PDA

View Full Version : Competitiveness of Demons?



matthewmw64
05-06-2010, 13:40
Hi all,

Having shelved my SoB for the time being, in case of anew codex, my eye looks toward a new Army. What I'm currently most tempted by is a Slaanesh/Khorne Demons army, especially with the nice new models coming out soon ^_^

What I'm wanting to know is how good are they on the tabletop? I'd most likely take them to a tournament at some point, (Easy Transportability ftw :D) so I'd want them to actually be semi-decent on he tabletop.

Can anyone be of any assistance?

Thanks,
Matthew

Dark Primus
05-06-2010, 13:41
They are easy to shoot down. You are going to need at least 2 Soul Grinders to back them up with firepower and you are going to need fast units so you can get in to CC fast.

Radium
05-06-2010, 14:51
They are easy to shoot down. You are going to need at least 2 Soul Grinders to back them up with firepower and you are going to need fast units so you can get in to CC fast.

I disagree with this, but thatīs not really the point.

Daemons are fine if you master the army. They are pretty horrible if you just slap them down somewhere.

solkan
05-06-2010, 18:14
What's the easiest way to describe daemons...

The Daemon codex has a unit to respond to any problem. The difficulty is that many of the units have difficulty responding to many different problems.

TheDireAvenger
05-06-2010, 18:17
I actually have the same question as the OP.

But are Soul Grinders competitive? Most Daemon lists I see take 3 Daemon Princes instead due to "It's the only tank in your army so everyone and their mom with a AV12+ weapon is gonna shoot it".

I always thought of it as a slightly better Defiler which is not that good. Who uses Soul grinders to good effect for tournaments?

Spider-pope
05-06-2010, 18:37
In my albeit limited experience, Daemons can be very competitive. But what i have found is that you either win big, or lose miserably with Daemons. The nature of their deployment means if an early roll goes wrong it can screw up the rest of your game with not much chance of recovery.
They also seem to play best with an aggressive play style, they don't favour conservative players at all - something i learnt through several humiliating defeats. But once you get the hang of them, they have the potential to prod buttock, if not kick ****, as long as you don't suffer from terrible luck during deployment.

Reaver83
05-06-2010, 18:41
They have a steep learning curve. You need to learn how to play to your style, some people drop tough units and hope they survive shooting. Others like fast slaneeshy stuff to pin opponents in ccombat whilst khorne stuff does the killings, others find the shooting be it grinder, or tezeench heralds a good idea. Once you know how to play them to your style they can be very competative, as frankly they are often great against your local meta game

solkan
05-06-2010, 18:46
I've actually had a fair amount of luck using a single soul grinders. I have a second one, but I've had better luck using either: a pair of princes and the single grinder; or three princes.

I think I'm starting to prefer one grinder and two princes just because "I'll shoot my anti-tank at the vehicle and not the monstrous creature" can be the wrong choice.

DaR
05-06-2010, 19:04
Demons are not generally considered one of the most competitive codexes, right now. There are builds that are more competitive than others, but they're pretty specific.

Demons obviously excel at melee as a whole. Especially Khorne/Slaanesh combo. Fiends, Bloodletters, Bloodcrushers, Bloodthirsters, Keepers of Secrets, and Heralds or Demon Princes of both types are all capable of seriously messing up opposing units if you can deliver them into combat.

First problem is that as a whole, the army lacks anti-tank punch, especially at range. Tzeentch shooty with Bolt is not horrible, but it's not amazing and bolts are pretty expensive to get to (either single models on expensive troops or expensive characters). Breath is a little easier to get, but much less effective in 5th than it was in 4th (4+ glances are now much less likely to kill tanks).

If you don't take Tzeentch or want to stick to pure Khorne/Slannesh, that leaves monstrous creatures and Soul Grinders as your other options. The MCs need wings or the equivalent to get there in time, and Soul Grinders are the only tanks in whole army, which means they'll attract all the AT fire the instant they drop in. Either way, your options are going to be individually expensive, and possibly weak to being shot up by the full weight of the opposing army's firepower.

The other problem you'll run into is the 'dead turn'. Especially with Khorne and Slaanesh, your troops are not especially durable and have no ranged attacks. So they're going to appear from deep strike, and then stand out in the relative open for a full turn, waiting to assault, while the opponent attempts to pour as much fire as he can into them. If you're lucky, your full squad will have just enough models left after this shooting to be able to destroy the nearest unit it can charge. 3-4 Bloodletters will pretty much demolish a marine squad on the charge, for instance. You can mitigate this in various ways, such as dropping into cover or behind other, more durable models (Nurgle Plaguebearers are more durable than marines against most shooting, for the same cost, and Bloodcrushers are also quite durable, while Nurglings are among the cheapest wounds available in any codex, especially with a 5+ invuln save), but that risks not being able to get into combat the very next turn.


The final key to demons is learning to manage your waves and deep strike locations. As mentioned above, dropping things in waves to give follow up waves cover is going to be important if you're running more fragile choices like Fiends or Bloodletters. Some people like to balance their waves with a bit of hard and soft targets so that if you don't get the wave you want, you're still okay. I tend to prefer to overload on killy in my proposed first wave, and leave the durable stuff in the second wave and just hunker down if I get the wrong wave on the roll.

Competitive lists will probably look something like this:

HQ:
1 Greater Demon, probably named (Skarbrand is my favorite, for making my elites absolutely ridiculously good, though Fateweaver can be very strong)
2 Heralds (Khorne/Tzeetch/Slaanesh) or a second Greater Demon

Elites:
0-1 units of Bloodcrushers (kitted individually to soak up damage)
2-3 units of Fiends of Slaanesh (best value in the codex, period)

Flamers are also very good, but they're unfortunately suicide units, which Demons can ill afford in a competitive scenario.

Troops:
The only place Demons are spoiled for choice. Bloodletters and Plaguebearers are both excellent choices. Horrors are solid, but only if you're going to max out on the shooting side of things. Nurglings are a dirt cheap way to allow you to stack your waves to your liking and drop late game to contest objectives or give cover saves to more fragile units.

My personal preference is for 4-6 units of Plaguebearers in smallish numbers (5-7) that I use solely to hold objectives. I've also played around with builds that used 2-3 largish units of Bloodletters and then filled in with Plaguebearers and Nurglings to give cover to the Bloodletters until they can charge.

Fast Attack:
Don't bother. Seekers of Saanesh or Fleshounds can kinda sorta work in the right build, but are vastly less useful in a tourney army than the same points in other slots.

Heavy Support:
3 Demon Princes (At least Iron Hide, probably wings if your HQs don't have fast movement already, and Unholy Strength on anything that's not Nurgle)
or
3 Soul Grinders (Phlegm. Possibly Tongue if you didn't take 3 Fiends and 2 MC HQs)

Don't mix and match here. Run all 3 of one or all 3 of the other. Any less than 3 Soul Grinders and they'll probably be picked off one by one as they come in via all available melta/lascannon type weapons. Which is better is a bit of preference. Grinders are way better against Orks, 'nids, and any army full of units that can't deal with AV13 in assault Princes are better against any army that spams Melta or Lance weapons and doesn't also rely on pure torrent of regular troop type-shooting.

This is the list I took to the last major tourney I went to:

1 Skarbrand, The Exiled One @ 300 pts
1 Herald of Khorne @ 100 pts (Unholy Might; Chariot of Khorne)
1 Herald of Khorne @ 100 pts (Unholy Might; Chariot of Khorne)
6 Fiends of Slaanesh @ 190 pts (Unholy Might x1)
6 Fiends of Slaanesh @ 190 pts (Unholy Might x1)
6 Fiends of Slaanesh @ 190 pts (Unholy Might x1)
1 Soul Grinder of Chaos @ 160 pts (Mawcannon - Phlegm)
1 Soul Grinder of Chaos @ 160 pts (Mawcannon - Phlegm)
1 Soul Grinder of Chaos @ 160 pts (Mawcannon - Phlegm)
5 Plaguebearers of Nurgle @ 75 pts
5 Plaguebearers of Nurgle @ 75 pts
5 Plaguebearers of Nurgle @ 75 pts
5 Plaguebearers of Nurgle @ 75 pts
5 Plaguebearers of Nurgle @ 75 pts
5 Plaguebearers of Nurgle @ 75 pts

This got me 70 Battlepoints (in a many way tie for 3rd for BP, as the leaders had 80 and a few people had 75). My biggest loss was to the person who initially won overall and was later disqualified for cheating. My other problem matchup was a Deathwing army, where I just could not hope to kill 3 Land Raiders and deal with 15 Terminators at the same time in a KP-oriented mission.

My typical split was to put 5 PB units, 1 Fiend unit, and Skarbrand into my second wave, and then overload the first wave with the 3 Grinders, the 2 Heralds, and the remaining PB and 2 Fiend units. If things go well, the enemy is overwhelmed trying to kill the grinders and and heralds, and the fiends can drop back in cover. Then once the fiends and heralds have moved into position to assault, Skarbrand is just hitting the table, making them murderdeathmaimkill machines while the PBs drop on any objectives (or into distant corners of cover if it's a KP mission). If I get the wrong wave, one or two PB units get sacrificed to the greater good to give everything else cover while my second wave of heavies come in.

This is the list I'm probably going to try next, once I've finished with my current Ork project:

1 Skarbrand, The Exiled One @ 300 pts
1 Fateweaver, Oracle of Tzeentch @ 333 pts
5 Bloodcrushers of Khorne @ 215 pts (Fury of Khorne x1; Instrument of Chaos x1)
6 Fiends of Slaanesh @ 190 pts (Unholy Might x1)
6 Fiends of Slaanesh @ 190 pts (Unholy Might x1)
1 Daemon Prince of Chaos @ 155 pts (Iron Hide; Mark of Nurgle; Cloud of Flies; Noxious Touch)
1 Daemon Prince of Chaos @ 155 pts (Iron Hide; Mark of Nurgle; Cloud of Flies; Noxious Touch)
1 Daemon Prince of Chaos @ 155 pts (Iron Hide; Mark of Nurgle; Cloud of Flies; Noxious Touch)
5 Plaguebearers of Nurgle @ 75 pts
5 Plaguebearers of Nurgle @ 75 pts
5 Plaguebearers of Nurgle @ 75 pts
5 Plaguebearers of Nurgle @ 75 pts

The goal here will be to maximize the durability of the Princes, Bloodcrushers, and Greater Demons with Fateweaver. In most games, I'll probably split for overwheming first wave again, with Fateweaver, Skarbrand, the 3 Princes, and one of the Fiend units in the favored wave, and the Plaguebearers, Bloodcrushers, and second Fiend unit in the reserve wave. If I get the waves reversed, again, one PB unit will shield the rest, waiting for the heavies to arrive from reserve.

matthewmw64
05-06-2010, 23:00
/snip

Thanks for the epic post of Content :) Exactly the kind of thing i appreciate :D

TBH, it looks like the "competitive" list of Demons is not really what I'd want to run at a tourney (more for flavor reasons then anything), so I think I might give them a pass :/ If only they were as good as their Fantasy Counterparts :P

solkan
05-06-2010, 23:48
Here's the recipe that I've used that's gotten me free models four times:

Pick a greater daemon. Pick two heralds. Alternately, take four heralds; or take two greater daemons.

Pick a handful of flamers, a handful of blood crushers, and a handful of fiends. If you prefer, substitute one flavor for another.

Pick a handful of screamers, a handful of flesh hounds, and in August a handful of seekers. Some of these models are optional.

Pick three models for heavy support. Make sure that two of those models are daemon princes. One or two of these models are optional.

Pick six handfuls of troops, being mindful of which flavors you prefer. Two green, two purple, and two red works's just fine, since some people are fussy about pastels. Keep in mind that in an objective game, half of the effort is being used to claim objectives on your opponent's side of the table so troops that can kill MEQ's or that have assault grenades have good uses.

