers. If the Daemons go first, the the Crons will deploy as far as possible from the seekers which means the flyers will still shoot up the seekers before they reach combat.

Here are the problems with daemons.

1) They take to long to play. To many rolls, to many charts, to long to play. I don't care that you have everything memerized, I don't and I want to see the tables. That takes time.

2) Daemon troops are not resilient. If you have plagues hiding in area terrain, then they can be resilient, just like Blood Angel Marines are resilient (you see they have the same save and the same FnP if the plagues buy the upgrade and the BA buy the priest while in area terrain. Same resilience, yet I don't see a ton of tactical posts on the resiliency of BA tacticals)

3) Null zone is still part of the game

I think Daemons can be fine as an ally force to CSM. In that regard they shine. Otherwise after the new car smell is gone, the army will be in the back ranks playing spoiler.

Seekers move 12" + run (Slaanesh bonus), so 2 turns of that puts them on the board edge of the opposing player in both Vanguard and Dawn, so 2/3 of missions they can avoid flyer damage by pushing to board edge, hypothetically of course. They are very tough to stay away from.
Null Zone is really bad. Can't argue anything there, but of course we were speaking of Necrons and they won't have it. I also don't often see C:SM, who have their own troubles (such as average troops and some overpriced units throughout, at least compared to newer SM codices)

@ Tomb King, it is easy to mitigate dangerous terrain on seekers with the MTC Locus. The Aegis seems like an autotake for Daemons, IMO. You may be giving cover to your opponent, but Daemons dont shoot well to begin with. I think the 4+ cover is a huge bonus.

I don't think Daemons are great. I do t hink they will have certain favorable matchups though and I think there are some fun tricks out there (2++ Crushers anyone?)

Skimming through 4 pages I wonder how many people have actually played some practice games using daemons. And how many people here are just that good they can look at a codex and simply go "statistics, charts, rolling averages, daemons are no good".

joking aside... I have played a couple of games with daemons, a lot of useful combinations that come in handy and have a surprising 'wow' factor. There not far fetched, their not "statistically" above or under average. There the same odds of hitting with bs4, wounding with str 4, and making a save at 3+. I guess my point is, you do not need to be over lucky, or have insane rolls to be effective with Daemons.

First 4 games was against a "world" class Necron player. (plenty of victories and well respected in America and all over Europe. ) I have learned a lot from, playing him over the last year and the games played have greatly improved my game. Im not gloating by beating him in no way. But 3 of our 4 games resulted in Victory, only our first game (my first ever with daemons) was a loss.

My point is, Daemons, played well are contenders. They are far from bottom or mid tier. A lot of these codexs, have synergy and plenty of great combinations to unlock. Games will be tough and some matches will take a lot of thinking. But i personally look forward to the challenge, and I especially look forward to the "holy snap what happen?.." from the opponents who under estimate Daemons, and smile, smug, and confident when they see a daemon army across the table.


EDIT*
I played against a good Imperial Guard player also, who i asked to being a heavy mech list, he brought 3 flyers, 4 punishers, and tons of chimeras. I told him ahead what i was gonna play. I had no soul grinders fyi. I wanted to see how the list i came up with could deal with some many high armor vehicles on the tables. Daemons prevailed.

I also played a Great Ork player. My first game was a loss, my second game was a victory. But i had never played Orks before ( or a list like his anyway). And in fairness, im sure he hasnt played new daemons all that much (if at all). So he will tune and adjust accordingly. I look forward to our rubber match.

Tsilber wrote:
Skimming through 4 pages I wonder how many people have actually played some practice games using daemons. And how many people here are just that good they can look at a codex and simply go "statistics, charts, rolling averages, daemons are no good".

joking aside... I have played a couple of games with daemons, a lot of useful combinations that come in handy and have a surprising 'wow' factor. There not far fetched, their not "statistically" above or under average. There the same odds of hitting with bs4, wounding with str 4, and making a save at 3+. I guess my point is, you do not need to be over lucky, or have insane rolls to be effective with Daemons.

