PDA

View Full Version : Goal: Non-cheesy 2250 tourney daemon army



thisisntnotjt
11-02-2009, 14:26
Answer: all Slaanesh.

Keeper of Secrets (645)
L.4
Allure of Slaanesh
Soul Hunger
Siren Song

Herald of Slaanesh (315)
L.1
Steed of Slaanesh
BSB
Great Icon of Despair
Etherblade

Herald of Slaanesh (190)
L.1
Etherblade

Masque (90)

/Yes, I realize there are a lot of points in character, but in order to take advantage of the Slaanesh Lore I need the Level 4. Besides, the KoS also doubles as a monster./

14 Daemonettes (223)
FC
Banner of Ecstacy

15 Daemonettes (198)
Standard, Musician

12 Daemonettes (162)
Standard, Musician

6 Seekers (199)
FC
Siren Standard

7 Seekers (223)
FC
Siren Standard

8 PD, 6 DD
58 models, 76 US

Pretty standard leadership manipulation build. Enemy magic might be a problem, but if I need to I can stupidify units with wizards in them fairly easily with Masque and the BSB. I can also fairly easily rely on the stupid units to trudge forward so I can easily flank them and avoid characters for a turn.

Any thoughts?

RavenBloodwind
11-02-2009, 16:15
Functionally this should be fine. Those poor dwarf players testing on Ld 5 will surely add you their books of grudges.

On a fluff note though...with Slaanesh's number being 6, I'd be happier with units of 12 or 18 demonettes (and 18 is just silly) and 6 seekers.

thisisntnotjt
11-02-2009, 16:29
Love it. Any armies you think this will be particularly weak against?

RavenBloodwind
11-02-2009, 16:40
Mobile shooty armies may give you a headache. I routinely push a WE shooty army against my friends heavily Slaanesh demons (he has some flamers and flesh hounds too). It's really much harder with the KoS since I lack high strength shooting. I think Empire and Dwarf gunlines will really be your biggest headache, but then they are for most armies.

madival
11-02-2009, 17:59
Love it. Any armies you think this will be particularly weak against?

Magic heavy vampire count armys will be a pain for you. Not carring what their leadership is and necromantic magic will certainly slow anything you do down. I usually run a PD 10-14 and can get mean with it. Dont know much about demons, but If anything that would be what would give you problems.

thisisntnotjt
11-02-2009, 20:14
I agree that it's risky going up against VPs, but hopefully stupidity from the Lore of Slaanesh will help curve some of the spell casting.

o0-NattyMcFatty-0o
11-02-2009, 20:44
This list should do fine. Gunline armies shouldn't be too much of a problem except for your daemonettes. Just be careful with your movement 10 stuff. If you do it right, you can get a charge off on a gun line without them ever getting into short range.:) Although, can I ask, why such wierd numbers of daemonettes?

g0ddy
12-02-2009, 17:24
Siren and Soulhunger... thats the "cannot be shot at" and "heals wounds back in CC" right...? I though your goal was to be "non cheesy" ?

Cheese has many forms my friend...

(EDIT : SEE BELOW)

~zilla

OldMaster
12-02-2009, 17:30
Siren and Soulhunger... thats the "cannot be shot at" and "heals wounds back in CC" right...? I though your goal was to be "non cheesy" ?

Cheese has many forms my friend...

~zilla

Actually it's the "charge me now" and the "re-roll rolls to wound".

Only WAAC players scream cheese at a single Siren.

g0ddy
12-02-2009, 17:41
Excellent my mistake then... sounds good :)
So many rules with similar names to keep track of :/

~ zilla

jigplums
12-02-2009, 21:19
and spirit swallower[heal per hit] takes all your points of gifts so then you can't take anything else.....and the other powers are so useful....makes it risky to take, so i wouldn't say its particularly cheesey

thisisntnotjt
23-02-2009, 16:38
Hey, cool. Thanks guys, I appreciate it. I'll go ahead and use this list as is.

Fate
24-02-2009, 00:15
Though I don't see a point in a tournament army being non-cheesy there are a lot of things I consider a mistake in your list.

First, slaanesh is not a magic army, not if you are going as pure slaanesh anyway. You don't have that many dice and will be easly nullified, worse yet, you waste a bucket load of points... The only reason for any greater deamon to be a level 4 mage (save from the bloody sucker :P ) is that they can go with 3 tzeentch mages. Like this you won't do much but if the enemy has magic, you'll be dead before arival.