That's a recipe which is just as competitive, and won't have you gouging your eyes out from boredom putting it together or playing with it.

DeviantApostle
06-06-2010, 11:35
After playing a few games with them: troops, troops and more troops. Other armies may let you get away with minimum troop choices, Daemons isn't one of those lists. Which is why I'm looking forward to plastic Pink Horrors as a Tzeench/Slaanesh player.

Also, in general, if you have a choice between fielding a normal choice and a Special Character, take the special character.

I've found that Soul Grinders are great but I prefer to keep 'em cheap, get them into hand to hand and soak up incoming fire. The large blast template is kinda silly since you'll be up close and personal to start with and probably surrounded by your whole army because everything deep strikes, I've seen alot of newbies kill more of their own troops than the enemy by hoiking the loogie from the Soul Grinder.

matthewmw64
06-06-2010, 11:46
What size units of the various demons is it "optimal" to run? I was thinking units of 10 each, but maybe maxed is the best idea.

DeviantApostle
06-06-2010, 13:23
I hate saying it but it depends on the unit. I field mainly Tzeench, so I rely on the shooting phase, have a nice 4+ Invulnerable save and don't have to worry so much about cover, so I can place them right in the open to mitigate deep strike mishaps.

Long story short: the tougher the choice is to kill, the less of them you can afford to take, but Slaanesh units work best in large numbers because they rely on weight of attacks rather than quality. The only problem I have with the Khorne/Slaanesh combo is that Daemonettes are only 2 points less than the Bloodletters but the Bloodletters are far more reliable and point efficient.

So, optimally, you max out Slaanesh units but 10 or so Bloodletters or 4 Bloodcrushers are good unit choices if you're dedicated not going all out Khorne. Slaanesh tends to make up for itself with Fiends and especially Seekers, though, due to the movement phase.

matthewmw64
06-06-2010, 23:09
Does anyione know of anything I could use instead of the Fiends models? They're kinda expensive, and kinda ugly too :p

Will try get an example list up tonight too, if anyone'd be willing to comment on it.

solkan
07-06-2010, 00:50
One of the substitutions that I've seen a lot is spider hybrids for fiends--the upper half of a daemonette figure, and spider from the spider riders in the Fantasy starter box.

Then again, a spool of wire, a few boxes of milliput and some sculpting tools might work just as well. The current figure isn't a particularly high hurdle to meet. :o

williamhm
07-06-2010, 01:10
Would a troop mix of 3 squads deomanettes and 3 squads horrors work out troop choice wise? I love the fluff of slaanesh and tzynch and am thinking of demons.

DaR
07-06-2010, 01:57
Does anyione know of anything I could use instead of the Fiends models? They're kinda expensive, and kinda ugly too
My fiends were made by using a bunch of spawn sprues for tentacles, and adding those to Chaos Hounds. That gave me the look of cavalry (hounds), plus the look of "lots of attacks", with 5-6 tentacles each.

As far as troops and unit sizes go, my list above shows I'm a big fan of minimum sized Plaguebearer units. They're really tough enough to survive a while, especially in cover.

For Bloodletters and Daemonettes, you pretty much need to go as large as you can afford. I'd never run either with less than 8-10, and would prefer 12-16. Horrors can go either way. Lots of small units, or a few bigger units; the rest of your army will inform your choice (I've seen a lot of builds that basically go with two units of 20, and then stick heralds and/or Tzeentch greater demons into each unit).

Plaguebearers and nurglings I'd keep small, unless you're running an Epidemius list, in which case, I'd probably start looking at units of 10-12 Plaguebearers and 6-9 Nurglings.

mafty
07-06-2010, 02:21
ah the army I would love to build but hold back because I know it would be such a struggle playing that I just cant justify ever building one.

So many other armies get reserve bonuses, scatter options (1d6, rerolls, etc), that it seems so silly the only all deepstrike army gets nothing, but "I hope you like the ****** deepstrike rules in the BRB". Oh, also hope you dont scatter poorly with that 300 pt HQ and roll a 1-2 on the mishap table.


To the person a couple posts above, I cant see how skarbrand is any good? he lets your opponent get rerolls as well......why would you want to give your opponent rerolls?

DuskRaider
07-06-2010, 04:52
I use a Nurgle / Khorne Daemonzilla combo, which tends to do quite well, actually. Works like this:

HQ:
Bloodthirster w/ Strength

Great Unclean One w/ BoC

Elite:
Bloodcrushers (number depends on points)

Troops:
Bloodletters, usually two groups of 15 if points allow

Plaguebearers, usually groups of 7 w/ Icons

Fast:
Yeah, right.

Heavy:
Daemon Princes, usually Nurgle but have been known to use a Winged Khorne w/ Strength to accompany my BT. I'll occasionally throw in a Soul Grinder (or two, depending on the opponent), but more often than not DPs do better due to their smaller footprint on DS, easier to get cover, and are often neglected due to the Greater Daemons or the sight of massed Bloodletters.

This list has gotten me pretty much 100% wins. I used it for a couple years until my local opponents kindly asked me to put it away, lol. I didn't think it was that powerful on paper, but it really comes down to Daemons really screwing the meta and the fact they have NO clue where my army will be (unless they go in reserves).

When you're playing Daemons, you have to have brass ones and take risks constantly. For example, I was able to table my friend's Tau in 1.5 turns due to taking insane risks and having them pay off. Granted, it all comes down to dice rolls, but with Daemons it's usually all or nothing, no matter the circumstances.

Reinholt
07-06-2010, 05:24
Having seen them played some myself, I would say the following:

1 - People are right that you need a decent amount of troops. Slaanesh is weak here, as the daemonettes are ridiculously fragile and are not much cheaper than either bloodletters or plaguebearers, both of which are superior (either for hitting power or toughness).

2 - For your heavy support, I concur with the people saying to take multiples. The best lists I have seen are either three soulgrinders or three daemon princes. Whatever you take, in my view, you should take 2-3 of and not take the other kind, as this will stress whatever weapons your foe has that can reliably harm them. Daemon princes also have nice synergy with the greater daemons on this front, also.

3 - Agreed that some combination of bloodcrushers, flamers, and fiends is optimal. You don't need all of them, but having some definitely helps.

Overall, in terms of results, the army can do well because people are often not terribly familiar with them and they can do very well if things break right. You have to understand how to play them even if your dice are not on for deep striking or the initial wave (have more than one plan as to how to use the army if luck is not on your side, basically), but they can be competitive. I have seen the Bloodthirster / Bloodthirster / Bloodcrushers / Plaguebearers / Triple DP list tear some people up, among others.

matthewmw64
07-06-2010, 12:29
Well, so far I've got this down:

Keeper of Secrets - 200pts
Skarbrand - 300pts

6 Fiends of Slaanesh - 180pts
6 Fiends of Slaanesh - 180pts
5 Bloodcrushers - 200pts

10 Bloodletters - 160pts
10 Bloodletters - 160pts
5 Plaguebearer's - Icon - 100pts
5 Plaguebearer's - Icon - 100pts
5 Plaguebearer's - Icon - 100pts

That's 1680 points and it's still missing Upgrades and heavies (Which I'd like to be Princes). Can anyone make some suggestions?

the Goat
07-06-2010, 12:38
The Daemon codex has a unit to respond to any problem. The difficulty is that many of the units have difficulty responding to many different problems.

I agree 100%. For daemons to be competitive you need to have just about every choice in the book available. Then you build your army around who you are facing.

Fighting against power armor? Take bloodletters and flamers. Tyranids? Horrors and greater daemons. etc.

matthewmw64
07-06-2010, 12:40
I agree 100%. For daemons to be competitive you need to have just about every choice in the book available. Then you build your army around who you are facing.

Fighting against power armor? Take bloodletters and flamers. Tyranids? Horrors and greater daemons. etc.

Obviously though, you can't really do that at a Tournament, the kind of setting i like to build my list's for ;)

the Goat
07-06-2010, 12:45
Obviously though, you can't really do that at a Tournament, the kind of setting i like to build my list's for ;)
Very true. Daemons is probably the last army I would take to a tournament.

clangedinn
07-06-2010, 18:07
If you are truly interested in a Tourney level list there are a few build out there but look into a list called Fate/crusher.

Basically Fateweaver with a ton of Blood crushers as back. Toss in three DP, a few units of Pb to hold objectives and what ever other troop choice you like.

Daemons can be very competitive but they have a steep learning curve and you have to be willing to accept the choices of the dice gods and know what your threat assessment truly is.

a well played daemon army is a site to see and most folks dont expect it to smash them like it does.
Alot of time and effort has to go into your build and knowing exactly what your troops need to do.

Dont expect it to be dropped on that able and play itself like some armies do, you will be thinking and reacting the whole game though what you truly want to do is to keep your opponent reacting to you.

also there is a ton of great info in the following link http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=156939

DJ3
07-06-2010, 19:50
also there is a ton of great info in the following link http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=156939

This. Come visit us in the Daemon Thread. But feel free to skip the first 150 or so pages.

There's some very bad information in some of the posts in this thread, some of which is so bad it leads me to believe they might be Daemonhunter players trying to trick you into running a bad list.

Also, we're less likely to get in trouble if we just give you good advice, rather than quoting people and saying "this is stupid, don't do this" out here.

mafty
07-06-2010, 23:09
I can say I did see an all nurgle 1850 daemon list do qutie well at a 30 man RTT not long ago.

Basically it looked like (never played him):

greater daemon
it might have been the special character they have as well

lots of plaguebearers

couple beasts of nurgle

3 princes


I think the fact everything has FNP makes it truly difficult to destroy it

clangedinn
07-06-2010, 23:33
There is a Lsit which uses a special character herald named Epidemius. He is the tallyman of nurgle and each time a model from nurgle kills another model the tally goes up allowing larger and larger buffs to nurgle models. Its a fun army to run to be honest.

DeviantApostle
08-06-2010, 02:52
To the person a couple posts above, I cant see how skarbrand is any good? he lets your opponent get rerolls as well......why would you want to give your opponent rerolls?

If you meant me, I'll admit, Skarbrand is one of the exceptions unless you want fluffy Khorne. I did forget about him since I don't run Khorne. Blue Scribes are also expensive for what they do. Epidemius might be a bit iffy unless you're going all Nurgle. The rest, however, are golden.

DeviantApostle
08-06-2010, 03:03
Would a troop mix of 3 squads deomanettes and 3 squads horrors work out troop choice wise? I love the fluff of slaanesh and tzynch and am thinking of demons.

If you're going to run Tzeench/Slaanesh, be prepared to lose. Alot. I know from experience.

I do it because I'm crazy and love the models and background. Daemonettes are great at one thing: dying in vast numbers on turn 1. This might not be as much of a problem if they didn't rely on the vast numbers that die to make up the difference. Losing to Guardsmen in close combat is embarassing. Horrors are more resilient and great against anything that's not a Space Marine. Against Space Marines they die horribly without inflicting much damage.

If you wan to be competitive with the 'dex, Chaos Undivided is the way to go.

mafty
08-06-2010, 04:07
There is a Lsit which uses a special character herald named Epidemius. He is the tallyman of nurgle and each time a model from nurgle kills another model the tally goes up allowing larger and larger buffs to nurgle models. Its a fun army to run to be honest.

meh, the buffs are okay......you need to get pretty high on the kill chart for it to become really good (ie 20+ kills)

TheTrueSloth
08-06-2010, 10:42
meh, the buffs are okay......you need to get pretty high on the kill chart for it to become really good (ie 20+ kills)

Honestly I'd disagree, as soon a you get the FNP! value for your nurgle units increased it drastically improves their staying power (and ultimately overall performance), which I personally value more than having plague bearers with power weapons :eek:

Toodles

Thoume
08-06-2010, 15:06
If you're going to run Tzeench/Slaanesh, be prepared to lose. Alot. I know from experience.