First 4 games was against a "world" class Necron player. (plenty of victories and well respected in America and all over Europe. ) I have learned a lot from, playing him over the last year and the games played have greatly improved my game. Im not gloating by beating him in no way. But 3 of our 4 games resulted in Victory, only our first game (my first ever with daemons) was a loss.

My point is, Daemons, played well are contenders. They are far from bottom or mid tier. A lot of these codexs, have synergy and plenty of great combinations to unlock. Games will be tough and some matches will take a lot of thinking. But i personally look forward to the challenge, and I especially look forward to the "holy snap what happen?.." from the opponents who under estimate Daemons, and smile, smug, and confident when they see a daemon army across the table.

I am 10 and 3 with the new daemons. They can be threatening and they can beat any army out there. The issue we are addressing is the ability for them to do this consistently. Like dark eldar they are a glass army. They can hit hard but cant exactly absorb much of a beating.

 Tomb King wrote:

Tsilber wrote:
Skimming through 4 pages I wonder how many people have actually played some practice games using daemons. And how many people here are just that good they can look at a codex and simply go "statistics, charts, rolling averages, daemons are no good".

joking aside... I have played a couple of games with daemons, a lot of useful combinations that come in handy and have a surprising 'wow' factor. There not far fetched, their not "statistically" above or under average. There the same odds of hitting with bs4, wounding with str 4, and making a save at 3+. I guess my point is, you do not need to be over lucky, or have insane rolls to be effective with Daemons.

First 4 games was against a "world" class Necron player. (plenty of victories and well respected in America and all over Europe. ) I have learned a lot from, playing him over the last year and the games played have greatly improved my game. Im not gloating by beating him in no way. But 3 of our 4 games resulted in Victory, only our first game (my first ever with daemons) was a loss.

My point is, Daemons, played well are contenders. They are far from bottom or mid tier. A lot of these codexs, have synergy and plenty of great combinations to unlock. Games will be tough and some matches will take a lot of thinking. But i personally look forward to the challenge, and I especially look forward to the "holy snap what happen?.." from the opponents who under estimate Daemons, and smile, smug, and confident when they see a daemon army across the table.

I am 10 and 3 with the new daemons. They can be threatening and they can beat any army out there. The issue we are addressing is the ability for them to do this consistently. Like dark eldar they are a glass army. They can hit hard but cant exactly absorb much of a beating.

I beg to differ, plagues bearers are good and tough, not to mention can hurt anything on the table.. I run plenty... . I also run either 1 or 2 bloodthirsters. in a few games i ran a 3rd DP. anyway... the Bloodthirsters get 2 rolls on the great table. Each game so far they have either gotten the 4+ FNP, reroll invuls, or +2 wound it will not die.

To me they have lasted. In all the games i have played. Plague drones are extremely tough, i run 6, and they can hurt anything that is put on the table. Of coarse i try to avoid str 10 enemies. In all of my games so far i have gone second. Even if i win the roll i give the opponent first turn. and each game with scout I have had a first turn charge or been charged with my fleshhounds. And thats after taking a bunch of shots to the face, 2 wounds each is certainly not "glass". They were a diversionary tactic, or simply a threat that forces the opponent to deal with them. In all my games they have died, but they did their job by holding a unit up, absorbing fire, or taking a lot of attention.

Now perhaps my opinion might change in time, but as of now i stand behind what i said.

Also using Dark Eldar as comparison kinda only lends support to me saying Daemons can be constantly effective. My main army is DE and i have done extremely well with them last few years. doing very well in many tourneys i have played.

please dont take anything im saying as disrespect, or directed at you personally. I do feel any army has the potential to be great (well except Tau and a few others currently). But on a consistency level, i do think daemons have enough survivability to really pack a punch and be seen often in the upper tiers.

I beg to differ, plagues bearers are good and tough, not to mention can hurt anything on the table.. I run plenty... . I also run either 1 or 2 bloodthirsters. in a few games i ran a 3rd DP. anyway... the Bloodthirsters get 2 rolls on the great table. Each game so far they have either gotten the 4+ FNP, reroll invuls, or +2 wound it will not die.