Now how does slaanesh ina pure form compensates this? With 4 characters non mage (ok the greater deamon is always a lvl 1 mage but meh) you give each and every one siren song, now 4 units have to charge you at the first turn and please do your best to make sure it will be the units where the mages are, even if you can't do it for those units, then you have your main force protected against magic due to the ongoing combat.

Apart from that you need fiends, they are the ones who have at least STR 4.

thisisntnotjt
24-02-2009, 15:39
Though I don't see a point in a tournament army being non-cheesy there are a lot of things I consider a mistake in your list.

The point of the list is to avoid being cheesy. I like playing fun games, even in a tourney setting, without my opponents calling cheese and getting frustrated. If you don't care about your opponent, you're playing the game for the wrong reasons.

SevenSins
24-02-2009, 18:43
Looks decent and as said VC will probably be the worst face-off. Though extremely fast its also fragile, also going for a mono-god list will be good for your soft scores I think, and kudos for playing for the right reasons :)

Fate
24-02-2009, 20:28
I call that playing competitively, if the opponent does exactly the same, both lists are cheezy and thus balanced against each other. Since the objective of the game is winning, shouldn't both players do the best to win?

thisisntnotjt
25-02-2009, 02:54
I call that playing competitively, if the opponent does exactly the same, both lists are cheezy and thus balanced against each other. Since the objective of the game is winning, shouldn't both players do the best to win?

Wrong, read rule number one in the rulebook.

Fate
25-02-2009, 03:04
If you don't play to win, you don't have fun. I thought people pretty much knew that. I don't do a list thinking. It will be so fun having my ass kicked in 2 turns. In fact, not even my opponent would have fun in that.

Lord Dan
25-02-2009, 03:14
If you don't play to win, you don't have fun.

Wrong. If you don't play to win you don't have fun. I have more fun from a well-fought draw than a bloodbath in my favor, but that's just me. I wouldn't assume you would feel that way just as you shouldn't assume others feel the way you do.

As far as making non-cheesy tournament lists, the only tournament I've won was with a balanced Empire army (no steam tanks, two priests, two cannons, lots of infantry). I got tons of praise at the end of it for winning out over a tree-list who came in second. At the next tournament I attended (which I lost, obviously) the winner was a Nurgle Daemon list (old SoC list before the new book). No one cared that he won, because they fully expected him to win.

For some people, the prize is in the merchandise. For others, the real prize is the glory. Again, I wouldn't assume one way or another.

Fate
25-02-2009, 03:27
Perhaps you did read everything I wrote? people don't have fun with bloodbaths, a fight without opposition. If both players cheese up the army, then both are balanced against each other. It fun because you still have to play well to win instead f just leting the army work by itself.

I'll even add that one of my best games ended in a draw and another I even lost. But I was playing against one army that was as cheesed as mine.

Like I said, I don't belive anyone will play to lose, and part of playing to win is making a good list.

thisisntnotjt
25-02-2009, 03:31
Wrong. If you don't play to win you don't have fun. I have more fun from a well-fought draw than a bloodbath in my favor, but that's just me. I wouldn't assume you would feel that way just as you shouldn't assume others feel the way you do.

As far as making non-cheesy tournament lists, the only tournament I've won was with a balanced Empire army (no steam tanks, two priests, two cannons, lots of infantry). I got tons of praise at the end of it for winning out over a tree-list who came in second. At the next tournament I attended (which I lost, obviously) the winner was a Nurgle Daemon list (old SoC list before the new book). No one cared that he won, because they fully expected him to win.

For some people, the prize is in the merchandise. For others, the real prize is the glory. Again, I wouldn't assume one way or another.