I do it because I'm crazy and love the models and background. Daemonettes are great at one thing: dying in vast numbers on turn 1. This might not be as much of a problem if they didn't rely on the vast numbers that die to make up the difference. Losing to Guardsmen in close combat is embarassing. Horrors are more resilient and great against anything that's not a Space Marine. Against Space Marines they die horribly without inflicting much damage.

If you wan to be competitive with the 'dex, Chaos Undivided is the way to go.
I've thought of doing something like this if I were to get daemons. The thought of Deepstriking 20 or so horrors next to an enemy unit and obliterating them with 60 Str 4 shots (or 57 Str 4 and a Str 8) is pretty scary. Though I imagine the ork / guard mindset of volume of shots / attacks doesn't work as well with daemons?

DJ3
08-06-2010, 15:27
Though I imagine the ork / guard mindset of volume of shots / attacks doesn't work as well with daemons?

This. 60 Lasgun shots would not be scary if there weren't also a dozen Tanks behind it, and 60 Shoota shots would not be scary if the Boyz weren't about to punch your faces in.

Pink Horrors tend to disappoint, horribly, since 50%+ of your opponents will be wearing Power Armor, whom they do terribly against. Your 20 Deep Striking Pink Horrors would kill half a Tactical Squad.

Brucopeloso
08-06-2010, 15:39
This. 60 Lasgun shots would not be scary if there weren't also a dozen Tanks behind it, and 60 Shoota shots would not be scary if the Boyz weren't about to punch your faces in.

Pink Horrors tend to disappoint, horribly, since 50%+ of your opponents will be wearing Power Armor, whom they do terribly against. Your 20 Deep Striking Pink Horrors would kill half a Tactical Squad.

That's what flamers (of Tzeentch) are for! :D
Honestly Horrors are great as anti light to medium infantry and for grabbing objectives and not too shabby at holding up small elite squads or characters in combat...... for all the rest you use the flamers!

Hashmal
08-06-2010, 16:26
...except that everybody is in a blasted transport these days and appropriate Flamer use practically requires near-suicidal Deep Strikes.

Were 5th edition not so vehicle heavy, Flamers would see more use and a lot more hate on teh interwebz. As it stands, they're decent, but our Elites slot is not short on amazing choices and Flamers tend to come up short.

Personally, I take 2x squads of Bloodcrushers and 1x full squad of Fiends, several other large targets (love my MCs, I really do), and just dare you to kill it all before it makes Play-Doh of your face.

BladeWalker
08-06-2010, 16:44
I played a less than optimized Daemon list at a tourney over the weekend and got 2 Draws and a Loss but I had a great time. I have seen Crusher heavy lists and Epidemius lists do pretty good in the past. The unpredictable nature of Daemons makes them tough for tourneys, but they are a great army for having a good time and playing something very different from the usual 40k armies.

Worsle
08-06-2010, 17:23
Are daemons competitive? No.

You want more details? Well some one earlier said they had a unit to deal with every thing, that would be true if you ignore all the tanks in the game. The lack of reliable anti tank in the 5th edition is not a good place to be in. From there there are other problems like low mobility after deep striking for much of the codex (yes there are some ways round it but it really limits your choices). Having only 3 possible vehicles in the list is also a problem, even if you take all 3 possible soulgrinders that is still only 3 units with an AV in your army. Daemons are just a troubled codex, witch is a pity given how much more interesting it could have been if only it had come out after the design shift into C:SM.

Only daemon army I really like is the all cavalry army, slannesh heralds on chariots, fiends and flesh hounds. It has mobility and though shier weight of S5 attacks you can take out most vehicles or anything else in your path, remember rear armour is normally 10. However AV14 all rounds are an issue but the codex just does not have the tools so what can you do? Also please don't say us a MC, you need a large volume of attacks to pop a tank in melee and MCs don't have that. Walkers are also something of an issue, but again that is something of an army theme. Though even if you are going for a less competitive daemon army I would not leave home without 3 squads of fiends.

Also I do mean that is the only daemon army I really like. Fatecrusher is not competitive or more should not be. It is a one trick pony and does not even deal with mech that well. There is no way that should do well in a competitive environment without a large diffrence in player skill or some thing else screwy happening.

clangedinn
08-06-2010, 17:43
6 str 8 MC attacks is not a large enough amount to pop tanks? The only vehicle which gives a ton of issues to Daemons are av14 vehicles an we can use unholy might Thirsters for that.

I do not agree with Worsle's observations at all. I have been very successful in tourneys and my own meta with my daemon army.

In the long run play what you like, model what you enjoy. And have a good time. As stated and I know you posted in the thread if you would like a ton of great Daemon information there is a link in my sig.

bocaj
08-06-2010, 17:55
There is a Lsit which uses a special character herald named Epidemius. He is the tallyman of nurgle and each time a model from nurgle kills another model the tally goes up allowing larger and larger buffs to nurgle models. Its a fun army to run to be honest.

Yeh its a good list if you canuse it well. Its probs makes nurglings the best swarm in the game, swarms with poisoned weapons 2+ and ignors aumor. Ouch. WOuld be good when allied with some CSM who has a fair bit of nurgle.

I think flamers are great but i want to try use them in a squad thats survivable so not a suiside unit. THey have done me proud on many occations, killing assault squads, termies, loads of tacticals, swathes of gaurdsmen, killing a leman russ and chimera in 1 turn (4th ed)...

I think demons are fairly competitive but you either slaughter or get slaughtered. Look at RRT's battle reports for some great playing with them. He's won alot and has a veriaty of armies.

Worsle
08-06-2010, 17:57
clangedinn: Not it is really not, even more so when it is on such an overly expensive platform. You should be assuming you need 6+ to hit a tank in melee, you then need to beat the AV and then you need to role well on the damage chart. That should not be seen as good in any ones book. This is why you need a unit like fiends or fleshhounds who can put out the large number of attacks you need. The blood thirstier does not even get re-rolls, at least that would not make it such a long shot.

TheTrueSloth
08-06-2010, 20:25
*slowly moves away from the massive target painted above Worsle's head, mops up brain running from nose through sheer shock*

Right...I'm not sure how to respond to this one. Not because I think you're right, but because I'm genuinely baffled how you came to half those conclusions. No disrespect intended at all, but I am genuinely baffled.


Are daemons competitive? No.

...some one earlier said they had a unit to deal with every thing, that would be true if you ignore all the tanks in the game. The lack of reliable anti tank in the 5th edition is not a good place to be in. From there there are other problems like low mobility after deep striking for much of the codex (yes there are some ways round it but it really limits your choices). Having only 3 possible vehicles in the list is also a problem, even if you take all 3 possible soulgrinders that is still only 3 units with an AV in your army...

Having an AV isn't everything you know, at least when you can have as many tough multi-wound critters with decent saves as we can. Besides, while Grinders are good there are quite a few inadequacies with them that make the princes a more viable choice in larger games. Plus while much of the codex isn't as mobile as we might like, the mobile units we do have tend to cause a lot of destruction or simply really tie up or neutralise the initial threats so that the rest of the army can mop up.


...However AV14 all rounds are an issue but the codex just does not have the tools so what can you do? Also please don't say us a MC, you need a large volume of attacks to pop a tank in melee and MCs don't have that. Walkers are also something of an issue, but again that is something of an army theme....

Fine, if you accept an AV14 all round vehicle constantly moving 12" (BA land raider I assume?) then the 'Thirster's stats are less impressive, BUT, as soon as he does it he stands a good chance of doing some form of damage that's either going to leave it dead in the water or just plain dead. But to equally assume that its' always going to be moving 12" or that you will always be rolling as evenly as mathhammer would like us to believe is naive, as is the assumption that's all the 'Thirster will do. Finally, how often are you going to purely face AV14 all round vehicles? Daemons definitely have a lot more tools for dealing with the enemy than it first appears.

But weak against walkers? Really?!


Also I do mean that is the only daemon army I really like. Fatecrusher is not competitive or more should not be. It is a one trick pony and does not even deal with mech that well. There is no way that should do well in a competitive environment without a large diffrence in player skill or some thing else screwy happening.

Fatecrusher is a lot more competitive than its' given credit for. In essence, it is a rainbow daemon list with the best, most durable units...that is then given the added bonus of Fateweaver to make it nigh-on impossible to kill with shooting. Unlike the Seer/bike council Eldar armies or many of the "Death Star" style units, if you lose Fateweaver then it really isn't a big loss because the army's tactics aren't pivotal to Fatey being around, they just run smoother with him being there. WE also do have AP1 ranged firepower from Tzeentch Heralds, Princes and Laser chickens that can do a remarkable job of harrassing tanks while the army moves in - and while DSing can be one of our biggest weaknesses, its' not like we're Orks in the 4th Ed that have to slog everywhere.

As for my thoughts on the army:

Daemons can be an extremely competitive army, but there is so much working against them it makes it not user friendly. The random (if fluffy) nature of which half of the army comes in means you are constantly having to think on your feet. Deep Striking is always a random and risky affair, but generally the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. Only half the army comes on initially, yes, but this is made up for by the sheer killing power of many of the units in the codex (Bloodcrushers are a perfect example). In many ways they're also a lot like Eldar - each unit has a generally specific job (though unlike Eldar a lot of the units can multitask to some degree) or purpose behind it that combine together to make a (risky) well oiled machine of destruction.

It takes time, practice and patience in order to make a daemon army work, the learning curve is steep and quite often unforgiving. It requires you to adapt and think on your toes, react to your opponent while being assertive all at the same time. However, it does mean that when you gain more experience with the list and find what works for you, it does make for a very potent army, even if its' not as consistently potent as say Guard Mech.

Toodles

Worsle
08-06-2010, 20:51
TheTrueSloth maybe it is because I did not come to all of those conclusions?

I did not say not having lots of vehicles is bad, but having one vehicle in an army that has no other vehicle is not a good thing. Daemons have all of two heavy slot choices, one of witch is invalidated by the fact there are no other vehicles in the army, that is not a good thing is it? Daemons don't have that many options to start with.

Daemons just can't deal with AV14 all rounds properly, yes you can get lucky but there is nothing you can count on. That is fundamental problem with the codex, a bloodthirster is to expencive and does not have enough attacks to be a solution. Also it does not matter how often you face them the fact that daemons do not have the tools to work against an army that can be competative means they can not be competitive them selves. Also as a whole daemons have issues with walkers, anti tank shooting is poor and there are a lot of units that can only really deal with a walker if you get a lucky rending hit. That makes it an army theme, and it is an issue you have to be aware of if running the cavalry army because it relies on rear armour its for its anti tank.

Only fatecrusher is not that tough once you have knocked away the fateweaver. Even worse it is slow and lacks proper anti tank, it does not matter how powerful blood crushers are in combat if they can' get any where or get them out of their tin cans if you (or worse get hit by a walker). This is not a competitive army. Daemons can not be truely competitive becasue they just lack the peaces an army needs to be competitive, they are like nids only worse. So on that note if you want competitive daemons, play nids.

Ozendorph
08-06-2010, 21:27
In my experience:

Soul Grinders are dynamite. Very tough to slow down, tougher to destroy, and when equipped with Phlegm become a big threat for most armies. I do agree you should either take multiples or none (I play with two in my list).

My anti-tank comes in the form of a Bloodthirster, Juggers (S6, 1 has rending), Skulltaker (S6 rending), DP with Unholy Might and MoK, Flesh Hounds w/Karanak (S6/5 Rending x2), and the Grinders. Thus far this has been plenty.

Av14 is a problem (as it is for most armies) but it hasn't been the deciding factor in a game yet for me, and I doubt it will be anytime soon. ymmv.

DJ3
08-06-2010, 21:33
Only daemon army I really like is the all cavalry army, slannesh heralds on chariots, fiends and flesh hounds.

buh? buh?