To me they have lasted. In all the games i have played. Plague drones are extremely tough, i run 6, and they can hurt anything that is put on the table. Of coarse i try to avoid str 10 enemies. In all of my games so far i have gone second. Even if i win the roll i give the opponent first turn. and each game with scout I have had a first turn charge or been charged with my fleshhounds. And thats after taking a bunch of shots to the face, 2 wounds each is certainly not "glass". They were a diversionary tactic, or simply a threat that forces the opponent to deal with them. In all my games they have died, but they did their job by holding a unit up, absorbing fire, or taking a lot of attention.

Now perhaps my opinion might change in time, but as of now i stand behind what i said.

Also using Dark Eldar as comparison kinda only lends support to me saying Daemons can be constantly effective. My main army is DE and i have done extremely well with them last few years. doing very well in many tourneys i have played.

please dont take anything im saying as disrespect, or directed at you personally. I do feel any army has the potential to be great (well except Tau and a few others currently). But on a consistency level, i do think daemons have enough survivability to really pack a punch and be seen often in the upper tiers.

I don't think that people are necessarily disagreeing with what you have said. Daemons have some interesting units and nice combos. They can win. They can beat good players. The real question is whether or not they can do it over the course of 6-8 games, which you have to do to win a GT.

There are cool tricks and combos that make Daemons survivable (invisibility, grimnoire, invulnerable save re-rolls, ect). At the same time, these often come from random charts. The warp storm table is random and can hurt. But most of all, they seem to have some matchups that are hard to overcome. Time will tell whether or not this stuff can be overcome with good list building and play. Right now, I worry about 6-8 games. I have no doubt I could roll local events of 3-4 though.

I guess if your only criteria for good is to win a GT then it would seem a little limiting.

Personally any GT win is a combination of Luck and skill(mostly skill).

I think it definitely has the ability to win but I also think that it might take some risks and you will just have to get a little lucky along the way. Have to play with some units that are powerful but not as reliable and just get lucky.

But I am not much of a GT player, trying to get better at tournament thinking but it takes undoing 10 years of conditioning to do it.

 Leth wrote:
I guess if your only criteria for good is to win a GT then it would seem a little limiting.

Personally any GT win is a combination of Luck and skill(mostly skill).

I think it definitely has the ability to win but I also think that it might take some risks and you will just have to get a little lucky along the way. Have to play with some units that are powerful but not as reliable and just get lucky.

But I am not much of a GT player, trying to get better at tournament thinking but it takes undoing 10 years of conditioning to do it.

No the criteria is for competitiveness. The issue foreseeable is consistency. The area this issue will most likely hurt you the most is in an event with 5+ games. Hence a GT type environment.

The current results for daemons should actually be skewed towards them winning more as long as the person using them has played them in a few games. People haven't adapted to the new daemons yet. Though I anctipate the effect to the meta as a whole to minor. The new tau codex on the other hand might put a serious dent in the meta. The crazy thing is tau can ally with a lot of armies whereas daemons only have a few.



Also for the above suggested army:
40 seekers: $232
20 Flesh Hounds: $198
6 Fiends: $148.50

For a grand total of: $578.50 and this is only 480pts for seekers, 320pts for the hounds, and 210pts for the fiends. So before getting troops or heralds your already spending 1010pts.

Daemons might not have a plethora options when allied but non-the-less I see that as their niche. They are not a stand alone army. But really how many stand alone armies are winning events these days. Nids have done well at a few venues but do they win it all? As good as Necrons, GK, etc., are they still appear with allies. The old codex actually could stand alone with flamers/screamers. Not so now.

I agree with Hulksmash - armies that were overlooked are now winning. Tau/Orks, DE/Eldar and a few otheers have surprised at events. I'm not a fan of daemons but I'm pretty sure a good allied list is out there.

We had a long discussion on the new beastmaster lists in another thread. DE were not faring well in 6ed - no offense intended to Tsilber. i happen to also have DE and I oove them. It took me five games to play the DE/Eldar alliance competently and construct a filist I was comfortable playing with. I expect to see the same with daemons. A good list is out there that is yet to be discovered (I have not seen any yet that impress me). Winning a few games at your LGS is no yardstick for their effectiveness.

