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.

Added

Maybe I'm missing synergies or not doing the math right while drinking my coffee, but that GUO profile seems pretty underwhelming to me? Especially given the rumors that these guys would be Knight-tier since you can only take one per detachment... I think I'd rather have a Knight than a GUO? Yeah, the GUO is moderately tougher at a baseline, but it seems to way underperform a Knight's damage output. And it's not like Knights have absurdly high damage per point anyways.

If that's the GUO profile and you can't take more than one, that's a bad sign. It's also hilarious that (at least from a save perspective), a LOC is tougher than a GUO

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
Maybe I'm missing synergies or not doing the math right while drinking my coffee, but that GUO profile seems pretty underwhelming to me? Especially given the rumors that these guys would be Knight-tier since you can only take one per detachment... I think I'd rather have a Knight than a GUO? Yeah, the GUO is moderately tougher at a baseline, but it seems to way underperform a Knight's damage output. And it's not like Knights have absurdly high damage per point anyways.

If that's the GUO profile and you can't take more than one, that's a bad sign. It's also hilarious that (at least from a save perspective), a LOC is tougher than a GUO

It's kind of their thing though ? Tzeentch and Nurgle deamons are both tough but in different ways no ?

Surprised how little we know about Slaanesh so far, especially in terms of stats or saves. Wonder if they're going to incorporate their rend on 6 ability as a baseline rend like Genestealers did.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
Maybe I'm missing synergies or not doing the math right while drinking my coffee, but that GUO profile seems pretty underwhelming to me? Especially given the rumors that these guys would be Knight-tier since you can only take one per detachment... I think I'd rather have a Knight than a GUO? Yeah, the GUO is moderately tougher at a baseline, but it seems to way underperform a Knight's damage output. And it's not like Knights have absurdly high damage per point anyways.

If that's the GUO profile and you can't take more than one, that's a bad sign. It's also hilarious that (at least from a save perspective), a LOC is tougher than a GUO

It's quite likely he'll also have a FNP of some sort.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
Maybe I'm missing synergies or not doing the math right while drinking my coffee, but that GUO profile seems pretty underwhelming to me? Especially given the rumors that these guys would be Knight-tier since you can only take one per detachment... I think I'd rather have a Knight than a GUO? Yeah, the GUO is moderately tougher at a baseline, but it seems to way underperform a Knight's damage output. And it's not like Knights have absurdly high damage per point anyways.

If that's the GUO profile and you can't take more than one, that's a bad sign. It's also hilarious that (at least from a save perspective), a LOC is tougher than a GUO

It's quite likely he'll also have a FNP of some sort.

He'll have that... and he'll be -1 damage it sounds like.

Still, his biggest weakness was also trundeling up the board. Not seeing much that helps here.

 Sasori wrote:
He'll have that... and he'll be -1 damage it sounds like.

Still, his biggest weakness was also trundeling up the board. Not seeing much that helps here.

I don't think it's the same problem as it was in 8th. In 9th you don't have to go far to be engaged with the mission and the opponent has to come take you off.

Bumping him to at least M8 wouldn't hurt though. I imagine his shooting will remain assault so running, gunning, and casting should be enough turn 1.

It's rumored that the GUO will have an easily attainable FNP, probably 5+++ via Psychic Power (in addition to the -1D as mentioned).

I dunno, I see his cap being something like the souped-up Knight Abominant. Which, sure, it's really cool and tanky AF. But CK have a lot of strong offensive tools (ranged and melee), Nurgle Daemons historically have not.

I don't play Nurgle, I could easily be wrong here. But that rumor leaves me pretty whelmed.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
It's rumored that the GUO will have an easily attainable FNP, probably 5+++ via Psychic Power (in addition to the -1D as mentioned).

I dunno, I see his cap being something like the souped-up Knight Abominant. Which, sure, it's really cool and tanky AF. But CK have a lot of strong offensive tools (ranged and melee), Nurgle Daemons historically have not.

I don't play Nurgle, I could easily be wrong here. But that rumor leaves me pretty whelmed.

I think you also have to contextualize the army. He probably shouldn't be more durable than knights when Daemons have access to small units that Knights don't.

I could see the drones going to W5 and GUO getting a spell to res them. That sort of unit requires anti-tank as well, which pulls from GUO targeting.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
It's rumored that the GUO will have an easily attainable FNP, probably 5+++ via Psychic Power (in addition to the -1D as mentioned).

I dunno, I see his cap being something like the souped-up Knight Abominant. Which, sure, it's really cool and tanky AF. But CK have a lot of strong offensive tools (ranged and melee), Nurgle Daemons historically have not.

I don't play Nurgle, I could easily be wrong here. But that rumor leaves me pretty whelmed.

psst- the meaning of 'whelmed' is the same as 'overwhelmed.' [Young Justice was trying to be clever, but mostly made Robin seem like an idiot with a poor education]


But I'm not sure why you feel the GDs should stack up against knights. They're leaders, (mostly) psykers and melee monsters, not primarily gun platforms.