Well put. Where I'm from (Omaha, Nebraska) the gaming community is quite large. We have several gaming stores for a city of out size (5 I think).While we are competitive and shoot for first place in our midwest tournaments, the most coveted award is best sportsmanship. Just like Lord Dan's situation, we praise victors who play with a balanced list while we roll our eyes when a broken nurgle or special character combo list wins out. It's more fun if everyone is on the level and simply enjoys the game for what it is; we're just a bunch of over grown man children playing with toy soldiers on the weekend, after all. :D

Fate
25-02-2009, 03:47
Ok another thing I don't understand is. You're not a good sport if you make a strong list? I don't even see a commun sence in that. Sportmanship acount for how you behave in game and I'm actually a very condescolent player, letting other do things they forgot, even if it's potentially bad for me. But saying a strong list is not very sporting? I mean, then why the hell are we given he opportunity to make them?
Also a strong list wins because it's strong, like I said before no, if your opponent has a strong list as well, then it comes to tactics since they are on the same level.

Last, yes we are a bunch of overgrown children playing toy soldiers on the weekend. :P

Magx
25-02-2009, 03:51
You are playing Daemons. They are the definition of cheese...

thisisntnotjt
25-02-2009, 13:22
Ok another thing I don't understand is. You're not a good sport if you make a strong list? I don't even see a commun sence in that. Sportmanship acount for how you behave in game and I'm actually a very condescolent player, letting other do things they forgot, even if it's potentially bad for me. But saying a strong list is not very sporting? I mean, then why the hell are we given he opportunity to make them?
Also a strong list wins because it's strong, like I said before no, if your opponent has a strong list as well, then it comes to tactics since they are on the same level.

Last, yes we are a bunch of overgrown children playing toy soldiers on the weekend. :P

The main issue with "strong" lists is everyone ends of taking basically the same thing. There is very little variety besides the "oh, I took this broken combo this time instead of that one. Now, understand that I am extremely (!) competitive. Ask Vinny T on these boards, he plays at my local game store. I enjoy winning very much, but I not at the expense of being called out for using a "broken combo" or "cheesy list".

When I came back to warhammer after a long hiatus I returned to my precious lizardmen. It was now 6th edition, and the lizards had received an updated book since I had left, and salamanders were now good. I began taking two units of three, since they were wonderfully versatile and protected the flanks of my army beautifully. However, when it became apparent that I was nigh unbeatable with my powerful saurus core, skink skirmishers for anti shooting, and unbreakable flanks, my opponents were hesitant to play me. So I began nerfing my own army to make it more competitive and fun for both parties. I still win most of my games, but it's not the slaughter-fest it was before; my opponents still have a chance. However, even when I faced what others called a "broken" empire army in a local tourney with my lizards (stanks, wizards, Valten, etc.) I crushed him. This brought praise from a couple players, but to my surprise a few others, including the empire player, muttered "cheese" and "broken" under their breath, referring to my lizardman army.

The reason I bring this up is that I find it extremely frustrating, this whole issue of "cheese", and I find myself constantly fighting against it. The answer, however, is not to simply throw your hands in the air and assume your opponents all play cheesy armies as well. I have played too many games where a couple "non-cheesy" armies go up against each other, each with a splendid variety of units and themes, and the result was a joyous 2-3 hours had by all, including spectators. It may be fun for others to play the cheese game, each player trying to out do the other with their Skulltakers, steam tanks, and 18 power dice armies, but I won't touch it; it's unoriginal, bland, and boring, and it usually results in one player simply calling the other Limburger. Thus, we continue down the perpetual loop of monotony, instead of trying to do something new and different, and focus on being large children playing with soldiers, instead of small men crying over a game of make believe.

@magx: Thank you for being quite constructive. If you thought about things before you made a post, you'd realize the goal of the army. No, daemonettes are not cheesy. No, taking 6 levels of magic is not cheesy. No, taking fast cav that get blown over by a small breeze is not cheesy.

The army itself isn't cheesy, players make it cheesy. To make a point for Fate, however, it also requires other players to call cheese. I am currently playing a High Elf army, since the other players around town were disappointed when ASF didn't win out over everything and they deemed the army useless against strong opponents like daemons and VCs. I took them up (since I'm in the habit of trying things others have failed with), and am now being called cheese by a couple players who previously said they were crap. I simply take a universal, balanced list, mix shooting, combat, and magic evenly, and adapt to each opponent easily, no matter what they have.

"Swordmasters aren't that great" they said, as they watched their models fly off the table from shooting and magic. "Swordmasters are broken" they said, as I hid my models being terrain for ambush, used spells to give them ward saves, and shoot enemy shooting before throwing them down the middle of the table to get into the heat of battle.

