PDA

View Full Version : Should Daemons crumble just like undead?



eagletsi1
13-03-2009, 14:22
Hi I recently posted a poll about Daemons and Special Characters. Our group will no longer use Special Characters in Tournaments. Amazingly, our Daemon player has offered and alternative to this choice.

He has said 'He will use the same rule as the Undead for Break Tests'. This means no rolls, just lose models equal to his Combat Resolution after Leadership just like the undead.

We have played 2 games with these rules and they seem to be much more balanced as now if you can charge some of his smaller units they are definitely going to lose some models. Instead of having a possiblity of losing none if you only beat him by one or two.

What does everyone else think?

Ixquic
13-03-2009, 14:31
Honestly I don't really understand what was so terrible about the way they crumbled in 6th.

Let's say we have a unit of empire infantry with leadership 7. They lose combat by 2. They roll a 6 on their test to see if they flee. Since they needed a 5 they failed and run. More than likely they will either be caught or are out of the game for 2 turns.

Now we have a unit of demons. They have leadership 7 (I think it used to be 8 but I don't remember). They lose by 2 and roll a 6. Instead of running they just lose 1 model. The only time you have to worry about them "poofing" is if they fail their "stubborn" roll so really it's just like most other armies. It was the balance for them being immune to psychology and causing fear like undead weren't allowed to march and had crappy stats.

I would be ok with the banner allowing them to reroll under the old method, but the way they are now which is practically unbreakable and rerolling is so over the top it's mind boggling how it made it through.

I don't think it's fair for demons to crumble like undead since undead have the luxury of being able to raise models back.

fubukii
13-03-2009, 14:41
because units fleeing at least have a moderate chance of gettin away from thier pursuers, and in addition to that can flee as a charge reaction.

People always state that yes if you lose by 1, 2 or even 3 points of CR its possible that the daemons wont lose any models with a passed test (we are talking ld 6. 5 and 4 here not exactly easy tests to pass, UD would take 1-3 wounds respectively) Now lets look at the flip side and say i lose by 2 with my DOC then roll a 9 or a 10, now i just took 4-5 wounds (when ud would of took 2). THe UD way has its advantages over the daemon way in some aspects but, the daemon is better in some other ways. ANd i dont think its fair to compare the 2 since undead can be raised and daemons can not

E-616
13-03-2009, 14:50
I went with no on this one as if you follow the Undead crumbling rules to the letter then they would get their ward saves and regeneration vs crumbling making certain units effectively unbreakable by any means.

Ixquic
13-03-2009, 14:51
When you are rerolling tests on leadership 9 (most demon armies I see are small and clustered in order to take advantage of both the general leadership and BSB), typically the undead player will be taking more crumble deaths. Regardless a unit that flees, even if it rallies and isn't caught will be out of the game for a while. Not being able to flee from a charge isn't that bad when the alternative means you panic from units running through you, shooting deaths, magical deaths, terror bombs, etc.

I think that it was a bit harsh with no ability to reroll the poof test, but with the BSB it would be fair.

Palantir
13-03-2009, 15:07
I voted yes. Why? Because when compared to the undead, the ubreakable undead units are somewhat balanced by their core infantry's relatively poor stats and the restrictions when it comes to marching and charge reactions.

This is not really reflected in the demons list. In other words, the strength of unbreakability is not accompanied by any real weaknesses, like it should.

There is another way to solve this issue though without changing the instability rule, and that is simply to lower the leadership of all or most demon units.

fubukii
13-03-2009, 15:11
they did actually lower all daemon units ld by 1 and in the case of furies by alot :(

Ixquic
13-03-2009, 15:23
they did actually lower all daemon units ld by 1 and in the case of furies by alot :(

Yeah if they went back to the old way they would have to increase leadership from what it currently is.

Braad
13-03-2009, 16:10
Not that I'm that experienced with daemons... but with the old ways, the 'poof'-test was too much. Having a so important unit just completely dissappear by a single bad roll is maybe a bit too much. But losing more wounds would probably not be a bad thing.

Ixquic
13-03-2009, 16:30
Orcs Big Unz are something like 11+ points a piece. If they lose a test it's goodbye so I don't see why 12 point demons are so much worse to lose. The orcs have modifiers to their leadership as well whereas the demons only poof entirely if they roll over their base leadership.


VVV hahaha

Max_Killfactor
13-03-2009, 16:31
If they don't change the rule itself, GW should at least rename it to Demonic Stability.

fubukii
13-03-2009, 17:52
If they don't change the rule itself, GW should at least rename it to Demonic Stability.

yea until you see someone flank a unit with his keeper of secrets, lose by one then poof :) (didnt happen to me but i found it hilarious)

theunwantedbeing
13-03-2009, 17:56
I think the BsB needs to not allow a re-roll, rather just take 1 off the total wounds suffered through the instability test.

Deamons certainly shouldn't crumble like VC.
They all have ward saves! Plaguebearer's can get regen as well!
That'de be horrible to try and get past....

I think more of the problem is various units.
Flesh hounds? cost could be increased, or toughness reduced.
Flamers? Ballistic Skill reduced, failing that apply a modifier for multiple shots to at least somewhat dent the accuracy of them.
Horrors? perhaps up the numbers from 9,to 18, to 27, to 36 for each level (its fluffier too!)

Leogun_91
13-03-2009, 18:57
When you are rerolling tests on leadership 9 (most demon armies I see are small and clustered in order to take advantage of both the general leadership and BSB), typically the undead player will be taking more crumble deaths. Regardless a unit that flees, even if it rallies and isn't caught will be out of the game for a while. Not being able to flee from a charge isn't that bad when the alternative means you panic from units running through you, shooting deaths, magical deaths, terror bombs, etc.

I think that it was a bit harsh with no ability to reroll the poof test, but with the BSB it would be fair.Not if we take BSBs into acount they wonīt A BSB that gives regeneration makes a unit almost unable to crumble away, then you can give the unit a flag that helps too. So we have deamons taking a leadership and having a good chance not losing due to their general and BSB, now we take that unit, you must win by two to make a single model crumble and then that model only dies 50% of the time and can be brought back the next turn. There are alot of things that are wrong with the deamons but I donīt think their instability is too bad.

eagletsi1
13-03-2009, 19:16
By the way as some of you have noted. I forgot to say that yes they would crumble like undead and they would not be able to use any saves on these crumble test.

In our group our undead player plays by saying Undead get no saves of any kind versus the crumble test. Just like last edition. This actually makes the army more playable and not as over the top.

zak
13-03-2009, 19:27
It would be interesting to see how it works. The deamon rule certainly needs to change or the leadership needs to take a serious dive.

Kamenwati
13-03-2009, 19:38
A simple modification to the rule might also work. Just as they can ignore the modifiers by rolling doubles ones (in case you somehow win a combat by enough to drop their leadership into the negative values), make it so if they roll double sixes the unit goes "poof".

That makes it very unlikely the super unit will just vanish, but makes the demon player actually think about whether he should let that flank charge happen against him. As it stands, with the stubborn banner hanging around the unit can take a flank charge and not have to really worry about instability. Even without the banner the odds of them taking many casualities is pretty low.

CaliforniaGamer
13-03-2009, 20:07
I would be okay with it if Daemon leadership was reduced by 3 ACROSS THE BOARD.


ATM, this crap is ridiculous. Just the mere fact there are 1-2 thread pretty much daily about DoC tells me something should be done by GW immediately. I would suggest reprinting the book with errata now.

Removing ward saves vs. magical attacks, upcosting some of the offending units like flamers and lowering LD.

fubukii
13-03-2009, 20:23
I would be okay with it if Daemon leadership was reduced by 3 ACROSS THE BOARD.


ATM, this crap is ridiculous. Just the mere fact there are 1-2 thread pretty much daily about DoC tells me something should be done by GW immediately. I would suggest reprinting the book with errata now.

Removing ward saves vs. magical attacks, upcosting some of the offending units like flamers and lowering LD.

sure thing as long as they also nerf dark elves and vampire counts im game.

SuperArchMegalon
13-03-2009, 21:25
Instability is definitely too good.