They are also like 200 pts cheaper than a Knight Abominant.

Voss wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
It's rumored that the GUO will have an easily attainable FNP, probably 5+++ via Psychic Power (in addition to the -1D as mentioned).

I dunno, I see his cap being something like the souped-up Knight Abominant. Which, sure, it's really cool and tanky AF. But CK have a lot of strong offensive tools (ranged and melee), Nurgle Daemons historically have not.

I don't play Nurgle, I could easily be wrong here. But that rumor leaves me pretty whelmed.

psst- the meaning of 'whelmed' is the same as 'overwhelmed.' [Young Justice was trying to be clever, but mostly made Robin seem like an idiot with a poor education]


But I'm not sure why you feel the GDs should stack up against knights. They're leaders, (mostly) psykers and melee monsters, not primarily gun platforms.

Is that the profile of a melee monster? It looks... Okay, in Close Combat.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
It's rumored that the GUO will have an easily attainable FNP, probably 5+++ via Psychic Power (in addition to the -1D as mentioned).

I dunno, I see his cap being something like the souped-up Knight Abominant. Which, sure, it's really cool and tanky AF. But CK have a lot of strong offensive tools (ranged and melee), Nurgle Daemons historically have not.

I don't play Nurgle, I could easily be wrong here. But that rumor leaves me pretty whelmed.

psst- the meaning of 'whelmed' is the same as 'overwhelmed.' [Young Justice was trying to be clever, but mostly made Robin seem like an idiot with a poor education]


But I'm not sure why you feel the GDs should stack up against knights. They're leaders, (mostly) psykers and melee monsters, not primarily gun platforms.

Is that the profile of a melee monster? It looks... Okay, in Close Combat.

I put it third for a reason (well, that and the profiles listed are incomplete, so I'm not terribly fussed on the details). And what Tyran said.

I'm more worried about having 'warp storm table' nonsense again.

Its current cost is 200 shy of a knight.
We don’t know its new cost.

I won’t say “GUO suck! They’re ruined!” Because the codex isn’t out yet. But I will say it’s not looking great.

I put GDs in the same category as Knights because they're the same size, they cost about as much $-wise, and the rumor is that you can only have one of them per detachment. With the incredibly paltry selection of units otherwise (when sticking to mono-god lists), if you only get one of 'em, they really should stack up to a Knight, otherwise Daemons are kind of screwed from a variety perspective.

I don't mean to be chicken little or anything, we know very little so far. But I think it's reasonable to be unimpressed with what we know about the GUO.

GW also puts nauts in the same category as knights

Psyker, 22 wounds, T8, 4++, 5+++, 7A, good damage,

300p.

Super cheap. Must in every army.

Kebabcito wrote:
Psyker, 22 wounds, T8, 4++, 5+++, 7A, good damage,

300p.

Super cheap. Must in every army.

Did we get confirmation on that price point?

edit: covered

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
I put GDs in the same category as Knights because they're the same size, they cost about as much $-wise, and the rumor is that you can only have one of them per detachment. With the incredibly paltry selection of units otherwise (when sticking to mono-god lists), if you only get one of 'em, they really should stack up to a Knight, otherwise Daemons are kind of screwed from a variety perspective.

I don't mean to be chicken little or anything, we know very little so far. But I think it's reasonable to be unimpressed with what we know about the GUO.

Greater Daemons are waaay smaller than Knights though. Way way smaller.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
Maybe I'm missing synergies or not doing the math right while drinking my coffee, but that GUO profile seems pretty underwhelming to me? Especially given the rumors that these guys would be Knight-tier since you can only take one per detachment... I think I'd rather have a Knight than a GUO? Yeah, the GUO is moderately tougher at a baseline, but it seems to way underperform a Knight's damage output. And it's not like Knights have absurdly high damage per point anyways.

If that's the GUO profile and you can't take more than one, that's a bad sign. It's also hilarious that (at least from a save perspective), a LOC is tougher than a GUO

The GUO supposedly has a 4+ save vs range, a 5+ feel no pain, and -1DMG for DR.
The LOC just has a 3+ vs range.

The GUO is a lot tougher.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
I put GDs in the same category as Knights because they're the same size, they cost about as much $-wise, and the rumor is that you can only have one of them per detachment. With the incredibly paltry selection of units otherwise (when sticking to mono-god lists), if you only get one of 'em, they really should stack up to a Knight, otherwise Daemons are kind of screwed from a variety perspective.

I don't mean to be chicken little or anything, we know very little so far. But I think it's reasonable to be unimpressed with what we know about the GUO.

Greater Daemons are waaay smaller than Knights though. Way way smaller.