Also please don't say us a MC, you need a large volume of attacks to pop a tank in melee and MCs don't have that. Walkers are also something of an issue, but again that is something of an army theme.

buh.


Also I do mean that is the only daemon army I really like. Fatecrusher is not competitive or more should not be. It is a one trick pony and does not even deal with mech that well. There is no way that should do well in a competitive environment without a large diffrence in player skill or some thing else screwy happening.

buuuuuuuuuuh


clangedinn: Not it is really not, even more so when it is on such an overly expensive platform. You should be assuming you need 6+ to hit a tank in melee, you then need to beat the AV and then you need to role well on the damage chart. That should not be seen as good in any ones book. This is why you need a unit like fiends or fleshhounds who can put out the large number of attacks you need. The blood thirstier does not even get re-rolls, at least that would not make it such a long shot.

guh, buh.


Daemons just can't deal with AV14 all rounds properly, yes you can get lucky but there is nothing you can count on. That is fundamental problem with the codex, a bloodthirster is to expencive and does not have enough attacks to be a solution.

bluh

(6 * .5[Combat Speed] * .7222[6+ on 2d6] * .333[Destroyed/Wrecked] = 72% to destroy a Land Raider)
(6 * .166[Cruising Speed] * .7222[6+ on 2d6] * .333[Destroyed/Wrecked] = 24% to destroy a Land Raider)
(a BS4 Meltagun is 19.6%)

(if you at least Stun/Immobilize it [52% chance even at Cruising Speed]:
5[auto-hits] * .58333[7+ on 2d6] * .333[Destroyed/Wrecked] = 97% to destroy a Land Raider during the opponent's following turn]


Also it does not matter how often you face them the fact that daemons do not have the tools to work against an army that can be competative means they can not be competitive them selves. Also as a whole daemons have issues with walkers, anti tank shooting is poor and there are a lot of units that can only really deal with a walker if you get a lucky rending hit. That makes it an army theme, and it is an issue you have to be aware of if running the cavalry army because it relies on rear armour its for its anti tank.

blarg

(flesh hounds are godawful)


Only fatecrusher is not that tough once you have knocked away the fateweaver. Even worse it is slow and lacks proper anti tank, it does not matter how powerful blood crushers are in combat if they can' get any where or get them out of their tin cans if you (or worse get hit by a walker). This is not a competitive army. Daemons can not be truely competitive becasue they just lack the peaces an army needs to be competitive, they are like nids only worse. So on that note if you want competitive daemons, play nids.

guh

(27 wounds)

buh?

DaR
09-06-2010, 05:22
To the person a couple posts above, I cant see how skarbrand is any good? he lets your opponent get rerolls as well......why would you want to give your opponent rerolls?

Skarbrand is not only amazing, he's almost the lynchpin of my army.

Demons have a huge advantage in assault. Almost all of their units have relatively large number of attacks, often with either rending or power weapon (or both). They also tend to be at, or higher, initiative than their opponents, or better weapon skill (or, again, both) to boot.

Consider Fiends. A unit of 6, on the charge, is going to roll 36 attacks. Against other WS4 and above units, that means you are going to hit with 18 without Skarbrand, and 24 with. That's 6 extra hits, just for him being on the table. And since you are I5 and most of your opponents are I4 or worse, you get your attacks first. Given that Fiends are rending, that's another rend, on average. 24 hits will translate to 4 rends and 12 regular wounds. All before the typical MEQ gets to swing back even once.

Bloodcrushers or Bloodletters? They're already probably hitting on 3+ instead of 4+. Adding a reroll to 3+ means you're only missing 1 in 9 attacks, on average. 'letters are S5 and I5 on the charge with 3 attacks each. That means your unit gets an extra kill for every two models, again before most units can swing back. That can turn a close combat into an overhwelming knock out, as the opponent's unit is now too small to swing back effectively.

Rerolls turn Plaguebearers into almost passable combatants. With only one attack each, getting rerolls to hit as well as to wound (since most models are T4 or less, so you get rerolls due to poison), is a significant upgrade. You end up with almost 50% more wounds from a PB unit which is getting rerolls to hit.

Demon Princes, Heralds of Khorne/Slaanesh, and other Greater Demons also tend to benefit more dramatically from rerolls than most units. Again, they tend to be very high strength and always ignore armor, so every extra hit almost always translates to another kill, which will rapidly tilt combats in their favor.

Rerolls are also clutch against vehicles. It ups your chance of hitting significantly against combat speed, and nearly doubles it against cruising or flat out. Again, throw 6 fiends into a vehicle that's cruising, and you go from expecting 6 hits to 11. That's a big difference.

About the only time it doesn't work in your favor is if the opponent has substantially more bodies and attacks, or is at higher initiative. Ork Boyz, Genestealers, and Harlequins are the leading candidates for not wanting to have that reroll on the table. And even Ork Boyz aren't so bad, if you can be sure to hit with at least 2 killy units.

CrownAxe
09-06-2010, 05:47
I actually have the same question as the OP.

But are Soul Grinders competitive? Most Daemon lists I see take 3 Daemon Princes instead due to "It's the only tank in your army so everyone and their mom with a AV12+ weapon is gonna shoot it".

I always thought of it as a slightly better Defiler which is not that good. Who uses Soul grinders to good effect for tournaments?

They are good. The "only tank in the army thing" is only a problem if you only take 1

Brucopeloso
09-06-2010, 08:29
...except that everybody is in a blasted transport these days and appropriate Flamer use practically requires near-suicidal Deep Strikes.



I beg to differ. Flamers are jump infantry so you may well deep strike them somewhere safe and then jump out and flame the turn after. The key is having more than one flamer unit. Regarding transports and vehicles in general remember that any attack in CC hits the rear armour, so fiends, fleshounds, daemon princes and greater daemons are good tin can openers.

the Goat
09-06-2010, 12:53
Skarbrand is not only amazing, he's almost the lynchpin of my army.

Demons have a huge advantage in assault. . .
Yea the daemons are already hitting well in assault. The other guy is missing more of his attacks. Ohh wait now he gets to reroll all those misses. Good thing I brought Skarbrand!

I just don't see the logic where it makes sense to pay extra points to give your opponent a reroll.

Badger[Fr]
09-06-2010, 14:04
(6 * .5[Combat Speed] * .7222[6+ on 2d6] * .333[Destroyed/Wrecked] = 72% to destroy a Land Raider)
(6 * .166[Cruising Speed] * .7222[6+ on 2d6] * .333[Destroyed/Wrecked] = 24% to destroy a Land Raider)
(a BS4 Meltagun is 19.6%)

So, your Bloodthirster is barely better at destroying vehicles than a mere BS4 Meltagun? How is a mere 22% chance of destroying a Land Raider (which will never be moving at combat speed when in charge range) good, considering how expensive the Bloodthirster is in the first place?


guh
(27 wounds)
buh?
Ever heard about Null Zone, or Weaken Resolve? Where are your psychic defences? Oh, wait, you don't have any.


Flamers are jump infantry so you may well deep strike them somewhere safe and then jump out and flame the turn after.
But how will the Flamer squad survive the opponent's turn?

Brucopeloso
09-06-2010, 14:37
;

But how will the Flamer squad survive the opponent's turn?

Most likely they will not, but most likely they will have wiped out their target....... now if you just wiped out a squad of guardsmen that's hardly a good trade off, if you wiped out a whole sanguinary guard unit on the other hand......:D My personal best was a 15strong squad of black templars led by the emperor champion (3flamers + blue scribes).

Badger[Fr]
09-06-2010, 14:42
Most likely they will not, but most likely they will have wiped out their target......
Indeed, but that's not what you suggested. The issue here is to survive the opponent's shooting phase following the turn you deepstruck.

the Goat
09-06-2010, 14:45
;4721539']So, your Bloodthirster is barely better at destroying vehicles than a mere BS4 Meltagun? How is a mere 22% chance of destroying a Land Raider (which will never be moving at combat speed when in charge range) good, considering how expensive the Bloodthirster is in the first place?
The Bloodthirster has many more abilities besides popping tanks. I don't see how the Land Raider will always be moving over combat speed every turn of the game. That means it never fires its (expensive and powerful) guns?


;4721539']Ever heard about Null Zone, or Weaken Resolve? Where are your psychic defences? Oh, wait, you don't have any.
How many points is this hypothetical opponent's army? He seems to have every single ability and special power in the game!


;4721539']But how will the Flamer squad survive the opponent's turn?
The flamers kill the vast majority of the stuff they shoot. And the flamers have a very good invulnerable save.

Badger[Fr]
09-06-2010, 15:05
The Bloodthirster has many more abilities besides popping tanks.
Indeed, it does, but contrary to what was implied, it's not a reliable answer to Av14.


I don't see how the Land Raider will always be moving over combat speed every turn of the game.
If in charge range of a Blood Thirster, I can assure you a skilled player will make sure his Land Raider is moving at cruising speed. Daemons can't charge the turn they deepstruck, and only a fool would stay still in front of a Bloodthirster.


That means it never fires its (expensive and powerful) guns?
It can still fire one, even if it moves at cruising speed.



How many points is this hypothetical opponent's army? He seems to have every single ability and special power in the game!
Space Marine players never, ever field Psykers, and neither do IG players, am I right?

The sad truth remains, there isn't much Fateweaver can do if you face Battle Psykers or Librarians. The issue is, both are a common sight in most competitive IG and SM armies.



The flamers kill the vast majority of the stuff they shoot. And the flamers have a very good invulnerable save.
Have you read the post to which I answered? It has been implied that Flamers could afford to spend a whole turn idle when dealing with mechanized units. Of course, they don't, and there isn't much point in being good at killing infantry if you can't pop a mere Rhino in the first place.

And please, be serious: a 4+ Invulnerable save is of no use against Bolters and low AP weapons. A couple of IG squads can reliably drop a Flamer unit in a single shooting phase.

Worsle
09-06-2010, 16:04
Ozendorph: Many of the units you mentioned there don't move more than 6" and none put out that many attacks. That is not competitive, sorry but that should not work against a competent player with a mech list.

DJ3: Well that was a witty reply, I can't wait to see your one man show. Oh and your nearlly 300 point model has only a slightly better chance to pop a land raider than a melta? Well that is brilliant, I mean all those armies I champion that can only take 2 metlas and take up at least a quarter of your total points look silly now.

Also while flesh hounds are not brilliant but they are mobile, in the fast attack slot so not competing with fiends and able to deliver a large number of S5 attacks on the charge. However that is clearly worthless, I mean just because you could get 48 S5 attacks on the change for less than the bloodthirster does not mean anything really. Though for sake of clarification I would not run a 16 strong unit and I am also not saying flesh hounds are amazing but more they give you what a deamon army needs. That is more mobile units that can be used as mini fiends.

DaR: being a linchpin is exatly why skarbrand is not that amazing. No army should be relying on linchpin units, well if you want to be called competitive.

CrownAxe even if you take 3 they still stand out like a sore thumb. Daemons either need more vehicles or like nids and have none at all, only having one is not a good place to be sitting.

Also one thing I think most people forget is when you blow up a vehicle in melee you are left sitting out in the open in the other players turn to be shot at and standing right next to what ever was inside it. Your blood thirstier lucks out and takes out a land raider, you have to remember what you will be standing next too as well.

This is slightly off topic but it does bug me. Why is it that nids get frequent complants about their lack of anti tank, but armies that have worse anti tank like daemons or orks have their ablity to pop tanks defended to the last? It just bugs me, I know they wont be all the same people but it is a standard thing.

clangedinn
09-06-2010, 17:14
This is going to be one of those arguments where each side has a counter response to the other.

Those of us that play daemons successfully will always say we are competitive (cause we are :P) and those of you who feel we are not will always have a counter argument to anything we reply with. The fact is i personally have had great success with Daemons so have only that information to go with.

So I am not going to respond to specific comments but generalizations to help folks who may wish to play the army in the future.