Say a Daemon player loses combat by 3, with a LD9 general and BsB nearby. Assuming the Daemon player re-rolls anything greater than a 7 on his initial break test, the possibility of him losing extra wounds are:

0 wounds: 66%
1 wounds: 16.8%
2 wounds: 5.7%
3 wounds: 4.6%
4 wounds: 3.5%
5 wounds: 2.3%
6 wounds: 1.2%

Let's compare to other troops, with LD9 and a BsB nearby.

Chance to hold: 66%
Chance to flee 34%

Oh, look: the chances to suffer no casualties are the same. But what would you rather have happen the other 34% of the time - flee or take a couple wounds? That's an easy question - When you flee (equal movement values assumed) your unit is removed from the table 58% of the time. I'll take the instability damage, please, just leave my unit on the table.

Instability also confers other bonuses. I acknowledge ItP is a blessing as well as a curse, so I won't even consider that. They do, however, cause fear and are immune to auto-break. In that event that a regular unit is outnumbered by a fear causing enemy (BSB present, still) the chance to hold is 5.4% where the Daemons stay at 66%. Many armies have ways of achieving immunity to fear, but only a couple are army-wide.

Speaking of this, let's talk undead. Again using the previous example of losing by 3 with BsB present, you remove 2 models. 82.8% of the time the Daemons fare better, losing only 1 or no models. Only 11.6% of the time are Daemons worse off. Daemonic stability is quite obviously the best a unit can have, short of straight up unbreakable.

My last point is one that is rarely (if ever) addressed. The instability re-roll offers a strategic advantage for the Daemon player. If a Daemon player loses a combat and rolls only 1 above his modified LD, he can eat the wound to guarantee no further losses. If the Daemon player loses combat so horribly that his modified LD is 3, and his first break test is a 4 or 5, he can decide to keep that result, where:

a) Any other army would have to re-roll, hoping to roll 3, or
b) Undead would crumble 5 or 6 wounds, depending on how badly the combat went.

No other army has the capability of using the BSB re-roll as a strategic aid rather than a band-aid.

Valtiel
13-03-2009, 21:33
Increase the point cost for Daemons would help, but it would create other problems, such as several of them becoming too bad. I think Daemonic Instability is fine the way it is, there are bigger problems in the Daemons of Chaos book. And if it were like the Undead crumble it would maybe also make you able to heal units and characters... umm, Great Unclean One never dying at all.

Seriously, the problem is not instability. It is the rules and the book itself. Black Guards shouldn't be reduced to Ld 6 for because they are too good. They should just increase in points.

SuperArchMegalon
13-03-2009, 21:48
Seriously, the problem is not instability. It is the rules and the book itself. Black Guards shouldn't be reduced to Ld 6 for because they are too good. They should just increase in points.

Admittedly there are many other problems with the book, but unless you didn't read my post I can't understand how you could claim instability isn't a major problem. Even IF they toned down Slaanesh LD effects, Plaguebearer bunker, Tz magic line etc. it is still too difficult to remove even a unit of Bloodletters from the game - glass cannon, they say! Yarr...

EDIT: Why should Daemons have a BsB anyway? I can't see Daemon morale being very affected by a banner. Horrifying to the enemy, yes, as exemplified by regular banners +1 CR. Maybe it should be a unique facet of the Daemon army that they don't have access to a BsB, I think that would be interesting. It's too good, now, and I think that without it Instability would be fixed.

W0lf
13-03-2009, 21:53
No. Keep the diffrence in rules.

I would however reduce ld on everything by 1 and change the BSB to +1 LD for all units within 12.

Morello
13-03-2009, 21:56
I went with no on this one as if you follow the Undead crumbling rules to the letter then they would get their ward saves and regeneration vs crumbling making certain units effectively unbreakable by any means.

No saves of any kind are allowed against wounds caused by combat resolution for Undead. No Regen, Ward, Armor, etc.

SuperArchMegalon
13-03-2009, 21:56
No. Keep the diffrence in rules.

I would however reduce ld on everything by 1 and change the BSB to +1 LD for all units within 12.

That's a good solution, actually. It tones them down, and still offers a tangible benefit to the BsB.

To the poll creator: I think that had you asked simply "Should Daemonic Instability be weakened/modified?" you would have gotten an overwhelming "yes" response. I bet the only reason it's split is because everyone voting "no" has their own idea for changing it.

Shamfrit
13-03-2009, 21:59
Not to mention a battle standard doesn't always have to be a flag per say, perhaps it's the body of the mortal who opened the rift, or a fallen Warrior who is punished by the gods and used as an anchor for the Winds of Magic to keep the Daemons in this plane.

SuperArchMegalon
13-03-2009, 22:04
No saves of any kind are allowed against wounds caused by combat resolution for Undead. No Regen, Ward, Armor, etc.

Actually, pg. 33 of the army book states that only armor saves are disallowed. This implies that other saves may be taken.


Not to mention a battle standard doesn't always have to be a flag per say, perhaps it's the body of the mortal who opened the rift, or a fallen Warrior who is punished by the gods and used as an anchor for the Winds of Magic to keep the Daemons in this plane.

Point taken. I actually like W0lf's idea more than removing the BsB... it makes Daemons even weaker still :D

g0ddy
13-03-2009, 22:10
Can you summon new demons back into the units?

I hate to say this, but its not fair to the demon player.

~ Zilla

Shamfrit
13-03-2009, 22:13
I have to say, now that I've adapted to Daemons as a whole, I go into the game with the pure intention of getting into a grinder war...

Saurus flay Daemonettes alive, cavalry to the flank, 2-3 turns, their 200-400 point unit dead. Skinks protecting and diverting support, Slann picking off ranks and the weaker units..

The problem lies in 18strong and about Core units in the Herald/No Greater Daemon lists which need serious oomph to take down...

But it's no different to 30 skeletons and Invocation spam, or for that matter, Slayers and gunlines...

I think removing the BSB but changing the mechanic would be interesting. Perhaps, like W0lf suggests, it could have a range effect like it does now, but instead of allowing a re-roll, give the Daemons within 12 inches/10 inches a 5+ ward vs instability, and drop LD by a point across the board (to represent it's anchoring effect?)

I voted no, by the way.

SuperArchMegalon
13-03-2009, 22:13
Can you summon new demons back into the units?

I hate to say this, but its not fair to the demon player.

~ Zilla

Perhaps. But you must acknowledge that Daemons are much harder to wound than undead, in almost every example: infantry, characters, etc. Perhaps that would balance the fact that they can't return to the table?

Morello
13-03-2009, 22:14
Actually, pg. 33 of the army book states that only armor saves are disallowed. This implies that other saves may be taken

Wait, what? Of the Vampire Counts book? That would be amazing if that's true in VC.

LKHERO
13-03-2009, 23:01
I'm going to say no because most Demons are fearless :-/

Lijacote
13-03-2009, 23:59
Perhaps. But you must acknowledge that Daemons are much harder to wound than undead, in almost every example: infantry, characters, etc. Perhaps that would balance the fact that they can't return to the table?

How much harder to wound are they, really? Be reasonable.

Talonz
14-03-2009, 00:03
Just bin the special characters already. Instability is supposed to be exactly that.

Ultimo ninja
14-03-2009, 01:05
As soon as my 2000 pt WOC force is ready....... I want to face every demon list possible, and take it to them...swing for the fences and fight to blunt their strengths and enhance mine. If demons are broken, people got to work harder to find a way to win. period.

W0lf
14-03-2009, 01:22
Have fun getting owned by a noob with a bloodthrister.

SuperArchMegalon
14-03-2009, 01:26
How much harder to wound are they, really? Be reasonable.

Skeletons and Zombies die in droves. Plaguebearers do not. Therefore, let the Undead get back up.

theunwantedbeing
14-03-2009, 01:37
Perhaps. But you must acknowledge that Daemons are much harder to wound than undead, in almost every example: infantry, characters, etc. Perhaps that would balance the fact that they can't return to the table?