It's a matter of perspective, which I think is what Fate is trying to say. My point, though, is it's much more fun for everyone involved if the game is played the way is was meant. No one gets hurt, everyone has fun.
------------------------------------------------------

On a side note, my local group does a small tournament every once in awhile where we see who can make the cheesiest thing possible and we duke it out. It's rather humorous. :D

Fate
25-02-2009, 20:14
Well maybe you can't enjoy playing games in the most competitive way possible, but here it's the only way we actually have fun. There are a few who don't use strong lists but those aren't really many and usually they either make a very small gaming community of 2 to 4 players and play home alone or they simply adapt like everyone else does. You say there is only a few variations to create a strong list. I say you are very wrong. There are douzens of combinations which make things very strong, each players has his own vision of a battlefield and belives that A, B and C options are better while another prefers D,C and E. And so on.

In the end we do get those 2 to 3 hours of fun like you do, everyone likes to play and watch and in the end, mostly we get satisfied (unless someone was being kicked by lady luck in the face) and there is no discussions nor unsporting things. We here don't really have such defenitions as a cheese army, cheese armies are standart, fun lists are just that, meant to be played once in a very for a change of pace. And this being said I don't really think that I should need to say that any game won't be frustating.

Another thing that was taken off the tournaments here was sporting points because it was really a useless thing and a broken thing here. Players with good armies would never get any when that should only acount for how people behave during the game itself. Those who'd get them usually lost by 3 massacres because they brought fun armies and well, had no chance to win.
Now that was taken off, if a player is really unsporting during a game, like trying to bend the rules or being rude, there won't even be penalised by his actions, first he gets a warning, next he gets expelled from the tournament. We only had it happen once or twice with one specific player but well, he's an idiot anyway.

In the end it's like I said, we have no problems, we have fun and we don't win because of a cheese list, they all are, that is standart.

Lord Dan
26-02-2009, 00:04
But saying a strong list is not very sporting? I mean, then why the hell are we given he opportunity to make them?

With regard to the first sentence:
Two friends go hunting, one with an assault rifle and another with a spear. Both come home with deer. Who are you more impressed with?

With regard to the second sentence:
"We were so concerned with trying to find out if we could, we never stopped to consider whether or not we should."

-Jeff Goldbloom, Jurassic Park

Fate
26-02-2009, 00:19
Ok, let me put it into words you might take a little more serious then. Would a general go through his troops and chose a few at random or would he pick the best for a special mission (even skirmish missions are some sort of special missions as something of the size of 2250 points is not big enough to be considered an army).

What would you rather use to kill a bear, a spear or a high caliber hunting rifle?

Don't come saying that it isn't sporting to make a strong list when your opponent doesn't, he clearly has a chance to do it, if he doesn't does so, well, isn't he being a ad general then?

A game is divided in 3 parts before play. List making, deploying terrain, deploying your troops. Fail at any and you may just have lost the game. A general doesn't fails too often in the battlefield because it tends to get him killed... Then again we are not really generals nor are under a life or death threat are we? Perhaps you should think that before you make such sarcastic comments which can be easly answered like I did.

Lord Dan
26-02-2009, 00:24
Ok, let me put it into words you might take a little more serious then. Would a general go through his troops and chose a few at random or would he pick the best for a special mission


I'm not so sure you should use fluff to justify your use of broken armies, though I admit you pulled it off better than I could have thought possible.

It comes down to personal preference. You'd rather be on an even playing field with high-caliber lists, I'd rather be on an even playing field with less intense lists.

Fate
26-02-2009, 00:35
You see, if you didn't pulled so many comments like those before and said that from the beggining I'd simply say. I understand, not my preference but if you have fun playing like, then do so, I'll keep my opinion about your army not being so good and you'll keep yours that mine is no fun and at the end of the day, we both have fun and that's what counts.

thisisntnotjt
27-02-2009, 03:15
I think we both understand where the other is coming from. The main point, however, is I made this list with the essential purpose of being balanced and "non-cheesy". You then made a point to show that it's silly to play in such a way. We defended our belief system. You responded that you have fun playing your own way. Why is it so hard to think we want to play our way? Wouldn't that have been implied by the title of the thread? Like I said, I think we both understand each other clearly at this point. Send me a PM if you're ever in the midwest for a tournament.