AV14 "can" be an issue though thus far it has not been for me. Heck i have played games where i ignored the LR all together and i have had games where i have cracked it then had another unit eat the yummy bits inside. It comes down to a matter of being smart and threat assessment. Always remember if you are in close combat things cant shoot at you :) so that LR running around don't seem so much a threat when i have engaged everything in CC. There are counters to every tactic. I have not personally seen a lot of null zones or weaken resolves and as for psychic defense my thirster has blessing and all of my deaemons have Invul saves the rest well not much can be done and you deal with it like the champ you are. There are some of us who look at a negative as a challenge and embrace it and attempt to use our weakness to our advantage instead of throwing complaints that there is a negative instead of a spoon feeding. Embrace the challenge of downfall!!!!

Soulgrinders are far better at lower points values then higher. They may be the only vehicle in the whole list but av13 is not horrible if you play it smartly. I personally prefer Daemon Princes as they are far sturdier and perform the same role as a grinder. Though I have never played with three grinders at higher points as i only own two so far. I could see running three as a bonus. I am sure someone could mathhammer all the odds this weapon or that weapon killing a grinder in one hit but I have in my experience of running them never had one destroyed. Had one immobilized to uselessness but not until like round three of a game.

To say the army is not competitive means at least to me that you do not have a skilled daemon player in your meta. There are many negatives to the army but there are to almost every army. Tis why all of us who play them will tell you they have a steep learning curve. Just tossing your army down and hoping for the best wont work, it is an army that you truly have to stay on your toes and think the whole time you are playing. They can be a challenge tis true but it makes it that much better when we do defeat you naysayers :P I don't know why but there seems to be some thought process going around that folks believe if you play daemons you will be a mindless run forward and smash people kind of player and forgo any kind of strategy or tactics.


As i stated early play what you want, model what you enjoy and most importantly have a great time doing it.

Hope to see some of you at some tourneys for some great matches.

Badger[Fr]
09-06-2010, 18:43
The issue is, almost anything can be competitive depending on your 'metagame". A skilled player facing an ill-designed army led by a beginner will, more often than not, win.

As an example, you mentioned that you seldom encountered Librarians and Battle Psykers. Considering how these are amongst the best IG and SM units, I'm genuinely surprised.

One must always keep in mind there is more to 40k than his usual gaming circle.

gwarsh41
09-06-2010, 18:50
;4722239']

One must always keep in mind there is more to 40k than his usual game circle.

A great example would be the group I started playing with recently. (I live in such a small town there are literally only 2-3 groups) With this group, daemons are amazing. They apparently dont like vehicles too much, and all play MEQ. So If I only knew those 40k players, I would thing that daemons are the best army in the game!

clangedinn
09-06-2010, 19:06
My meta is full of Space Wolves, CSM, Eldar, and NIds. I do very well against these armies. I have encountered all the units that give us problems in tourneys and just deal with them as best i can. None the less the arguments in this thread are pointless as each side will fight violently for their opinion.

I am a firm believer that all armies are competitive if played correctly and smartly. you can take any disadvantage and use it as a trap for example. To completely come out and state that an army is otherwise in my opinion is just plain folly.

TheDireAvenger
09-06-2010, 20:58
Would anyone say running 3 Soul Grinders be competitive? The only problem is it maxs out your heavy support so no Daemon Princes.

What is the best combo of heavy support? 2 Grinders and 1 Prince? or 3 Grinders or just 3 Princes?

Vlad Urkana
09-06-2010, 21:07
Either all or nothing on the Grinders once you get to high point value games. If you want to be just plain evil though put 3 of them in a 1000 point game with a cheap herald leading a bunch of Bloodletters. You might be able to fit in some fiends or use Skulltaker as your herald but I don't have the book here with me at work.

clangedinn
09-06-2010, 21:10
At higher points I prefer Daemon Princes at lower points Grinders

DJ3
09-06-2010, 21:54
Also while flesh hounds are not brilliant but they are mobile, in the fast attack slot so not competing with fiends and able to deliver a large number of S5 attacks on the charge. However that is clearly worthless, I mean just because you could get 48 S5 attacks on the change for less than the bloodthirster does not mean anything really. Though for sake of clarification I would not run a 16 strong unit and I am also not saying flesh hounds are amazing but more they give you what a deamon army needs. That is more mobile units that can be used as mini fiends.

Just trying to highlight the point that if you mention Flesh Hounds in a positive manner, anyone who knows anything about Daemons is instantly going to tune you out, because all you've done is demonstrate that you've either never seen a Daemon Codex or just have no idea how the army works in general.

Next time you do see a Daemon Codex, and you're looking at Flesh Hounds, adjust your gaze south about six inches.

Those are called Seekers, and they're why Flesh Hounds are a joke.


;4721539']So, your Bloodthirster is barely better at destroying vehicles than a mere BS4 Meltagun? How is a mere 22% chance of destroying a Land Raider (which will never be moving at combat speed when in charge range) good, considering how expensive the Bloodthirster is in the first place?

It's oddly convenient of you to ignore the part where, even if a Land Raider goes Cruising Speed, a Bloodthirster has a 50/50 chance of stopping it and then murdering it during the opponents' turn. If this happens, you get to either spend your whole turn's Shooting trying to kill a Bloodthirster before it gets to swing at the LR in your Assault phase, or just let it die.

Also, Daemon players love nothing more than Cruising Speed Land Raiders. We don't care about the tank--the tank is just the delivery system for the Death Star unit that resides within, which is not a threat to us--we care about the guns. The threat radius of a Bloodthirster is 18", so unless you're running Lascannon Raiders, that means you aren't accomplishing a whole lot if you're outside of charge range.


Oh and your nearlly 300 point model has only a slightly better chance to pop a land raider than a melta? Well that is brilliant, I mean all those armies I champion that can only take 2 metlas and take up at least a quarter of your total points look silly now.

You know what costs the same as a Bloodthirster? A Land Raider. This seems to be a counter-argument against Land Raiders, not a counter-argument against Bloodthirsters.


;4721539']Ever heard about Null Zone, or Weaken Resolve? Where are your psychic defences? Oh, wait, you don't have any.

Weaken Resolve is one thing, but if you see Fateweaver getting dropped to Null Zone, you need to have a conversation with your local Daemon players about screening. One Bloodcrusher is big enough to screen the Lord of Change model everyone uses for Fateweaver (and he's about to get even smaller in August) and that Cover Save is still rerollable, Null Zone or not.

Daemons are not Imperial Guard--nobody is right now. These "hurr hurr my army could beat your army" discussions are idiotic, but when someone like Worsle starts rambling about how terrible our army is when he clearly has some very basic misconceptions about how the army functions, people are going to correct him.

Hashmal
09-06-2010, 22:04
Boy I seemed to have missed a lot. I'll just give DJ3 a shoulder rub and move on.

:D


Would anyone say running 3 Soul Grinders be competitive? The only problem is it maxs out your heavy support so no Daemon Princes.

What is the best combo of heavy support? 2 Grinders and 1 Prince? or 3 Grinders or just 3 Princes?

It really depends on what point level you're playing at.

Tank pop goes up in a (fairly) linear progression as points levels increase. However, our Heavy Support slots are capped at 3 and thus cannot accomplish the same progression to ensure survivability. Hell, that's the issue with many things in our army.

Daemon Princes afford answers in that they can pack on survivability that Grinders lack. This allows them to be more effective as points levels rise and tank pop weapons proliferate. Plus, they aren't subject to the one-two lucky shot.

The tradeoff points level for me is 1750. Around there, I will field either Soul Grinders or Daemon Princes. I never mix the two, mostly because weapons that are good against one are less useful/useless against the other and by mixing them, all of my opponents weapons are thereby useful. I typically field 2 or 3 of either at that level (usually 2). Below 1750, I'm likely to include Soul Grinders over DPs due to their excellent, points-efficient killy potential, something Daemon players can always use. Some people use 1500 as their threshold, but I've had great success with SGs at the 1750 level. SGs increase in effectiveness as the points levels decrease and the amount of proportionate tank pop drops.

I do not recommend taking 3 Soul Grinders in a 1000 point or below game, solely out of concern that you might be limping home cross-legged.

TheDireAvenger
09-06-2010, 22:23
It really depends on what point level you're playing at.



Whenever I ask, always assume its at the standard 2000 points level. So at 2000 pts, you would say 3 princes right?

dang, I really wanted to run 3 grinders at 2000 points.

clangedinn
09-06-2010, 22:29
then run 3 grinders at 2000 points :)

I have no idea what else you will be running so can say give them the pie plate ot tongue. both have their uses in filling gaps in other areas of your list. but i would never advise buying both

Hashmal
09-06-2010, 22:31
40k isn't a light switch game. I'm giving some advice based on what I do. By all means, run 3 grinders at 2000 points. I personally think they're awesome engines of destruction. I prefer Daemon Princes because I like monster fights. The Grinders might get eaten faster at 2k; they also might not.

SGs don't suddenly become terrible at 2000 points. They just become less effective in my experience. As always, YMMV.

mafty
09-06-2010, 22:53
40k isn't a light switch game. I'm giving some advice based on what I do. By all means, run 3 grinders at 2000 points. I personally think they're awesome engines of destruction. I prefer Daemon Princes because I like monster fights. The Grinders might get eaten faster at 2k; they also might not.

SGs don't suddenly become terrible at 2000 points. They just become less effective in my experience. As always, YMMV.

SG also cant take wounds from a lot of guns that can and will wound the DP. DP is only T5, lots of things can wound T5 (actually, everything can wound T5), only S7 + can hurt the AV13 and S7 can only glance on a 6, so its really S8+.

Something a lot of people seem to not be mentioning in this discussion, sure the SG can go down to 1 lucky shot, but the DP can be unloaded into from a guard flashlight unit while the SG cant.

clangedinn
09-06-2010, 22:56
very true SG will be threatened by less but as you ramp the points higher and higher the chances of running into weapons that will threaten the SG increase exponentially

Worsle
09-06-2010, 23:00
DJ3: Are you even trying? I have given you good reasons why flesh hounds are useful and you have told me they are not because why? Every one knows is not an argument. I mean they are basiclly extra fiends or do you think fiends are bad too? Sure they are not as good, they are only S5 on the charge and lack rending but they are better than most of the junk in the daemon codex that is for sure and the best fast attack choice.

Bloodthirster costs as much as a land raider? What does that have to do with any thing? It certainly does not make the thirster a reliable counter to the raider and it sure as hell does not relate to the comparison you made your self between the odds of a melta gun busting AV14 and the thirster. I was pointing out that meltas are tools you can use to take out raiders because you can have multiples of them. Also by the fact I was saying daemons lacked ways of dealing with raiders it should have been self evident that I believe other armies can deal with them, not that SM raider army is worthless but it is beatable if you have a good army (ie not daemons).

Also cruising speed is ignored because any one sensible would ignore it. Any one doing melee vs tank and assuming less than a 6+ to hit is just doing it wrong. That is why the large quantity of attacks from fiends or flesh hounds are much more useful normally.

edit. Also if you are going to "correct" me form a proper argument. It would be a start rather than just blindly insisting that every thing is ok with daemons when they are clearly not. The army has glaring issues, seriously it is like I said nids get complaints for having no anti tank then armies with worse options than them get defended to the hilt. Really why?

clangedinn: Problem with that every thing is a winner argument is not every thing is a winner. GW can do a lot better than they did with daemons and pretending it is ok is not going to make them want to fix it. I also hold extreme issues with the idea that counting on other peoples mistakes makes it competitive, it is more counting on the exact opposite. Not saying it does not happen but more it should not and it is not something that should be passed of as a good idea.

On soulgrinders you take 3 or not at all. However they are the only unit in the army with an AV value, even having 3 of them is not enough hulls on the ground to really be working right. Would have been better if grinders had been a MC as things stand.

clangedinn
09-06-2010, 23:36
He did answer as to why you would not take hounds he said look down to the seekers they are a superior fast attack choice.