Erm....
ws2 t3 4+ save skeleton
ws5 t3 5+ save bloodletter/daemonette
ws2 t3 4+ save horror
3+ 4+ 4+ Each attack does 0.166 wounds
4+ 4+ 3+ Each attack does 0.166 wounds
3+ 4+ 4+ Each attack does 0.166 wounds

Same ease of killing them as skeletons.

Bloodcrushers
4+ to hit, 5+ to wound, 4+ save, 5+ ward each attack does 0.055 wounds
Blood Knights
4+ to hit, 5+ to wound, 2+ save each attack does 0.277 wounds, half.
Bloodcrushers have twice the wounds, bloodcrushers are exactly as easy to kill.

So...the whole "daemons are harder to kill" just doesnt really ring true for a lot of situations.
Obviously plaguebearer's with a herald are more difficult to kill than skeletons.
10 with a herald is a full 235pts, compared with 29 skeletons that would get you.Each attack does 0.055 wounds, compared to the skeleton who suffers 0.166 wounds. 3x more difficult.
You get nearly 3x as many skeletons, note the skeletons generate rank bonus and outnumber as well.

Leogun_91
14-03-2009, 01:51
Only 11.6% of the time are Daemons worse off. Daemonic stability is quite obviously the best a unit can have, short of straight up unbreakable. But alot of those 11,6% of the time it is not just worse but much worse.
And if you belive that you should fight Stegadons and templeguards more often, a BSB close to those gives you even less chances of losing anything than any deamonic instability.

W0lf
14-03-2009, 01:52
Daemons are more resiliant then Skeletons.

Example;

6 Charging chaos knights (no champ)

Knights
Vs skellies = 9 hits, 7.5 wounds, 6.25 dead.
Vs Letters = 6 hits, 5 wounds, 3.333 dead

Horses
Vs skellies = 4 hits, 2.66 wounds, 1.77 dead
Vs letters = 3 hits, 2 wounds, 1.33 dead.

And the vampires will lose yet more models to CR.

Oh and in the realistic world no powergamer fields big blocks of nettes or letters. Small horror blocks and plague bearer anvils are more like it.

Saying; WS5, 5+ WARD is not more resiliant then WS2, 4+ AS is ridiculous.

SuperArchMegalon
14-03-2009, 02:01
Erm....
ws2 t3 4+ save skeleton
ws5 t3 5+ save bloodletter/daemonette
ws2 t3 4+ save horror
3+ 4+ 4+ Each attack does 0.166 wounds
4+ 4+ 3+ Each attack does 0.166 wounds
3+ 4+ 4+ Each attack does 0.166 wounds


Nice. Now try having a WS3 S6 opponent (say, an Irongut) attacking these units.

ws2 t3 4+ save skeleton
ws5 t3 5+ save bloodletter/daemonette
ws2 t3 4+ save horror
3+ 2+ Each attack does 0.55 wounds (5 points)
4+ 2+ 3+ Each attack does 0.27 wounds (3 points)
3+ 2+ 4+ Each attack does 0.27 wounds (3 points)

Don't forget that Daemons can do damage in CC while skeletons rarely will. Also more standing Daemons after being charged means more attacks.

It's simply a matter of what unit attacks. In your example using S3, hardly any wounds will be dealt. But any S3 unit is not counting on doing wounds, as much as it counts on other factors such as static CR. Daemons hold up much better against any high S attacks. Same goes for your argument about Bloodcrushers vs. BK's - in fact, it applies even more so.

As for the number you get:
1 skeleton with hw/sh is 9 points, 1 Daemon is 12 points. 33% more, yes. But why would one argue that Daemons, if they crumbled, should get invocation? Isn't that just more points for the Daemon player being brought back on the board, thus better than VC invocation (which, beyond the Daemon list is the most complained-about issue in Warhammer)?

EDIT:
But alot of those 11,6% of the time it is not just worse but much worse.
And if you belive that you should fight Stegadons and templeguards more often, a BSB close to those gives you even less chances of losing anything than any deamonic instability.

Well, I'd rather have my unit take 3, 4, 5, or even 6 wounds than to see my Dwarf Lord book it. Temple Guard I'll give you, I don't know much about the new list - I'm sure it's nasty. Just don't forget that they're not a whole army, and not immune to fear. They cost more than core Daemons as well.

Shamfrit
14-03-2009, 02:08
Big weakness to Plaguebearers, kill the Herald.

Herald and Locus is a glaring inherant weakness, Daemon Core troops without a Herald are actually much more satisfying to deal with - a bit like having a Character in a unit that makes it Unbreakable - take out Kouran and Black Guard lose Unbreakable etc.

selone
14-03-2009, 02:09
I
My last point is one that is rarely (if ever) addressed. The instability re-roll offers a strategic advantage for the Daemon player. If a Daemon player loses a combat and rolls only 1 above his modified LD, he can eat the wound to guarantee no further losses. If the Daemon player loses combat so horribly that his modified LD is 3, and his first break test is a 4 or 5, he can decide to keep that result, where:

a) Any other army would have to re-roll, hoping to roll 3, or
b) Undead would crumble 5 or 6 wounds, depending on how badly the combat went.

No other army has the capability of using the BSB re-roll as a strategic aid rather than a band-aid.

Isn't this wrong? The base rulebook states that you have to use the reroll if you fail your test.

W0lf
14-03-2009, 02:11
T5 5+ ward + regen plus likely ASL on you...

hes not that easy to kill tbh, and did i mention hes 115 pts?

Shamfrit
14-03-2009, 02:15
Scar Vet, GW weapon, or Burning Blade, or banehead Scar Vet or numbers in attacks.

2 turns I was in combat with 15 Plaguebearers with a Great Unclean One this afternoon.

I took out the Herald, one turn after, the entire lot. Gone.

SuperArchMegalon
14-03-2009, 02:34
Isn't this wrong? The base rulebook states that you have to use the reroll if you fail your test.

Wow, thanks for pointing that out. That helps. ;)

theunwantedbeing
14-03-2009, 02:47
Hmmm, it would certainly be better to have it force a re-roll.
You fail the roll by 1 on a particularly difficult one to pass, say a 4 is needed and you roll a 5. Tough, roll again..you get a 9.
Lose 6 wounds rather than 1.

Nice and Chaotic.

SuperArchMegalon
14-03-2009, 02:50
This alters my statistics earlier (though only slightly). I'll leave this topic for the Gods to sort out.

Talonz
14-03-2009, 02:51
Isn't this wrong? The base rulebook states that you have to use the reroll if you fail your test.

Break tests. The DOC ab states that they 'can' reroll their failed *instability* tests.

Honestly, the fact they get to reroll at all is huge.

Kerill
14-03-2009, 02:52
Scar Vet, GW weapon, or Burning Blade, or banehead Scar Vet or numbers in attacks.

2 turns I was in combat with 15 Plaguebearers with a Great Unclean One this afternoon.

I took out the Herald, one turn after, the entire lot. Gone.

Lizardmen have all the counters needed against daemons, not all armies do, and most don't unless you tailor your list.

OT I voted against crumbling like undead, instability fits them much better although they should remove the double 1 autopass (daemons don't have "courage")

Whilst I understand to some extent the dislike of daemons on this forum I really do think that often people are screaming for changes that would make daemons more or less unplayable as an army. The SOC list had "poof" instability but remember they also had decent Ld and took no wounds if they passed the test. They also had even more powerful units than now.

Daemons need a smack with the nerf bat (so do DE and VC but to a lesser extent) but I don't think the army is that difficult to fix, with one exception (flamers, I really don't think flesh hounds are overpowered) the issue is with the costing of the heralds and power of the gifts and SCs.
Khorne Herald- 200 points base
Nurgle Herald- 200 points base
Tzeentch Herald- 140 points base
Slaanesh Herald- as is

Kairos- goes on holiday with Amon Chakai
Masque- may not combine her -D3 leadership with banner
Skulltaker- +100 points

Gifts:
Siren song- opponents unit takes a Ld test or must charge, cannot use the general's Ld unless he is with that unit.
Firestorm blade- 35 points
Armour (3+ normal one)- 20 points
re-roll hits gift- becomes normal "hatred"

Flamers- US1-4, 45 points each.
Horrors- 3rd level get Tzeentch's Firestorm, 4th level get bolt of change.