I'll wait and see. I still won't be playing them but I'm hoping to see some good lists to lend a little variet to the 6ed scene. Hulksmash pretty much summed it up. Any codex can be used with allies and has a chance to win ( barring Nids of course). All the coomonly refered to 'mid tier' codexes can surprise with allies. So daemons - which are better than mid tier - should make some appearances at top tables eventually. I still do not like their random play style and reliance on psychic powers. Psychic powers can be shut down and dice often desert me (I want to have a chance to win with even mediocre rolls).




- spelling edit -

 Tomb King wrote:

 Leth wrote:
I guess if your only criteria for good is to win a GT then it would seem a little limiting.

Personally any GT win is a combination of Luck and skill(mostly skill).

I think it definitely has the ability to win but I also think that it might take some risks and you will just have to get a little lucky along the way. Have to play with some units that are powerful but not as reliable and just get lucky.

But I am not much of a GT player, trying to get better at tournament thinking but it takes undoing 10 years of conditioning to do it.

No the criteria is for competitiveness. The issue foreseeable is consistency. The area this issue will most likely hurt you the most is in an event with 5+ games. Hence a GT type environment.

The current results for daemons should actually be skewed towards them winning more as long as the person using them has played them in a few games. People haven't adapted to the new daemons yet. Though I anctipate the effect to the meta as a whole to minor. The new tau codex on the other hand might put a serious dent in the meta. The crazy thing is tau can ally with a lot of armies whereas daemons only have a few.



Also for the above suggested army:
40 seekers: $232
20 Flesh Hounds: $198
6 Fiends: $148.50

For a grand total of: $578.50 and this is only 480pts for seekers, 320pts for the hounds, and 210pts for the fiends. So before getting troops or heralds your already spending 1010pts.

I dont play in a lot of GT, infact i guess in my 12 years of playing 40k i never played in a GT. I have done plenty of tournies consisting of 3,4 or even 5 games. So perhaps i lack the experience to comment on a GT level.

As for price, They are expensive as hell. But there is a cheaper way to do it. I used fenrisian wolves and took dark eldar spike bits to put horns and scales on them. So half the price of Flesh hounds of khorne models (which are ugly as fudge imo).. I only have about 20 seekers, and man those fiend models are ugly. If i ran them, i would probably use just about anything else. Now the 6 plague drones were also expensive. So yeah it does get kinda expensive, but i was fortunate enough to rack up store credit at a few gaming stores from placing in tournies to cover almost all of my new daemons stuff.

Tomb King are you going to adepticon this year? I would be interested to hear some on hands feedback on how Daemons performed. I understand you will have games of your own to focus on. But perhaps there will be time to take a glimpse of other games and see if daemons are making a good showing at a GT.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 felixcat wrote:


We had a long discussion on the new beastmaster lists in another thread. DE were not faring well in 6ed - no offense intended to Tsilber. i happen to also have DE and I oove them. It took me five games to play the DE/Eldar alliance competently and construct a filist I was comfortable playing with. I expect to see the same with daemons. A good list is out there that is yet to be discovered (I have not seen any yet that impress me). Winning a few games at your LGS is no yardstick for their effectiveness.

I'll wait and see. I still won't be playing them but I'm hoping to see some good lists to lend a little variet to the 6ed scene. Hulksmash pretty much summed it up. Any codex can be used with allies and has a chance to win ( barring Nids of course). All the coomonly refered to 'mid tier' codexes can surprise with allies. So daemons - which are better than mid tier - should make some appearances at top tables eventually. I still do not like their random play style and reliance on psychic powers. Psychic powers can be shut down and dice often desert me (I want to have a chance to win with even mediocre rolls).