I have never had any luck with hounds myself though i dont really run any fast attack choices normally and when i do it is seekers.

I disagree with you yet again no mater how poorly you may think a army is designed if played correctly you can win. every army has the opportunity to win if played correctly is my opinion and I still stand by it.

It is true that the daemon list has issues with av14 or at least can have issues but that is not by any means as large as a game breaker as you seem to be making it at least not in my own personal experience. and when i have hunted a LR with my thirster that LR went down.

If you attempt to do so you can nickle and dime every army book out there to a point where you can make them seem worthless. Everything you have mentioned is a situational moment and all armies have them is the point most of us are talking about. It s like saying footslogging horde orks will have an issue with armies built for antihorde specifically.

Looking at last years Ard Boyz there were 64 contestants in the finals and at least 2 of them were playing Daemons. These are suppose to be the best players in the nation playing against each other and saying that two showed up with daemons means they fought their way there through 6 other opponents to get there. saying that there were other armies with only one person playing them also. Granted they did not win ard boyz but the fact they got there means they can in fact be competitive. and that was what the OP was inquiring about not the tactical advantages or disadvantages of each unit.

In the long run It would best here to agree to disagree.

DJ3
09-06-2010, 23:47
Oh, holy god. I don't even know where to start with this.


I have given you good reasons why flesh hounds are useful and you have told me they are not because why? Every one knows is not an argument. I mean they are basiclly extra fiends or do you think fiends are bad too? Sure they are not as good, they are only S5 on the charge and lack rending but they are better than most of the junk in the daemon codex that is for sure and the best fast attack choice.

You'll note that, in my previous post, I included the possibility that you might have never seen a Daemon Codex before, and hence would not be familiar with Seekers.

You have proven this theory.

Especially in comparing Flesh Hounds to Fiends, which is just spectacular, because that's almost exactly what a Seeker is--a replacement for Fiends in the Fast Attack slot. It's practically a universal view of the role Seekers fill. I truly believe you have no idea what I'm talking about, here--because if you'd ever been made aware that Seekers exist, you would stop extolling the virtues of Flesh Hounds immediately.

I'm sure you'll look up Seekers as soon as possible, and then rush back to defiantly explain how Flesh Hounds are totally better than Seekers--I only ask that you actually do some calculations on the matter before you attempt to do so.


Also cruising speed is ignored because any one sensible would ignore it. Any one doing melee vs tank and assuming less than a 6+ to hit is just doing it wrong.

And here you've confused Cruising Speed with Combat Speed, clearly missing the point of the entire statement. You'll want to take this into account and re-read everything you were attempting to mock, there, because you did it wrong.

Hint: Cruising Speed means 6+ to hit. The numbers I quoted are talking about Cruising Speed.
Hint 2: That means we're talking about the same thing.

Obviously, missing the entire point and effectively proving yourself wrong won't actually change your opinion (as surely, nothing will) but it certainly does help with the original point:

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Nobody cares about changing your view of Daemons, just as long as we make it as clear as possible to everyone else that practically everything you said is incorrect, and don't allow your particular opinions as to how terrible the army is give anyone else the same poor impression.

Badger[Fr]
10-06-2010, 00:22
I disagree with you yet again no mater how poorly you may think a army is designed if played correctly you can win. every army has the opportunity to win if played correctly is my opinion and I still stand by it.
You are indeed right, but a Daemon player facing a fully mechanized list will still be at a disadvantage against an opponent of roughly equal skill.


It's oddly convenient of you to ignore the part where, even if a Land Raider goes Cruising Speed, a Bloodthirster has a 50/50 chance of stopping it and then murdering it during the opponents' turn. If this happens, you get to either spend your whole turn's Shooting trying to kill a Bloodthirster before it gets to swing at the LR in your Assault phase, or just let it die.
The issue is, the odds are not in your favour, and if you fail to destroy the Land Raider, your Bloodthirster is in trouble. Killing a T6 monstrous creature whose Invulnerable save has almost been negated is hardly a feat.


Also, Daemon players love nothing more than Cruising Speed Land Raiders. We don't care about the tank--the tank is just the delivery system for the Death Star unit that resides within, which is not a threat to us--we care about the guns. The threat radius of a Bloodthirster is 18", so unless you're running Lascannon Raiders, that means you aren't accomplishing a whole lot if you're outside of charge range.
Wait, you think Lascannons are a threat to your Greater Daemons, but Assault Terminators aren't? You can't be serious. On average, a Land Raider would have to spend the entire game firing its Lascannons at a Bloodthirster in order to drop it, whereas an Assault Terminator squad with minimal fire support (say, a Crusader's TL Assault Canons) can kill it in a single turn with next to no casualty.

TheTrueSloth
10-06-2010, 00:32
;4721539']So, your Bloodthirster is barely better at destroying vehicles than a mere BS4 Meltagun? How is a mere 22% chance of destroying a Land Raider (which will never be moving at combat speed when in charge range) good, considering how expensive the Bloodthirster is in the first place?


But that's also assuming that its' always going to be best to move the Land Raider - granted in a vacuum environment, it is, but in a battlefield position we've all had games where conventional tactics will just fly out of the window. If they want to keep running their Land Raiders who cost nearly as much as 'Thirster round through the game and drastically crippling their firepower? Fine with me, since he can't be shot at while in combat I'll get him stuck in with some infantry where his massive strength, WS and no saves will work wonders on near on everything. If he really wants to divert a large chunk of the points of his army to a singular model that just mills around because he's afraid my 'Thirster might assault it, then I'm game. I'll just tear into the infantry, lighter vehicles, artillery and anything else I can get to in his army and make sure he dies as horribly as possible.

To add to all this, we are talking about one vehicle in the game (two if you count the Monolith, but conventional tactics is to just ignore it anyway). Every other vehicle in the game has much weaker rear armour, which means it is going to be much easier to tear into. And this is only one unit in the army we're talking about. It comes down far to as to how you use them rather than specifically they can do (bit of a no brainer that, but there you go). If they're being reactive to our monster with their tank and drastically reduce its' effectiveness or firepower because of a possible fear, then use it.

And the points comparison is relevant simply because (as I see it) a 'Thirster is potentially devastating against almost everything out there, purely and simply. Its' not just restricted to vehicle buster, it just does it up close and personal better than most other things. A land raider, on the other hand, does two main roles - shoots and transports, but does nothing else. Even then, realistically, the weapons a Land Raider has will dictate what it can shoot well against. With a 'Thirster, it doesn't matter if you're a unit of 8 Nob Bikers or 8 Sanguinary Guard, you are going to die.

Honestly though most rainbow daemon players have very little trouble killing almost anything that comes out of a transport in HtH, they're not our concern, its' the transport's shooting (assuming its' say Crusader variant for example). If its' running nilly willy away from our one main "big flappy" then it has to sacrifice its' shooting to do it. If it has a death star squad in it, then it either has to leave them stranded or keep the squad inside where it doesn't actually do anything but means you still have that unit to pile in where you want it. That really isn't a bad thing, it means they become reactionary to an "unstable army" which gives us back a tactical advantage.



But how will the Flamer squad survive the opponent's turn?

Generally speaking, they won't. Unless you're playing games of huge points values (and even then) they tend to be taken in comparatively small units on purpose - for the easiest DS possible with the smallest DSF which still being able to use everyone. You deploy them conservatively and there's less chance they'll do anything useful. Use them aggressively and they should take out whatever they shoot at as long as you don't get shafted with the DS, so when they do die they should have done a disproportional amount of damage and earned their usefulness back with interest.


I have given you good reasons why flesh hounds are useful and you have told me they are not because why? Every one knows is not an argument. I mean they are basiclly extra fiends or do you think fiends are bad too? Sure they are not as good, they are only S5 on the charge and lack rending but they are better than most of the junk in the daemon codex that is for sure and the best fast attack choice.

Generally speaking Seekers are considered better than Flesh Hounds for the fact that (as I understand it):

Seekers have rending
Seekers have a greater quantity of attacks (double infact on the standstill)
Seekers count as having Grenades of both kinds, which means that it makes them much better at assaulting infantry in cover (which they normally are against daemons funnily enough :rolleyes:) as they can get their attacks (with better initiative) in and do their share of killing before an opponent hits back.

Flesh Hounds have:

2pts less per model, which does add up, granted.
Greater strength
Greater toughness

EDIT: They have the same Weapon skill, my bad. Perhaps typing at silly o'clock isn't always a good thing :)

But generally speaking if Flesh Hounds assault the same unit in cover that the Seekers did, the Flesh Hounds are going to get battered left, right and centre (the difference between T3 and T4 is just not that much in practice) before they get to attack (assume for sake of ease they're MEQ's). To add to that, on the standstill they have half the attacks and lack the ability to just ignore saves. Against bigger things like Tervigons, Wraithlords and Mawlocs even (purely as an example), after the first round of combat Seekers can still tear them open at high initiative with rending where Flesh Hounds can't (or are just going to be really bad at it). Don't get me wrong, I love Flesh Hounds, but I could never justify taking them over Seekers for most games (as they're really not "extra fiends" even so to compare them is somewhat foolish).

Sure, Flesh Hounds can tear open vehicles with rear AV10 (assuming its' not a walker - anything with rear AV11 means they only have one round to glance). But with rending, so can seekers. The difference is that seekers that even glance vehicles with AV12 in HtH and can penetrate AV11 tanks. Though this is still a moot point, if I want a vehicle hunter, to hell with it (in the fast attack slot) I'll grab 5 screamers at 80pts and use 5 meltabombs to blow up whatever horrible fire support tank they have. Or maybe a daemon prince (either as a support role or in HtH). Or maybe any of the Greater Daemons. Or maybe Tzeentch Heralds that can worry anything with AV less than 14 surprisingly well. Even Fiends and Crushers can tear most vehicles open. Flesh Hounds just don't become worth the Fast Attack slots.

If a Flesh Hound unit has to charge a vehicle, then generally it is a wasted unit. It it charges infantry, then normally either Fiends or Seekers will do a better job for the same charge range. As a result, they start to become a subpar choice. Which is why most daemon players won't take them and why I would only consider them if I was playing Mono-Khorne (but only to tie down heavy weapon squads, but even then 'Letters seem more tempting)

As for the rest of the "junk" in the daemon codex...really? 1pt difference and I can switch out the Hounds for yet another troop choice loaded with power weapons that will simply ignore every armour save they go up against. Sure, they're not as fast, but with an average DS, run and move there's still a fairly good chance they'll get in early. Unlike Flesh Hounds however, when they finally get to strike back, they're going to kill stuff. Flesh Hounds don't have that guarantee. Or maybe for the same points, I should just switch them for Plague Bearers, drop near an objective or terrain and go to ground, at least they can capture an objective. Horrors, even with mediocre shooting and low toughness, can hold an objective and provide covering fire support.


Also by the fact I was saying daemons lacked ways of dealing with raiders it should have been self evident that I believe other armies can deal with them, not that SM raider army is worthless but it is beatable if you have a good army (ie not daemons).

Honestly I think this purely comes down to opinion as to whether or not Daemons are actually any good. There's a lot of nay-sayers, but there's a huge amount of daemon support for a reason. They're not as straight forward as say Nids and their random nature does make it harder to use them well, but as we all know it comes down largely to tactical use than anything else and a lot of players just aren't cut for piloting an army like Daemons. But to turn round and say they're not a good army because they have trouble busting AV14 (which is essentialy what it seems you've said, afterall its' the only real point you've come up with as a stumbling block, correct me if I'm wrong) is more subjective.


On soulgrinders you take 3 or not at all. However they are the only unit in the army with an AV value, even having 3 of them is not enough hulls on the ground to really be working right. Would have been better if grinders had been a MC as things stand.