I think these changes will be a significant nerf against daemons in general and seriously nerf most of the current power armies (which will have 300 points less to spend on troops due to the increased cost of heralds).

The greater daemons (A few gifts aside) are all fine as is.

While we are fixing armies:
VC- Invocation of Nehek becomes 5+ to cast, crown costs 55 points.

DE- Hydra becomes 250 points, manbane doesn't work with rending stars, black guard are 2 points more per model, Pendant of Khaeleth is a 4+ ward and 45 points, ring doesn't have a radius at all, only works on unit it is with, 30 points.

selone
14-03-2009, 03:08
Break tests. The DOC ab states that they 'can' reroll their failed *instability* tests.

Honestly, the fact they get to reroll at all is huge.

The exact quote is "note that an instability test can be rerolled if the battle standard is within 12" and/or tested on an unmodified Leadership if the unit is stubborn"

I still stand that they have to reroll failed tests as per the book until theres something more concrete than a part in the book just reminding us that their instability still allows BSB rerolls and stubborn :) Nevertheless you can draw your own conclusions and I'm sure some rules guru will be along to tell me just how wrong I am :)

Yes them being able to reroll is a big thing still.

I voted no btw. Whilst daemons may have problems taking away some of the armies character by taking away their special instability rule is not the way to fix them.

SuperArchMegalon
14-03-2009, 04:44
Khorne Herald- 200 points base
Nurgle Herald- 200 points base

I think their cost should only go up a bit (maybe a little more for HoN), but to get a Jugger/Palinquin should be much more expensive. Nobody takes these characters without them, as they're dirt cheap for what they are.

Kerill
14-03-2009, 05:23
I think their cost should only go up a bit (maybe a little more for HoN), but to get a Jugger/Palinquin should be much more expensive. Nobody takes these characters without them, as they're dirt cheap for what they are.

Yep that seems fair, palanquin is less of an issue. TBH I think Khorne heralds are the bigger issue, a bloodthirster is nasty as hell but presently its the sheer number of insane threats that breaks it.

Another idea would be to limit heralds by the number of the appropriate core choice of that god. This would prevent 3 units of horrors (for DD) being lead by a bloodthirster and 3 packs of doggies led by heralds(one with sundering), a unit or two of furies and 12 flamers. With the increase in cost of heralds the army would be impossible to include in 2250 points or 2000 points and the heralds and thrister would be slightly less threatening due to gifts changes (for heralds the choice of 0+save OR S7 flaming attacks). The army would also be without the 3 bonus dispel dice (although MR all over the place).

Talonz
14-03-2009, 05:44
"note that an instability test can be rerolled if the battle standard is within 12" and/or tested on an unmodified Leadership if the unit is stubborn"

I still stand that they have to reroll failed tests as per the book until theres something more concrete ...

Something more concrete than 'can' instead of 'automatically'?

Leogun_91
14-03-2009, 09:02
Well, I'd rather have my unit take 3, 4, 5, or even 6 wounds than to see my Dwarf Lord book it. Temple Guard I'll give you, I don't know much about the new list - I'm sure it's nasty. Just don't forget that they're not a whole army, and not immune to fear. They cost more than core Daemons as well.Firstly we compared them to undead crumbling not fleeing, the deamonic instability is clearly better than fleeing so the thing would be, the undead loses by 3 and takes 2 wounds (BSB close) the deamons lose by 3 in simmilar conditions, most of the time the deamons fare better but some of the time the deamons fare worse and when they do alot of it is far worse, the deamons have the possibility to lose 6 models here, the undead loses two which they can invocate back. The temple guards are immune to psychology if they have a Slann and then you can fill the rest of the slots with stegadon (except three minimum size skink skirmisher units that wonīt see battle) and suddenly you have a whole army that is nigh unbreakable.

*Fixes almost everything without changing the instability*Those changes were great, it fixes alot of things and would make the deamons more playable.

Another idea would be to limit heralds by the number of the appropriate core choice of that god. This would prevent 3 units of horrors (for DD) being lead by a bloodthirster and 3 packs of doggies led by heralds(one with sundering), a unit or two of furies and 12 flamers. With the increase in cost of heralds the army would be impossible to include in 2250 points or 2000 points and the heralds and thrister would be slightly less threatening due to gifts changes (for heralds the choice of 0+save OR S7 flaming attacks). The army would also be without the 3 bonus dispel dice (although MR all over the place).Another great idea (you have alot of those it seems) and while we are at it why donīt we limit the units that can benefit from Generals leadership and/or BSB to those that are from the same god and furies (or maybe just same god but furies isnīt the thing that needs nerfing), that way you are rewarded for playing mono-god (youīr troops likes youīr leader) but is not forced to do so (freedom of fluff)

selone
14-03-2009, 14:25
Something more concrete than 'can' instead of 'automatically'?

Yes indeed :)

siphon101
14-03-2009, 22:06
The thing is, with Ld 7 demons, it averages out to being exactly the same. Demonic instability turns out to be, on average, SLIGHTLY better when ld 8 heralds are added, though.

SuperArchMegalon
14-03-2009, 23:57
The thing is, with Ld 7 demons, it averages out to being exactly the same. Demonic instability turns out to be, on average, SLIGHTLY better when ld 8 heralds are added, though.

Yes, at base leadership the Daemons are not much better off than other races. It's when you get a BSB near that screws everything up - and why not give your BsB have a 0+/5+ save with M7 and the +D3 CR banner? Or T5, regeneration, and 5+ WS, and 9 attacks? Oh yeah the whole unit gets regen, nevermind that other armies have to pay 100+ points for that.

What was this topic about again?

Shamfrit
15-03-2009, 00:22
Rule of Burning Iron (cough cough.)

W0lf
15-03-2009, 00:27
I love stuff like;

its easy just use Scar vet with burning blade or 'lore of metal'. So helpful.

Not a single one of my 2k lists has access to lore of metal (WoC, WE, Dwarfs, no wizard-DE) and i dont have scar vets.

Shamfrit
15-03-2009, 00:28
Then you shall be ground beneath the Winds of Magic and fall to the corrupting power of the Daemons of Chaos :p

W0lf
15-03-2009, 00:31
My gaming group begged me not to play Daemons.

my last 5 games have been massacres to me.... (though i did use a mates vamps :P)

Ward.
15-03-2009, 07:10
Have fun getting owned by a noob with a bloodthrister.

Looks like I've found a new sig.


ring doesn't have a radius at all, only works on unit it is with, 30 points.
That's a terrible change to a really characterful item, although I agree that DOC, VC and DE need a nerf batting.

I think changing it to crumbling would be a pretty decent fix, lowering the leadership of a few units wouldn't be so bad either.

Tokamak
15-03-2009, 09:57
I would actually start playing daemons if they 'crumbled' or were instable.

Storak
15-03-2009, 10:34
Big weakness to Plaguebearers, kill the Herald.

Herald and Locus is a glaring inherant weakness, Daemon Core troops without a Herald are actually much more satisfying to deal with - a bit like having a Character in a unit that makes it Unbreakable - take out Kouran and Black Guard lose Unbreakable etc.

i had some hope that you were joking. it turns out, you were not.

so your typical "weakness" is T5, 5+ ward and regeneration? and always striking first, even against those with ASF?!?

please educate me, which of my O&G hero level chars will kill him?

Shamfrit
15-03-2009, 12:43
Goblin Hero with Bauble will have fun with him, or a Great Weapon and the Tricksy Trinket.

If he's on a Palanquin then that's one very expensive chunk of the enemy's army screaming to be killed. Characters don't matter so much to most armies, except undead/daemons, take down a Herald from a Plaguebearer unit and they become nothing more than glorified Dwarves.

SuperArchMegalon
15-03-2009, 13:28
Characters don't matter so much to most armies, except undead/daemons, take down a Herald from a Plaguebearer unit and they become nothing more than glorified Dwarves.