"Way way smaller" is overselling it a tad, IMO.

https://imgur.com/a/KwLwfOR

Yes, Shalaxi is the slightest bit shorter and obviously less bulky (though I suspect a GUO would be closer in bulk). But it's pretty close, and Shalaxi is technically taller with the spear. I don't think it's a stretch to say that a GD should have stats around the same magnitude as a Knight, especially offensively/in melee.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dan2026 wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
Maybe I'm missing synergies or not doing the math right while drinking my coffee, but that GUO profile seems pretty underwhelming to me? Especially given the rumors that these guys would be Knight-tier since you can only take one per detachment... I think I'd rather have a Knight than a GUO? Yeah, the GUO is moderately tougher at a baseline, but it seems to way underperform a Knight's damage output. And it's not like Knights have absurdly high damage per point anyways.

If that's the GUO profile and you can't take more than one, that's a bad sign. It's also hilarious that (at least from a save perspective), a LOC is tougher than a GUO

The GUO supposedly has a 4+ save vs range, a 5+ feel no pain, and -1DMG for DR.
The LOC just has a 3+ vs range.

The GUO is a lot tougher.

Eh. We know a lot more of the special rules about the GUO. We don't know what Locus of Trickery does, presumably that will make the LOC tougher also (or any of the Tzeentch psychic powers). I'm not convinced yet.

That's true. Tzeench might have more damage fighting tricks we don't know about.

But it's also looking like the GUO has 22 wounds vs the LOC's 18.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
I put GDs in the same category as Knights because they're the same size, they cost about as much $-wise, and the rumor is that you can only have one of them per detachment. With the incredibly paltry selection of units otherwise (when sticking to mono-god lists), if you only get one of 'em, they really should stack up to a Knight, otherwise Daemons are kind of screwed from a variety perspective.

I don't mean to be chicken little or anything, we know very little so far. But I think it's reasonable to be unimpressed with what we know about the GUO.

Greater Daemons are waaay smaller than Knights though. Way way smaller.

"Way way smaller" is overselling it a tad, IMO.

https://imgur.com/a/KwLwfOR

Yes, Shalaxi is the slightest bit shorter and obviously less bulky (though I suspect a GUO would be closer in bulk). But it's pretty close, and Shalaxi is technically taller with the spear. I don't think it's a stretch to say that a GD should have stats around the same magnitude as a Knight, especially offensively/in melee.

Her head tucks under the knight's chin, (which is set below the carapace), and can entirely fit between the knights legs. When people talk about model size and height, they're not talking about a weapon in hand.

Nah, I know and agree. But I would call her "smaller". Not "way way smaller", which oversold the difference to benefit chaos' argument. And I she is pretty much the narrowest one; I don't have a GUO or a Bloodthirster but I would imagine both are beefier than a KOS.

Has there been any talk of how the Forgeworld LOW named daemons work with new book? The one bloodthirster per detachment sounds like Anngrath will have a better time fitting in a 2,000 point list.

Carrying a 10 foot stick above my head doesn't make me 16 feet tall. Nor does having horns, crazy hair, etc. make me taller or larger in any meaningful way that matters when you are using size as the basis for comparison to evaluate power level. The fact remains that the Knight is not only taller, but significantly bulkier - each of the knights legs is about as wide as Shalaxis torso, and that counts for a lot. Keep in mind your square-cube law, etc. - it seems a common error for gamers and scifi nerds to evaluate relative power based on height (or length when it comes to spaceships), but theres a lot more to size than one dimension. Volume matters more, and when it comes to volume the knight is WAY WAY WAY larger than any of the greater daemons (with the exception of the GUO of course).

chaos0xomega wrote:
Carrying a 10 foot stick above my head doesn't make me 16 feet tall. Nor does having horns, crazy hair, etc. make me taller or larger in any meaningful way that matters when you are using size as the basis for comparison to evaluate power level. The fact remains that the Knight is not only taller, but significantly bulkier - each of the knights legs is about as wide as Shalaxis torso, and that counts for a lot. Keep in mind your square-cube law, etc. - it seems a common error for gamers and scifi nerds to evaluate relative power based on height (or length when it comes to spaceships), but theres a lot more to size than one dimension. Volume matters more, and when it comes to volume the knight is WAY WAY WAY larger than any of the greater daemons (with the exception of the GUO of course).

That's all fair but it doesn't prevent GW from classifying them the same way in terms of kit pricing. And looking at things like the Void Dragon, Avatar of Khaine, etc., it doesn't prevent GW from classifying smaller kits the same way in terms of rules. It's all otiose in a niche anyways, GW will do what they want. But if I realistically only get 1 GD in a list, I want it to *count*.

Does anyone else get the feeling that GW released the community article because of the Daemons leaks, and not because they were ready to start advertising/publishing content? I would have hoped for a second article on WarCom by now.

They have been reacting to leaks this way for quite some time now - for one to prevent misinformation to spin out of control and second because a hastily slapped together article with pretty pictures is still better advertisement than a screenshot of a discord message.