And if we want all our heavies to be monsters, we'd take either supporting Tzeentch Princes or combat Nurgle Princes (as a rule of thumb). Grinders are there as shock and awe support even more so than a lot of other heavy support units in other codexes. You don't always have to take three, it depends on the size of the game. Besides, DS'ing 3 is a freaking nightmare with their DSF. But it also seems like you're trying the compare the usefulness of Grinders to Daemons as you would any other Heavy Support slot in any other codex. Since daemons play so radically different, you can't compare them in the same way at all.


I also hold extreme issues with the idea that counting on other peoples mistakes makes it competitive

Yikes, how to insult the majority of daemon players out there in one chunk of a sentence :). Seriously though, are you really suggesting that a large chunk of our wins as daemon players are because of poor performances by opponents rather than because of our own skill (as such a statement would suggest)? *shakes head* If that is the case, then this conversation is less about codex structure and more about philosophical differences. Of course Daemons have glaring issues with their codexes. ALL of the codexes do. It doesn't mean they're rubbish, its' just part of the army that - if you are a competent player - you'll adapt to and compensate for.


I am a firm believer that all armies are competitive if played correctly and smartly. you can take any disadvantage and use it as a trap for example. To completely come out and state that an army is otherwise in my opinion is just plain folly.

I just wanted to quote this because I agreed with the sentiment :)

Toodles

TheTrueSloth
10-06-2010, 00:43
;4722992']You are indeed right, but a Daemon player facing a fully mechanized list will still be at a disadvantage against an opponent of roughly equal skill.

Granted within reason, pure mech is not an easy match up, but it simply isn't an auto-write off as it has been suggested to be.



The issue is, the odds are not in your favour, and if you fail to destroy the Land Raider, your Bloodthirster is in trouble. Killing a T6 monstrous creature whose Invulnerable save has almost been negated is hardly a feat.


I'm assuming you mean Libbies with Nullzone when you say the Inv. is almost negated?


Wait, you think Lascannons are a threat to your Greater Daemons, but Assault Terminators aren't? You can't be serious. On average, a Land Raider would have to spend the entire game firing its Lascannons at a Bloodthirster in order to drop it, whereas an Assault Terminator squad with minimal fire support (say, a Crusader's TL Assault Canons) can kill it in a single turn with next to no casualty.

You do know that a 'Thirster's initiative is higher than an assault terminator's, right and his WS forces them to hit him on 5's and the claws wound on 6's while he's going to be smattering multiple terminators a turn? If the Nullzone Libby is alive and around, then there is the decent possibility the termi's will drop the 'Thirster, but not before he's hurt them. But the counter point is that daemon armies have very little problem slaughtering MEQ's and even termi's (hell, we have troops that will mangle them in HtH). And for clarification, IMO, a Crusader Raider would be scarier than a Las Raider to me personally (more likely to hurt my infantry).

Toodles

clangedinn
10-06-2010, 00:50
TheTrueSloth Speaks the Truth far better and more eloquently then I could. Thank you :)
Are there alot of Nullzone Libbys out there? I come across libbys but not all are running null zone unless they are customizing lists as most all comers list dont take one army having all invul saves into consideration when being built.

TheTrueSloth
10-06-2010, 00:52
TheTrueSloth Speaks the Truth far better and more eloquently then I could. Thank you :)

Thank you for the compliment :)

I've got a few guys in my local gaming group that have the same opinion of daemons as badger and Worsle, but I've been finding with my games that Daemons are a much better army than I was led to believe, so I've had a little practice at this :P

Now if only I didn't have to type so much I get RSI :)
Toodles

clangedinn
10-06-2010, 00:54
same happened with the group i have been playing with :) they all told me i would never be competitive and now all of them do nothing but complain that my army list is broken. Easiest way to get them to change their tune was to prove it to them.

AlmightyNocturnus
10-06-2010, 01:26
To answer the OP`s question: Daemons can be very competitive. They deploy pretty much where they want to. They have units to counter every threat. I field 5 flying monstrous creatures at 1500 points (all T6), which tears up mech and elite infantry with little fear of reprisal in close combat. My local wargaming group had the same reaction as you when they came out and no one wanted to try them. So, I did. Now, everyone fears (40K) Daemons. They play different than other armies and take some time to learn, but make no mistake - an experienced Daemon player will tear you a new one (with a hellblade) if you don`t bring your "A" game. People who say, "Daemons are too random" or "Players can`t control Dameon armies" have just yet to meet and experienced Daemon player.

About Flesh Hounds and Daemon fast attack. Flesh Hounds suck. That`s the end of that debate. But mind you, most of the fast attack options are lacklustre. They are not tough like our HQ. Heavies, and Elites...and you can`t take them in big squads like our troops...so, they all die pretty easily. That`s really the weakness of Flesh Hounds - max squad size of 5?!? If you could put down 15 of them, you could lay some hurt on some things. Of all of the FA choices, Seekers are clearly the best: bigger squad sizes, very fast, assault grenades, lots of attacks, rending, and the -1A "hero upgrade" is even useful.

Finally, to the OP: if you want an easy army to learn where you can be competitive from your first game - try Space Wolves, Orks, or ESPECIALLY IG. If you want a different army that takes some time to master, but will almost always throw your opponents for a loop (and it`s more interesting to paint since all the units are different colors) - try Daemons. I wouldn`t recommend Daemons as your first army, but they`re a lot of fun and they can be very competitive as your 2nd, 3rd, etc. army.

Almighty Nocturnus

DJ3
10-06-2010, 01:31
;4722992']Wait, you think Lascannons are a threat to your Greater Daemons, but Assault Terminators aren't? You can't be serious. On average, a Land Raider would have to spend the entire game firing its Lascannons at a Bloodthirster in order to drop it, whereas an Assault Terminator squad with minimal fire support (say, a Crusader's TL Assault Canons) can kill it in a single turn with next to no casualty.

Didn't intend to imply that Lascannons are a threat. Due to Invulnerable saves, we couldn't care less about that kind of high-strength, low-fire rate weaponry. Other than Soul Grinders, obviously.

Was pointing out that the Lascannon Raider is the only one that can actually maintain its full firepower without being in a Bloodthirster's threat radius. If the answer to "oh no a Bloodthirster is around" is to drive around at Cruising Speed every turn, the Land Raider cannot put out nearly enough firepower to contribute to the fight in a meaningful way.

TH/SS Terminators are a whole different situation, but they just aren't all that scary to a Daemon army--certainly not what they are to most other armies. If they pop out and get the charge, they might kill one unit, and then get killed by practically anything else in our army on the following turn. Charging a Bloodthirster is not a winning proposition for them--as someone pointed out, they'll only do a couple wounds due to WS10, while taking one dead Terminator in return, and then being borderline screwed on the following turns.

I also think you might be slightly overstating the population of Null Zone Librarians in the current game. Two years ago, you couldn't throw a rock without hitting a Null Zone Librarian, but the rise of Imperial Guard has changed that quite a bit. I'm seeing a ton of Vulkan+nothing HQ slots in Space Marine armies right now, and that's not even considering all the Vanilla SM armies who have been converted back to Space Wolves or Blood Angels in the intervening time. It's not the automatic presence that it used to be.

Edit:

TheTrueSloth: Seekers and Flesh Hounds actually have identical Weapon Skill--Flesh Hounds are WS4, unlike all the other Khorne stuff. If they were WS5 or had 3 attacks or natural Rending, they might not be so terrible. Thought it would probably take all three.

And Nocturnus--you can take 20 Flesh Hounds/Seekers/Furies in a unit, and 12 Screamers. Not sure where you got small max squad sizes from.

blood "fatty" thirster
10-06-2010, 02:31
Hi Guys,Ive read many posts on here so I thought I would add my thoughts on the matter. First of all here is my so far very succesful tourny army (wins around 90% of friendly games and came 4th in this years birmingham expo)

fateweaver

bloodthirster+might ( aka FATTY!!! )

5 blood crushers+instrument+rending

6 fiends+might

3 x flamers

3 x 5 plague bearers

soul grinder with large template shot.

I prefere to drop fateweaver,fatty,fiends,crushers and flamers/grinder(depending on game and enemy) first.

Always always always go second where ever possible!!!!!!
Dawn of war games are a huge bonus to deamon armies, use this set up to your advantage.

Deploy fateweaver first as close to the enemy as possible and then the rest of my army around him.
This is a MASSIVE headache for any opponent. There is just too much to kill or stop. I have had 56 wounds against fateweaver( 3 units of khorne berzerkers on the charge) and saved the lot!!!! Yes it is possible. He can easily take 20-25 wounds and save the lot.People tend to shoot everything and assault everything into him. This I love as it leaves the enemy open for a good pasting by the crushers etc.

One thing i will say in CC he is awefull!!! he will need back up very fast to free him up so he can harras units with his shots and give his ability to other units.

Not only can he take a beating but can also kill land raiders,troops,spawn individual models!!!(even in combat) and be a pain in the backside.

Fatty ( blood thirster) is a 1 man army,next to fateweaver he is almost indestructable due to the re-roll saves.With s9 on the charge he can even take out monoliths fairly easily. Hqs and smaller elite units are no problem at all. With T6 you can let him run riot and eat tanks with ease. Keep him away from large units of CC troops as he can get bogged down.

The bloodcrushers eat thunderhammers for breakfast and plough through troops and light tanks easy.They are also very hard to kill with T5 3+/5+ sv.

The fiends can tackle most units due to there high attacks,rending and 24" assault range. Ive taken out many landraiders with them,its a lot of 6's but can be done.With a possible 36 rending attacks on the charge they are a hand full and will very quickly tie up and wipe units out. Just try not to get tham shot at to much as they can be wiped out from shooting very easy,hence have fate weaver nearby ( and a cover save helps too!)

The flamers are my "suicide" squad. Drop them 1.5" away from your target ( troop conentrations or nasty tanks like a punisher) and you can easily stop it from shooting,blow up a weapon or even imobilise it. Against troops these are evil and will wipe out full tactal squads or 20 boys/guardmen/nids with ease. For 105 points they are well worth the risk. At a risk they can also be very handy for tying up deamon princes and avatars etc because of there 4+inv save. I have slowed these types of units up for several valuable turns until help is available

The 3 plaguebearers sit on objectives and go to ground-Go on shoot them,I dare you lol good luck. But seriously they are tough as old boots and take a beating that other units can only dream of. I find that in most games they survive untouched as the rest of the army proves to much to handle.

Last but not least the soul grinder!! This guy is my wild card, he either gets wasted the turn he drops,or he gets left alone and walks through landraiders and monliths with ease due to s10 atacks,fleet and 5 hits on the charge. Armour 13 is also very handy. Also he is a large presence on the table that demands drawing attention away from my other units. many times an enemy has unloaded troops from land raiders and rhinos etc etc to melta him, missed! then felt the full force and been locked in comat for ages or wiped out. Another huge benefit is that he ignores 1's and 2's on the damage table!!!

Ok the bad bit!!! The wrong army drops and I can be in serious trouble. The only game I lost at the expo was the one where I dropped 3 plagues and the flamers against the 4 battlewagon/death-roller ork army......oops!!!

I do put all my eggs in one basket I admit,but I love it !! Its a full on aggresive,in your face,nasty army with a couple of sneaky tricks up its sleave.

I would like your thoughts and feedback!

gwarsh41
10-06-2010, 03:40
Would anyone say running 3 Soul Grinders be competitive? The only problem is it maxs out your heavy support so no Daemon Princes.

What is the best combo of heavy support? 2 Grinders and 1 Prince? or 3 Grinders or just 3 Princes?

Bringing 3 grinders in games 1500 or under is cruel and unusual :D

TheTrueSloth
10-06-2010, 06:58
same happened with the group i have been playing with :) they all told me i would never be competitive and now all of them do nothing but complain that my army list is broken. Easiest way to get them to change their tune was to prove it to them.