Too bad HoN is the hardest hero to kill in the game right now. Even a bruiser with Tenderizer only has a 37% chance to kill him, Tyrant 62%. That's just about the best setup I could think of for a character, short of specifically tailoring against the Herald or something with flaming attacks.

My worst experience with the HoN Plague bunker was flanking the whole unit with 3 Ironguts and Bruiser + Tenderizer just to be rebuffed and run down. Haha.

Shamfrit
15-03-2009, 13:40
Spear Saurus took him down on the second turn...

He's on a Palanquin, that's a whopping 16 STR4 attacks you can fling at him, characters aside.

SuperArchMegalon
15-03-2009, 14:16
Spear Saurus took him down on the second turn...

He's on a Palanquin, that's a whopping 16 STR4 attacks you can fling at him, characters aside.

Well, even with 16 attacks you only will score .88 wounds. It seems silly to me that less than 1/16 attacks becomes a wound, but 4 attacks per saurus is equally OTT. It balances out.

SuperArchMegalon
15-03-2009, 14:17
Spear Saurus took him down on the second turn...

He's on a Palanquin, that's a whopping 16 STR4 attacks you can fling at him, characters aside.

Well, even with 16 attacks you only will score .88 wounds. It seems silly to me that less than 1/16 attacks becomes a wound, but 4 attacks per saurus is equally OTT. It balances out for LM, not so much other armies. I <I>wish</I> my Dwarfs or OGRES could do 1 wound per turn, it's only fair.

Shamfrit
15-03-2009, 14:24
I didn't start playing Lizardmen just to beat Daemons, by the way, :p

Even with Warriors the Spells lend themselves very well to tackling the various Daemonic units available. Flickerign Fire and the Lore of the Fire at our disposal, Lore of Tzeentch can seriously hamper instability tests (tesing on a base 6 adds the pressure, and miscasting on any double from Pandaemonium etc.) Gateway without it's insta-gib effect can cause massive damage to a Greater Daemon (or none at all of course...)

Khornate Knights can impact against Daemonettes and Bloodletters and cause enough damage to take out a fair amount of models and cause a very low LD instability test for further casulties.

Skaven have Jezzails, Warp Lightning, Slaves and LD10 re-rollable breakteasts, as long as you outnumber of course.

I'm still surprised people haven't adapted yet, the hardest army for me to tackle at the minute is a toss up between Ogre Kingdoms (although that might be because I'm playing bloody good players) and Dwarves (because they have too much armour the Lizardmen, and LD9 across the board is silly to break.)

Warboss Antoni
15-03-2009, 17:55
I think this dudes just being a sore loser cuz he can't use his SC...
Let him play without SCs and see how he can win with more then using only 3 charecters.

Undead crumble would mean saves, and that just makes it worse.
The old rule however was real harsh. You roll bad and you lose a big unit of completely overcosted deamons ( in the 7th ed rules ).

W0lf
15-03-2009, 18:06
lol @ ward, nice to see someone sig that :)

Oh and bigger lol @ Shamfrit;


Khornate Knights can impact against Daemonettes and Bloodletters and cause enough damage to take out a fair amount of models and cause a very low LD instability test for further casulties.

Good advice. Now if only a keeper/thrister didnt rape my knights and if my opponents fielded the 2 weaker core id be fine!

Seriously now man, stop with the ridiculous theory hammer. I dont have a problem with theory hammer at all, but common!

Oh and if mr bloodthirster and mr HoN BSB are around then typically a loss of 2 will lose no models. Talk about being punished for losing combat....

decker_cky
15-03-2009, 18:10
I don't think they really should crumble like undead, but make the BSB just be -1 casualty like undead, and add a rule that daemons within 6" of the daemons of another god are Ld -1 would be nice. Then you can mix, but you'll have Ld6 line units and Ld7 heroes. That would limit a lot of the mix-and-match and make it a trade-off you have to make.

W0lf
15-03-2009, 18:13
-1 Casualty...

are you people all crazy? Its not like daemons are weak in CC, when they lose they should feel it. Geez if my chaos warriors lose combat by like 2 they will be in serious trouble. Daemons mostly struggle it off.

Storak
15-03-2009, 18:18
Goblin Hero with Bauble will have fun with him, or a Great Weapon and the Tricksy Trinket.

this is simply false. a goblin hero character will on average be dead and never even attack.

the bauble does damage against the unit, NOT the models it is touching. it is utterly useless against PBs.


If he's on a Palanquin then that's one very expensive chunk of the enemy's army screaming to be killed. Characters don't matter so much to most armies, except undead/daemons, take down a Herald from a Plaguebearer unit and they become nothing more than glorified Dwarves.

false again. characters matter a lot to my O&G army. only my general is holding the army together. without the BSB my magic defence is down.

W0lf
15-03-2009, 18:29
take down a Herald from a Plaguebearer unit and they become nothing more than glorified Dwarves.

oh yeah and dwarfs that cause fear w/posion and dont break are soooo rubbish :rolleyes:


Oh and of all armies in the game daemons rely on theirs the LEAST. Hell only unit that 'needs' one are bearers. Horrors are best as MSU and nettes+letters are best not even fielded ;)

Shamfrit
15-03-2009, 19:25
If I can beat Daemons with non-cheesey lists W0lf, then I'm sure you're capable of doing the same.

And if your Khornate Knights arn't cleaving through Daemonettes, the problem isn't with me - it's with your gaming group (which you've self confessed to be WAAC several times) and I only urge people to not be blinded by Tournament Daemons.

A mate of mine doesn't touch Tzeentch, at all - and his lists are fun to play against, Your Mum Rang's no Greater Daemon no flamer Daemon lists and no magic lists are still very challenging but fun to play against.

I think Wood Elves are broken, but that's only because I play Wood Elf players in my group who're bloody good. It's all relative, and it's all an opinion - if you've still got a problem with Daemons this far in, it says as much about the power level of the army book as it does about the people still unable to surmount a counter offensive.

Storak
15-03-2009, 19:53
Shamfrit, you are simply wrong.

here are the GT Grand Finals results (http://warhammerworld.typepad.com/files/wh-tsgt-final---scott-v1.pdf).

the problem is NOT with adaption or people unable to "counter offensive". fact.

fubukii
15-03-2009, 20:01
yea and im sure the fact that are are 32 daemon players out of the 125players, there as nothing to do with anything, which i will bet (dont feel like counting all the other armies) is probably the most players for any given army.

i counted some other armies
19 vc
22 DE
6 empire ( a army thats pretty good at taking out daemons, due to great cannons, stanks war altar etc, notice its extremely low in number)
4 HE (again a army good at killing daemons, with imune to fire based knights/ characters they have a edge on daemons who include tzeentch daemons, and firestorm blades, common things for a typical tournament army. Probably low in number bc he suffer vs dark elves)
7 Dwarves (also another army very good at daemon slaying. Thorek needs no introduction and is amazing vs daemons of any variety, good shooting in the form of organ guns, thudnerers/crossbows, Bolt throwers and cannons capable of killing the big stuff. While they are good vs daemons dwarves suffer vs armies like vc, probably the reason they are poorly represented)
3 skaven ( WLC, jezzails, shooting into combats, lots of cheap redirecting troops, good magic a army thats fairly good at killing daemons naturally. But they suffer greatly vs vc who out due them in terms of static cr. Poorly represented as expected)

Draconian77
15-03-2009, 20:26
I agree that DoC need a few changes to re-balance them but some of the suggestions here really don't sound wise.

I wouldn't make the Herald of Nurgle 100pts more expensive...:eyebrows:
Just make locus +1 T instead of Regeneration.

Make it so that Horrors don't generate DD dice.

Make Flamers 1 wounded models.

Have a look at some of the Daemonic Gifts and how they are priced.
(25pts for re-rolls to hit all the time, really?)

Special Characters...well, this is a more fundamental change. Either GW need to change their stance on SC's completely or there won't be any changes because past experiences have proven to us how they feel and deal when it comes to special characters.

Their instability is seems ok, the old system of *poof* was excessive and maybe if the Daemons where a little less *bang for their buck* we would see harsher modifiers on their instability checks in the first place.