- spelling edit -

No offense taken, and their might not be good list out their because in all honesty most people who can make bang em up list dont post them probably. I tried to keep my DE list a secret as i practiced and gear up for a big invitational tourney last year. It has been my experience reading through threads and discussions that most solid list dont start popping up until someone else has gotten crushed by it. Sadly some times the player who was beaten claims credit for the list. I mean its a free world and gaming forums/community so people can do all the want. But i just hate "internet list" .. or cookie cutter list. After a little bit people adjust and adapt to those kind of list, and then that list starts to fall short. Im willing to bet a lot of people have some solid Daemons list made up, I have a few combos and tricks of my own that i have yet seen mentioned. Im sure they will come to lite soon, but i'd like to play it a couple times in all honesty before is hijacked and molested lol.

As for taking time to find good combos. DE for me were play tested a lot and used a lot of different list in 5th.. but as soon as 6th came out and the new rules and allies, and flyers... It like clicked for me. Right out the gate DE did just fine. If i see a collective group on topic all making the same argument using the same list... well see my cookie cutter reference above i guess..

I didnt run that "beastmaster list" btw...
Mine was a bit different, and it did quite well, here is a link to the tourney i used it in and the list itself.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/495427.page

Most of the tournies i play in are at 3 stores, in 3 states here in New england. Those tournies draw players from about 7-8 states here in the north east. They might not be GT's, but the level of competition is very high, with a lot of solid players. (who play at a lot of GT's). I guess i should try to make it to a GT soon, so i can speak better from experience as far as GT play.

I've seen that Grotstar list. I run a grotstar and a beast pack but I'm also thinking of dropping the beast pack - it is reliant on psychic boosts, is more vulnerable to dakka and really wants first turn. Grots are only vulnerable to Str10 and that is rarely seen. But on topic ... yes ... I agree ... there must be a solid daemon list out there but likely with allies.

It just strikes me as competative means make dice matter as little as possible. Or even with below average should still win. Seems to be the general trend.

Then again i always though that adapting to the situation was part of the tactics involved. But it seems like to be competative it needs to be consistant instead of dealing with the flux across the game.

It seems to me that the flux is worse for your opponent than you. The majority of the warpstorm results effect all of your enemies units but only the units opposed to the result from your friendies. It will only hit those on a six. Take a couple units with instraments to give you rerolls to protect your units and for the most part you will be fine. If you need to take the fateweaver to gaurd against the mass instability check.

The "randomness" of the demonic rewards is not nearly as random as it seems. Simply plan on taking the default weapon. Then when you roll, if the result is better for you than the weapon, keep it, otherwise go with the planned for weapon. Have you looked at them. A measly 10-20 pts for some of those weapons seems cheap to me.

It's deep strike ability is also pretty nice. Combine icons and instraments to pull pretty much everything in reserve out at the same time with very little scatter is not too hard to do. A sudden flood of threats can overwhelm your enemy.

Anyway, thats my two cents. I dont have enough experience with them yet to be rating thier tournament quality.

Sorry not ignoring questions or comments. In field til friday. Only tuesday and already got 35 hours and waking up at 0200. Haha don't worry ill log all my overtime.

As for adepticon I have training scheduled so will most likely miss the event.

Daemons have two major problems aside from thier random nature ... dealing with AV14 and Flyers. So you absolutely need Thirster/LoC in your lists. Heralds are great but cannot do the job on their own.

 felixcat wrote:

Daemons have two major problems aside from thier random nature ... dealing with AV14 and Flyers. So you absolutely need Thirster/LoC in your lists. Heralds are great but cannot do the job on their own.

Consider a 6 man Drone Squad, i use it. i love it. Jump Jet Calvary.. what?.. a Nurgle unit moving 12, and has fleet.... what? Oh and glancing on a 6 in combat. Big bad DA LRC with Venerable ( i run 2 lrc in my DA)... 25 attacks on charge, need 3's to hit. May take 2 turns, but man can those drone soak some damage.

Really any DP, smashing has a chance at av 14. But Thats where allying CSM and having a DP with black mace comes in great.