Shamfrit
15-03-2009, 21:52
If you take Daemons to a tournament you will most likely find 32 net decked lists all out to WAAC to victory, no imput, no fun, just there to win with the winniest army of all the winners in the history of winning.

You have to change the player's mindset before you change the game, as people will always exploit WAAC builds, as is done in Magic, Yu-Gi-Oh!, War Machine and heck, even Scrabble, Chess and Checkers can be WAAC'd with opening moves and counter strategies.

Making Plaguebearers Toughness 5 is not something I would want to see, a 4.5 re-rollable Ward save is effectively what they've got now, (or 70-75% saving on all wounds or something?) Which to be fair isn't much different to Plague Marines in 40k, as well as a few other units. I agree, Daemons need to be changed, but that's half the struggle, the mindset of players, of tournaments alike need to be adapted; composition scores need to be universally agreed upon and implimented in a fair and consistant way, not in the manner of the ETC for example (, although that is a personal opinion.)

Yes Storak, I was wrong about the Bauble, I've not touched so much as a Greenskin's ghost for about 6 months, so it's an easy enough mistake - we know that the Greenskin book is flawed, using it as a 'why can't we beat Daemons?' as a counterpoint is almost as funny as W0lf's 'even a noob can beat you with a Bloodthirster.'

I'd like to see him try, that's for sure.

Storak
15-03-2009, 22:28
If you take Daemons to a tournament you will most likely find 32 net decked lists all out to WAAC to victory, no imput, no fun, just there to win with the winniest army of all the winners in the history of winning.

sorry, but this is what the rules are made for. they should balance this environment, as good as possible.


Yes Storak, I was wrong about the Bauble, I've not touched so much as a Greenskin's ghost for about 6 months, so it's an easy enough mistake - we know that the Greenskin book is flawed,

well, you were not only wrong about the bauble. the gobbo hero simply doesn t have a chance to kill the herald.

and it isn t just O&G.

yes, some of the other new armies have access to good anti-daemon units/items/chars. but some of the older don t. and giving every new army additional tools will massively change the environment..



using it as a 'why can't we beat Daemons?' as a counterpoint is almost as funny as W0lf's 'even a noob can beat you with a Bloodthirster.'

I'd like to see him try, that's for sure.

well, wolf is right. a pretty random assortment of the good daemon units (plaguebearers with herald, horrors, fleshhounds, flamers, special hero chars and greater daemon) will seriously challenge an experienced player.

Shamfrit
15-03-2009, 23:09
There is a massive difference between any old player regardless of level 'seriously challenging an experienced player' and an actual, rock hard player using the same list; a Daemon/fantasy noob is not going to walk all over me regardless of the list he's using.

Anecdote time, two days ago a new Daemon player who knows very little about tactics suffered badly by being baited into a 3 way charge. That unit had a Great Unclean one, a Herald BSB, and died entirely 3 turns later. Over 1000 points wiped out by about 500 points of mine.

People can exploit the ITP army wide to tragic effect for the unwary Daemon player - it is not an insta-win to plop down a Bloodthirster, not by a long shot. I may just be resilient and have learned to combat Daemons, it's a shame others haven't listened to past advice in countless related threads and tried to do the same.

Storak
15-03-2009, 23:46
Shamfrit, see, this discussion doesn t make any sense. i don t know, how much "power" you will bring to the table, when facing a new player. and i don t know, how "new" your new player is.

and of cousre it makes a difference, whether you bring O&G against his daemons, DE or lizardmen.

that is why tournament results are an important indicator of power level!


I may just be resilient and have learned to combat Daemons, it's a shame others haven't listened to past advice in countless related threads and tried to do the same.

your claims about your successes against daemons don t convince me. your making to many false claims and false assumptions for my taste. i believe the tournament results. they are facts, not stories.

SuperArchMegalon
15-03-2009, 23:57
Shamfrit, you are simply wrong.

here are the GT Grand Finals results (http://warhammerworld.typepad.com/files/wh-tsgt-final---scott-v1.pdf).

He just got through saying:


I only urge people to not be blinded by Tournament Daemons.

...which is fair enough. I'm blinded by casual Daemons though - they're still too good. Which I've gotten used to. One of my least favorite things about the Daemons is that even if you've done something well, a few dice rolls can still screw you.

The last game I played against them (as Ogres) was a joke. By turn 3 or so I had flanked his Plaguebearers with a Bruiser (Tenderizer, attacking Herald) and 3 Ironguts. I lost and got run down, because of all the ward saves. Later I flanked some vanilla Bloodletters with 3 Ironguts, and he won combat again - all it took was a few 5+ rolls. I wish my army was able to correct my mistakes for me.

SuperArchMegalon
16-03-2009, 00:00
People can exploit the ITP army wide to tragic effect for the unwary Daemon player - it is not an insta-win to plop down a Bloodthirster, not by a long shot.

I think your argument is flawed about the Bloodthirster, because not every army has something that can take him out. When he simply runs through your units, and you have no decent shooting, and your toughest combat Lord pales in comparison, it can get discouraging.

EDIT: Regarding those tournament results, I like how there are 6 Daemons in the top 10, but only 4 in the bottom 50. There may be a lot of players, but they are placing well anyway.

Shamfrit
16-03-2009, 00:12
The same could be said Megalon, for any form of Dragon, Hydra, Manticore, Carnosaur, heck, some armies can't deal with Giants and Treemen (I struggle against Treeman, and have never killed one by wounding it, only ever by running it down...)

It will be very interesting indeed to see if the new Skaven book does go in the direction of -1 ward save Warpstone weapons...I can imagine Bloodthirsters being afraid...being very afraid indeed.

Draconian77
16-03-2009, 02:12
The same could be said Megalon, for any form of Dragon, Hydra, Manticore, Carnosaur, heck, some armies can't deal with Giants and Treemen (I struggle against Treeman, and have never killed one by wounding it, only ever by running it down...)



To be fair Shamfrit, only the Dragon(+rider) is in the same league as the Thirster(and even then, not really). Things like Hydras, Carnosaurs and Manticores are much easier to deal with for a variety of reasons the main one being there generally aren't only 1-2 solutions per army book for said creatures. The Thirster(within the context of the DoC book) is almost impossible to deal with for many armies.

That looks like a really strange rule for warpstone weapons to have...
If that does happen my faith in the GW design team will shatter a little more.

fubukii
16-03-2009, 02:23
i think that elf dragons ( in particular dark elf, and high elf) are actually better then blood thristers in most situations.

The dark elf dragon has hatred like a thrister, gets 2 more attacks total, the rider is probably unkillable ( basically giving the dragon a ward save, vs ranged weapons) has a breath weapon, and the rider can still have other goodies.

Star dragons are nasty as well, 3 more attacks then a thrister, str 7/6 7 wounds, breath attack that auto causes panic, etc.

Draconian77
16-03-2009, 02:37
i think that elf dragons ( in particular dark elf, and high elf) are actually better then blood thristers in most situations.

The dark elf dragon has hatred like a thrister, gets 2 more attacks total, the rider is probably unkillable ( basically giving the dragon a ward save) has a breath weapon, and the rider can still have other goodies.

Star dragons are nasty as well, 3 more attacks then a thrister, str 7/6 7 wounds, breath attack that auto causes panic, etc.

Well, most Bloodthirsters will be re-rolling failed to hit rolls and be striking at S7 making them better in most situations. The HE/DE Dragon can still be shot down and to be fair you don't really kill Lord choices anyway, you run them down in most cases. :D

More importantly, "within the context of the DoC" I think the Bloodthirster is a *lot* better.

I'm still not for changing the instability rules themselves, I just think certain things in that book are OTT.

Rioghan Murchadha
16-03-2009, 02:38
it is not an insta-win to plop down a Bloodthirster, not by a long shot. I may just be resilient and have learned to combat Daemons, it's a shame others haven't listened to past advice in countless related threads and tried to do the same.


The same could be said Megalon, for any form of Dragon, Hydra, Manticore, Carnosaur, heck, some armies can't deal with Giants and Treemen (I struggle against Treeman, and have never killed one by wounding it, only ever by running it down...)


The hell man? You seem to claim that you don't have that much problem dealing with a thirster, but at the same time, that you struggle against a treeman, and have never killed one via wounding it?

A treeman who is significantly less of a combat monster than a thirster, who can have his ward save cancelled by a vast number of things, and that can be run down?

How then, do you deal with a flying terror causing, combat jesus who never breaks, and is harder to wound than a treeman? Please do tell.

I sense a grave inconsistancy in the force...

fubukii
16-03-2009, 02:43
Well, most Bloodthirsters will be re-rolling failed to hit rolls and be striking at S7 making them better in most situations. The HE/DE Dragon can still be shot down and to be fair you don't really kill Lord choices anyway, you run them down in most cases. :D

More importantly, "within the context of the DoC" I think the Bloodthirster is a *lot* better.

I'm still not for changing the instability rules themselves, I just think certain things in that book are OTT.

true the thrister can reroll hits so can they de, The he will average the same amount of hits as a thrister due to higher amount of attacks, and true they can be ran down if they wiff which is nice, but by the same token ive seen blood thristers lose combat and poof :). As for a thrister being str7, most tournament thristers will not have the firestorm blade in case they have to play against high elves, but now that i think about it given that he population as gone down greatly i guess the blade will make more appearences in competitive daemon tournament armies.

Thrister with immortal fury = 6.1 hits at str6 or 7
star dragon he lord 6.66 hits on average str6/7
DE lord on dragon 7.96 hits with hatred, 5.94 without, probably all str 6 pending on build of dreadlord.

I agree that blood thristers are insanely awesome, im just trying to say that star dragons and dark elf dragonlords are basically equally powerful offensively, and have some other goodies ( like the breath weapon) to help compensate for the thristers advantages (immune to pysc, Mr2). I feel that because the bloodthrister is a daemon model it automatically gets more hate on it then things of similar stature and power

Shamfrit
16-03-2009, 03:07
I believe it's the ability to run across the board hidden in trees, pop an artillery dice of shots at me, be stubborn LD8 with a BSB re-roll and be within an army I literally can't catch.

I don't mind a Str7 Bloodthirster with re-rolls. My hero level characters come at a sixth of the cost at the same strength. I certainly don't mind Obsidian Armour, magic weapons don't feature in my lists very much anymore, and I certainly don't mind the flying terror bomb, given that I play Skaven and Lizards, I'm very wary of Terror, and Warriors easily deal with that with the Mark of Slaanesh.

A treeman and Thirster are both Toughness 6, the Thirster can have a save yes, but it's only one point higher than the treeman, and both have a 5+ ward, even if the Treeman's drops to 6 against magical attacks - which is why most Wood Elf players engage units, not characters. Not to mention the Treeman is 285 points, not a character slot and has excellent support. I can see the Thirster, I can target and affect the Thirster, and I can certainly do something about it in the 1-2 turns I've got before it's first charge, the Treeman on the otherhand is free to waltz over the battlefield, flank me, and proceed to hold up my toughest units by virtue of it's Stubborn Break Test.

You can question my motives and claims all you like, but I took 62 losses against Daemons before the book was even released (the joys of the internet,) so I know more than most how powerful the Daemon list is, I'm not disputing that, what I am disputing is people's cries of 'nerf the book!' when 'play better!' works just as well. I've seen this meta-game motive in countless games, and I've always strived (to quote W0lf) to 'think outside the box' in order to overcome the mainstream.

We know Games Workshop arn't going to change the army book; it's not going to happen. I'm not saying we should resign ourselves to such a fate, but we can certainly do something about it - beat them, if David can beat Goliath, a man quad his size with a carefully placed rock (no, don't hit the daemon player with a rock :p) then the weaker armies can put up a bloody better fight than they are doing.

Yes, I might play Warriors, Lizardmen and Skaven, three armies which exhibit factors capable of taking apart Daemons (but not all in one army I might add, trying to kill Plaguebearers with Skaven is like running into a brick wall, but Greater Daemons? Deaded-thing things.) But I can bet your top dollar It wouldn't take me long to calculate, play test and run up lists for most armies, not neccesarily to get massacres against Daemons like it's going out of fashion, but certainly, in order to knock them down a notch or two.

@Draconian: The Warpstone rule is only a rumour as of yet, but shards of the Chaos Moon and the very solidified essence of the Warp itself fired at something made of the Warp is going to hurt.

theunwantedbeing
16-03-2009, 03:17
@Draconian: The Warpstone rule is only a rumour as of yet, but shards of the Chaos Moon and the very solidified essence of the Warp itself fired at something made of the Warp is going to hurt.

Yeah, in exactly the same way that throwing snowballs is a good way to kill a snowman.
Or say...a glass of water into a pond.

Warboss Antoni
16-03-2009, 03:24
I think the reason people hate thirsters copared to dragons, is because of the army.

Daemons are pure cheese as an army. It's hard to build a bad list and losses come from retard mistakes and bad dice.

HE are a fairly balanced army on the whole, for a after O+G book.
Dark Elves aren't inherently broken but they can have some really cheesey builds and combos.

I think Obsidian armour is terrible though. It's not like any magic items can really super threaten a thirster, sometimes there one of a few ways an army has to deal with one. Take O+G. What can they do? 8 bolt chukkas, or bust. Not to mention the fact the army is ****ed from deployment against demons anyway. There are a few ways you can hit a thirster with magic/items but thats ****ed from obsidian armour and MR2.
A DE dragon can be magicked, or shot at, and while can be made tough as ****, is a lot more expensive then a BT. Can be just as hard, or less in combat.
A HE dragon isn't that big of a deal. I never really found them to be too hard to kill.
And elves are T3, so it's not too hard to kill the charecter ( although Pendant or Ring sucks ).

fubukii
16-03-2009, 03:24
throwing big snowballs may knock the snowmans torso off, and i dont know many things that can live being detached from its lower torso! :)

Shamfrit
16-03-2009, 03:29
Yeah, in exactly the same way that throwing snowballs is a good way to kill a snowman.

I was more thinking along the lines of 'fight fire with fire,' but yes, I can see how that logic can be construed as a twisted variant of the Pokemon Attack Type Chart :p

'It's not very effective!'

fubukii
16-03-2009, 03:33
I think the reason people hate thirsters copared to dragons, is because of the army.

Daemons are pure cheese as an army. It's hard to build a bad list and losses come from retard mistakes and bad dice.

HE are a fairly balanced army on the whole, for a after O+G book.
Dark Elves aren't inherently broken but they can have some really cheesey builds and combos.

I think Obsidian armour is terrible though. It's not like any magic items can really super threaten a thirster, sometimes there one of a few ways an army has to deal with one. Take O+G. What can they do? 8 bolt chukkas, or bust. Not to mention the fact the army is ****ed from deployment against demons anyway. There are a few ways you can hit a thirster with magic/items but thats ****ed from obsidian armour and MR2.
A DE dragon can be magicked, or shot at, and while can be made tough as ****, is a lot more expensive then a BT. Can be just as hard, or less in combat.
A HE dragon isn't that big of a deal. I never really found them to be too hard to kill.
And elves are T3, so it's not too hard to kill the charecter ( although Pendant or Ring sucks ).

blood thristers can totally be magiced down dont let mr2 fool you, Most daemon armies including a thrister probably will only have 5 dd roughly ( token 3 x 10 horror core) Use your spells to target his horrors/flamers/furies so he burns his dispel dice then throw down the nasty spells at the thrister. it worked fairly well last time i played daemons with my skaven ( nothing like zapping a thrister :P) Granted i will admit not every army has spells like bolt of change, infernal gateway, warped lightning, etc to kill a thrister out right, but even spells like dazzling brightness (make him ws1) burning gaze ( if he dont take a sundering banner) work ok.