As for flyers, i just ignore them mostly. Though a Slannesh dp with duel whips sounds good.. specially if you get bio. 4d6 , Str U hits. (normally str6, but up to a 9 with iron arm)

Tsilber wrote:

 felixcat wrote:

Daemons have two major problems aside from thier random nature ... dealing with AV14 and Flyers. So you absolutely need Thirster/LoC in your lists. Heralds are great but cannot do the job on their own.

Consider a 6 man Drone Squad, i use it. i love it. Jump Jet Calvary.. what?.. a Nurgle unit moving 12, and has fleet.... what? Oh and glancing on a 6 in combat. Big bad DA LRC with Venerable ( i run 2 lrc in my DA)... 25 attacks on charge, need 3's to hit. May take 2 turns, but man can those drone soak some damage.

Really any DP, smashing has a chance at av 14. But Thats where allying CSM and having a DP with black mace comes in great.

As for flyers, i just ignore them mostly. Though a Slannesh dp with duel whips sounds good.. specially if you get bio. 4d6 , Str U hits. (normally str6, but up to a 9 with iron arm)

Can only have a single whip of despair, 1 is still good though.

Ahh, i did not know this. Thanks for pointing it out. A single is pretty good as you said, none the less.

Tsilber wrote:
Really any DP, smashing has a chance at av 14. But Thats where allying CSM and having a DP with black mace comes in great.

That does not work as well as advertised.

I was playing in a game just a few weeks ago. I flew a Khorne DP with the axe of blind fury into a DA LRC and smashed a ton of times, getting 4 penetrating results. The DA player passed 2 with invuln saves and the other 2 had no major effect. The DP was shot to bits on the following turn.

DA LRCs with force fields are far tougher than one single DP can take out. You need multiple melta guns to have a decent shot at it -- and even those can whiff.

Agreed with Labmouse, I have had a DP smash my Land raider, he had two pens and saved both with PFG, I love my PFG.....

Dont forgot as well guys, smash attacks can re roll armour pens

I'm not saying there are no solutions for LRs and flyers. I'm saying daemons had better build lists that recognize they need to deal with them. I see posted lists that lack the means all the time

 labmouse42 wrote:

Tsilber wrote:
Really any DP, smashing has a chance at av 14. But Thats where allying CSM and having a DP with black mace comes in great.

That does not work as well as advertised.

I was playing in a game just a few weeks ago. I flew a Khorne DP with the axe of blind fury into a DA LRC and smashed a ton of times, getting 4 penetrating results. The DA player passed 2 with invuln saves and the other 2 had no major effect. The DP was shot to bits on the following turn.

DA LRCs with force fields are far tougher than one single DP can take out. You need multiple melta guns to have a decent shot at it -- and even those can whiff.

Yeah i know, i used 2 DA LRC vs your flying army. I remember you coming in and not doing to well and then shooting you...

It can work in theory, but thats why i said it has a 'chance'. for the DA LRC with the ven and force field. 2 DP's coming in. Or the Black Mace DP ally for extra attacks. Or even 6 drones.

Daemons don't have many options vs land raiders. (A LRBT can be torn asunder).
- MCs. If your bringing 2+ of them, they start to become a big drain on your points. Just bringing one makes target priority for your opponents bolter-banner LRC's simple.
- Fateweaver. Fatey can use 'bolt of change' and 'infernal gateway' on land raiders each turn. If your grimoire fatey, hes going to be nearly immune to enemy fire.
- Allies. You can bring some CSM with meta.

Do you have any other ideas for taking down LR's with daemons?

Tsilber wrote:
Yeah i know, i used 2 DA LRC vs your flying army. I remember you coming in and not doing to well and then shooting you...

It can work in theory, but thats why i said it has a 'chance'. for the DA LRC with the ven and force field. 2 DP's coming in. Or the Black Mace DP ally for extra attacks. Or even 6 drones.

That army you brought was a very good matchup vs daemons. How many TL bolter shots did it throw out every turn? How many times did you lose a single land raider in the entire tourney?

Until GW FAQs the hurricane bolters are not getting the bolter-banner effect (which I doubt they will) the LRC army is an extremely good scissor to someones paper. What made it work really well was all the melta guns you brought, to apply that extra pressure to the land raiders I brought.