Voodoo Boyz
16-03-2009, 03:33
true the thrister can reroll hits so can they de, The he will average the same amount of hits as a thrister due to higher amount of attacks, and true they can be ran down if they wiff which is nice, but by the same token ive seen blood thristers lose combat and poof :). As for a thrister being str7, most tournament thristers will not have the firestorm blade in case they have to play against high elves, but now that i think about it given that he population as gone down greatly i guess the blade will make more appearences in competitive daemon tournament armies.

Thrister with immortal fury = 6.1 hits at str6 or 7
star dragon he lord 6.66 hits on average str6/7
DE lord on dragon 7.96 hits with hatred, 5.94 without, probably all str 6 pending on build of dreadlord.

I agree that blood thristers are insanely awesome, im just trying to say that star dragons and dark elf dragonlords are basically equally powerful offensively, and have some other goodies ( like the breath weapon) to help compensate for the thristers advantages (immune to pysc, Mr2). I feel that because the bloodthrister is a daemon model it automatically gets more hate on it then things of similar stature and power

As someone who's been playing with the Unkillable DE Lord + Dragon for a few months now, I'm going to disagree with you.

The DE Lord on Dragon is exceptionally easier to kill and run down than it is to deal with the Thirster. First off, on a one-on-one fight, Thirster wins. The Dragon is tough, but not *that* hard to kill depending on what kind of lord you're fighting, or even tougher troops that can get up to S6.

The thing about the Thirster is that unless he's fighting a Star Dragon, he will be nigh untouchable thanks to Obsidian Armor, oh and WS10. ;)

fubukii
16-03-2009, 03:41
im not comparing them vs each other as if you wanted you can fly away and never fight each other, im comparing thier damage potential vs other units, yes 1vs1 a thrister will beat them due to being able to smack around the dragon, but luckily you dont have to kill a thrister to beat a doc army :P

Draconian77
16-03-2009, 03:50
@Draconian: The Warpstone rule is only a rumour as of yet, but shards of the Chaos Moon and the very solidified essence of the Warp itself fired at something made of the Warp is going to hurt.

I really don't mind if they do as it will only affect a fraction of the units that we see on the table top(barring DoC of course)
However, since the HE where released we have seen more ASF in the other books. If this ward save mechanic is GW answers to Daemons I feel its a poorly thought out one.
Stop releasing a rock and then trying to re-invent paper in the next book!
(Hmm, so this is my paranoid side...)

Shamfrit, there is little point in telling people to "play better", there is a limit to how flawlessly a game of WHFB can be played and if, after playing a flawless game with innovative tactics you still come away with massive losses what then?

I am primarily a gamer and for a game to be most fun I have always felt that it should be quite balanced so that the result is hard to determine until the end(assuming an average game, no ill fated dice rolls, equally skilled players, zero sudden onsets of cardiac arrest...)

The DoC book is blatantly too powerful in certain areas.

@Fubukii: I do somewhat agree with you, Dragons are another unit where your army may or may not have a counter but at least if it fluffs its attacks you can run it down and they are much easier to take down if you do get some "dragon killers" into combat with them.

SuperArchMegalon
16-03-2009, 04:01
The fact that the Thirster has only 1 profile is a huge advantage in itself. Dragon riders are vulnerable to missile fire, Thirster and his 5+ WS aren't as much. In CC with the DE lord+Dragon you can beat on the Dragon with any combat character or combat unit, to run him down. Both rider and Dragon have weaknesses that can be exploited to the disadvantage of the player, this doesn't happen with a BT.

decker_cky
16-03-2009, 08:39
The fact that the Thirster has only 1 profile is a huge advantage in itself. Dragon riders are vulnerable to missile fire, Thirster and his 5+ WS aren't as much. In CC with the DE lord+Dragon you can beat on the Dragon with any combat character or combat unit, to run him down. Both rider and Dragon have weaknesses that can be exploited to the disadvantage of the player, this doesn't happen with a BT.

Don't you get it? The pendant lord IS the 5+ ward save. :P

chaospantz
16-03-2009, 09:43
havent read any of the other post but loosing models same as VC in break test would seem to help balance out the uber but kicking that they have. I would throw out there that they should get to roll there ward save to help balance out how devistating this could be and to make up for the fact that VC would get to rez there models after they die while DoC don't.

Voodoo Boyz
16-03-2009, 11:58
im not comparing them vs each other as if you wanted you can fly away and never fight each other, im comparing thier damage potential vs other units, yes 1vs1 a thrister will beat them due to being able to smack around the dragon, but luckily you dont have to kill a thrister to beat a doc army :P

I'm not saying the Thirster is better because in a straight up fight he beats the other guys. As you said, one can just fly around out of the others charge arc and not fight them all game.

I'm saying in general, it's easier to kill the other creatures. Either straight up killing them, or beating them in combat and then running them down. Once the Thirster hits combat, there's very little in the game that will kill him.

That was sort of my point - if I had to pick one of the big nasties in the game - I'd go with the Thirster.

EvC
16-03-2009, 12:30
There is a massive difference between any old player regardless of level 'seriously challenging an experienced player' and an actual, rock hard player using the same list; a Daemon/fantasy noob is not going to walk all over me regardless of the list he's using.

Anecdote time, two days ago a new Daemon player who knows very little about tactics suffered badly by being baited into a 3 way charge. That unit had a Great Unclean one, a Herald BSB, and died entirely 3 turns later. Over 1000 points wiped out by about 500 points of mine.

Well considering that he couldn't have known his army's rules very well if he was placing a Greater Daemon in a unit of Plaguebearers, I dread to think where else he went wrong. Any idiot can drive a ferrari into a wall, but that doesn't mean I'd be wrong to bet on the ferrari if racing against a skoda ;)


People can exploit the ITP army wide to tragic effect for the unwary Daemon player - it is not an insta-win to plop down a Bloodthirster, not by a long shot. I may just be resilient and have learned to combat Daemons, it's a shame others haven't listened to past advice in countless related threads and tried to do the same.

Key point in bold- yes, you can beat Daemons, if the person using them is a tool (and they can afford to be, since they're using Daemons). The most telling battle report against Daemons I ever read was one of Malorian's, where he expertly raised Zombies and Dansed them into a Bloodthirster's rear, and then had the BT overrun away from his army, thereby preventing the BT from destroying him. Except, of course, you don't get to overrun when charged, and a BT is not forced to overrun anyway. Yep, if you botch rules and they play badly, then Daemons aren't so bad. One of my finest victories against Daemons involved a BT charging my Tyrant in the flank, my Tyrant surviving on one wound and then squishing the BT. Sure I played fantastically elsewhere that game- but it was still the dice that done it.

Next time we play, I'll use Daemons, for the first time. Will be neat to see if you can put your money where your mouth is once again ;)

W0lf
16-03-2009, 17:53
*face palm*

Your right shamfrit, if the daemon player is as clued up about fantasy as i am about.. erm... KFC's secret chicken receipe then you will ofc trash him.

What you need to realise is that simply by picking your army from the Daemons book you have an advantage.

Simply put if i ranked two players in my group out of 10 for skill;

Wolfmother (this forum) would be about a 7 whilst Papa wolf would be about 5 (he dosnt play much and likes weaker armies). If i gave Papa wolf a daemons army written to win he would trash wolfmother everytime without fail.

Thats the power of daemons.

Lordsaradain
16-03-2009, 22:42
No. that would be boring and make daemons less unique. Yes daemons are OP and may need fixing, but not by giving them UD crumble.

nosferatu1001
17-03-2009, 12:54
Daemons dont take break tests, instead take Instability Tests. As such any rule compelling you to reroll Break Tests does not apply.

As for changing - I voted "yes", as you know you can get rid of some of the damn things. Currently the BSB is used to tactically change your losses, as opposed to a last ditch attempt to stay in the fight.

Storak
17-03-2009, 13:22
Daemons dont take break tests, instead take Instability Tests. As such any rule compelling you to reroll Break Tests does not apply.

As for changing - I voted "yes", as you know you can get rid of some of the damn things. Currently the BSB is used to tactically change your losses, as opposed to a last ditch attempt to stay in the fight.

the instability test is a special break test. unless noted otherwise, all rules for breaktests apply to it.

i think there is a significant argument against the choice in taking the test.