Yeah I'd been told time and again how the daemons are "the weakest of the new codexes" and how they weren't competitive. However, after quite a few games I've found my Mono-Tzeentch daemons (They are my first daemon army) have stomped almost everyone I've played to date to the point people are complaining about playing it. Imagine how much fun I'll have then when my rainbow list gets done :angel:

Toodles

TheTrueSloth
10-06-2010, 07:11
TheTrueSloth: Seekers and Flesh Hounds actually have identical Weapon Skill--Flesh Hounds are WS4, unlike all the other Khorne stuff. If they were WS5 or had 3 attacks or natural Rending, they might not be so terrible. Thought it would probably take all three.


So they are, I have to confess I had just assumed that they would have a better weapon skill, its' been that long since I was actually interested in what they could do enough to go over the stats again :o I've edited the post accordingly :)

Toodles

Brucopeloso
10-06-2010, 08:31
;4721608']Indeed, but that's not what you suggested. The issue here is to survive the opponent's shooting phase following the turn you deepstruck.

Ok, but that pretty much holds true for any small, eelite squad that needs to get in close and personal and with the potential to do untold damage receives a lot of attention. By the way a squad of three flamers on its own is likely to be shot but if you have two squad, plus some bloodletters a bloodthirster, a DP and so on the opponent will have to make some choices...... with the deep strike deployment Daemons can saturate a portion of the board to imporve survivability

TheDireAvenger
10-06-2010, 08:39
Anyone know what might be the best way to protect or make your soul grinder last longer in a 2000 pt game?

Keep them in reserve and deep-strike them on Turns 3 maybe so hopefully you've killed a lot of his melta-squads and done overall damage to his army?

CrownAxe
10-06-2010, 09:15
Anyone know what might be the best way to protect or make your soul grinder last longer in a 2000 pt game?

Keep them in reserve and deep-strike them on Turns 3 maybe so hopefully you've killed a lot of his melta-squads and done overall damage to his army?

Take 2-3, deep strike them turn 1, and take phlegm so you can stay away from the enemy lines.

They have to be together on the field at the same time because then it will actually prevent focus fire from anti-tank weapons. By taking Phlegm you can always be a threat, combine that with deep striking you can position yourself to be effective and avoid threats to your soul grinders.

I don't know how you were planning on keeping them until turn three, they could easily show up on turn two.

DeviantApostle
10-06-2010, 09:34
Just had 2 games with my Mono-Tzeench list, thinking about writing up the battle reports.

TheDireAvenger: Well, remember, you don't get a choice when they come on, it's all up to the will of Tzeench. Holding 'em back and taking Phlegm sounds like a good idea if you want them to last, but on the other side of the coin I use them purely to soak up fire and block firing lanes as well as movement. If they kill something, it's gravy. They're cheap enough that it's not game over if they die.

TheTrueSloth
10-06-2010, 10:35
Just had 2 games with my Mono-Tzeench list, thinking about writing up the battle reports.

How did they go?

Toodles

Badger[Fr]
10-06-2010, 11:36
I'm assuming you mean Libbies with Nullzone when you say the Inv. is almost negated?
Indeed.


You do know that a 'Thirster's initiative is higher than an assault terminator's, right and his WS forces them to hit him on 5's and the claws wound on 6's while he's going to be smattering multiple terminators a turn?
I do, but do you realize nobody ever takes Lightning Claws? Thunder Hammers and Storm Shields are by far a superior choice.

A Bloodthirster will, on average, kill less than a single (0.92) Assault Terminator per turn, and assuming he does kill one, the four remaining Terminators will score two or three wounds on the charge, thanks to Null Zone. If the SM player managed to weaken the Bloodthirster during his shooting phase (a couple of Meltaguns should be enough), he should be dead by now.


Yeah I'd been told time and again how the daemons are "the weakest of the new codexes" and how they weren't competitive. However, after quite a few games I've found my Mono-Tzeentch daemons (They are my first daemon army) have stomped almost everyone I've played to date to the point people are complaining about playing it.
Kudos to you, but experience from a single gaming group doesn't mean much. I have yet to lose a game with my IG army... And it's a foot-slogging list with Ogryns, Penal Legionaries, a Primaris Psyker, and a Deathstrike Missile.



TH/SS Terminators are a whole different situation, but they just aren't all that scary to a Daemon army--certainly not what they are to most other armies. If they pop out and get the charge, they might kill one unit, and then get killed by practically anything else in our army on the following turn.
Fair point, because you are right indeed. The issue is, the same applies to the Daemon army, and the inherently random nature of the army, its lack of firepower, and its poor manoeuvrability only make things worse. It's not unplayable, far from it, but is still slightly below the other Codices due to its glaring weaknesses.

DeviantApostle
10-06-2010, 12:12
How did they go?

Tzeench was with me for the first game, I was lucky enough to roll the Warp Rift mission from the battle mission book and I pretty much dominated the shooting phase... vs. Tau.

Fickle, however, is the will of Tzeench. We played a more normal mission again from the Battle Missions book but Fateweaver retired from the game Turn 2 and I just couldn't regain the initiative. I had to retire turn 4 due to time but I'd have needed luck rather than skill to turn the game around.

Battle Reports, with turn by turn diagrams, should be up soon.

the Goat
10-06-2010, 12:16
;4723942']A Bloodthirster will, on average, kill less than a single (0.92) Assault Terminator per turn, and assuming he does kill one, the four remaining Terminators will score two or three wounds on the charge, thanks to Null Zone. If the SM player managed to weaken the Bloodthirster during his shooting phase (a couple of Meltaguns should be enough), he should be dead by now.
I love how you calculate the percentage change of the bloodthurster's attacks down to two decimal places. But then you just assume that Null Zone is always in play and all the meltaguns/terminators always successfully hit and wound etc. How does this fictional opponent always have the perfect counter unit in the perfect position on the table at all times?

TheTrueSloth
10-06-2010, 15:27
;4723942']
I do, but do you realize nobody ever takes Lightning Claws? Thunder Hammers and Storm Shields are by far a superior choice.


That's true actually, I don't know why I assumed you'd be attacking with a squad with nearly all claws :o



A Bloodthirster will, on average, kill less than a single (0.92) Assault Terminator per turn, and assuming he does kill one, the four remaining Terminators will score two or three wounds on the charge, thanks to Null Zone. If the SM player managed to weaken the Bloodthirster during his shooting phase (a couple of Meltaguns should be enough), he should be dead by now.

I'm pretty sleep deprived today, so you're going to have to show me the math with the 'Thirster I'm afraid :(



Kudos to you, but experience from a single gaming group doesn't mean much. I have yet to lose a game with my IG army... And it's a foot-slogging list with Ogryns, Penal Legionaries, a Primaris Psyker, and a Deathstrike Missile.


That list sounds rather funky actually. I agree that experience from a single group doesn't mean much though, which is why I play between four different ones in my area as much as possible to get a more rounded experience :)


I love how you calculate the percentage change of the bloodthurster's attacks down to two decimal places. But then you just assume that Null Zone is always in play and all the meltaguns/terminators always successfully hit and wound etc. How does this fictional opponent always have the perfect counter unit in the perfect position on the table at all times?

That's a good point actually. If they do have them there, then the 'Thirster is probably going to die (bad luck excluded - I seem to find my dice rarely come close to rolling as the Mathhammer would suggest I should be). But if they don't then the chances are the Thirster will still do quite a bit of damage. Additionally, they're not always going to have that unit in the right place at the right time while charging in which is what I love about daemons and 40K in general - how the game actually goes is always somewhat exciting, because the tactics of both generals often horribly warp how a unit's performance is (both good and bad) :)


Fair point, because you are right indeed. The issue is, the same applies to the Daemon army, and the inherently random nature of the army, its lack of firepower, and its poor manoeuvrability only make things worse. It's not unplayable, far from it, but is still slightly below the other Codices due to its glaring weaknesses.

I'll admit the random nature of the daemon codex does make it much more of a challenge to play with, but since (as I see it) a lot of the better units in the daemon codex were designed to be somewhat overkill, since all of our shooting is assault orientated (no rapid firing or heavy weapon penalties for us :)) and since realistically we can drop far closer to the enemy than we would have gotten by normal movement (bad DS'ing excepted of course) I tend to find the random nature makes the game far more interesting and a double edged sword. On the one hand, getting the wrong wave can be a killer for us. On the other hand, I've found there was quite a few occasions where if I've got the wrong wave come in, my opponents will usually press their advantages as much as they can but they always are somewhat cagey about where and when my next reserves could come in which again improves my tactical choices.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree that daemons are not manoeuvreable though - granted, they're not Mech Tau or Mech Eldar, but they're not that bad either. If daemons had to footslog straight from the word "go" then they would be horrendous, but due to the way the army works, the deep strike often seems to provide much more of an advantage than the army would have had before anyway which does level out the playing field in a manner of speaking. At least that's my experiences.

The firepower is somewhat lacking as you said though, but I tend to see our firepower in the same way I would if I were playing Orks or World Eaters. We have some decent support units that can be very reliable (Basically anything that can shoot that isn't Horrors or Soul Grinder tongues), but it is only support fire to help get our "beastly boys" into combat (the only exception of course being all Tzeentch lists which strangely enough does quite well with shooting).


Tzeench was with me for the first game, I was lucky enough to roll the Warp Rift mission from the battle mission book and I pretty much dominated the shooting phase... vs. Tau.

Fickle, however, is the will of Tzeench. We played a more normal mission again from the Battle Missions book but Fateweaver retired from the game Turn 2 and I just couldn't regain the initiative. I had to retire turn 4 due to time but I'd have needed luck rather than skill to turn the game around.

Hmm, sounds intriguing, I shall have to have a read of the bat reps tonight after I've gotten back home - though I have to confess I Lol'd so very hard when I saw you outshot the Tau, you have made me a very happy Sloth :)

Toodles

GCMandrake
10-06-2010, 15:36
Seekers and Fleshhounds are used for different things. I tend to err on the side of Fleshhounds. Let me explain:

Seekers are generally better against units with good saves, or units in cover. Use your cavalry speed to seek out vulnerable units, and annihilate them before they get a chance to retaliate. A unit of 10 seekers will kill 5.5 MEQs on the charge, perfect to ensure you don't get shot to pieces in the enemy's turn (as you're locked in combat) and enough to ensure the unit is probably finished off in time for you to move again in your own turn. If the enemy runs away before you get to kill them all, you'll almost always catch up and force no retreat wounds (ATSKNF) or wipe the unit out (generally a bad thing). By comparison, 11 Fleshhounds + Fury (roughly the same cost as 10 Seekers)
will only kill 4 MEQs. Both units strike at a higher initiative than the MEQs, so the retaliation attacks (assuming 10 MEQs originally in the unit) will kill about 1 Seeker or 1 Fleshhound.

Against tanks, Seekers do well. The highest damage they can achieve is 12, meaning you can damage most vehicles (are there any rear AV12 or 13 vehicles?). Against hitting-on-4s AV10, the most common rear armour, your 10 seekers will get 1 glance and 2-3 pens. Enough to destroy it or at least to immobilise it so you hit with more in the enemy's turn. Fleshhounds on the other hand, will net you 2-3 glances and 2-3 pens. Probably enough to cripple or destroy a tank. The rending model in the unit also means you can glance AV14, but the low odds mean I wouldn't recommend it.

Fleshhounds are generally better against large units of badly-armoured soldiers you don't want tying up your Crushers or Fiends. Orks, Guard blob units and what have you. Against Orks, you can expect to kill 11 with the Seekers, or 9 with the Fleshhounds. The difference comes with the retaliation. A worst case unit of 30 slugga boyz (albeit now diminished) will then strike back against the Seekers and kill them all. Against the fleshhounds, they'll only kill 7 out of the 11. The orks have now lost combat against the hounds, and will probably lose another 2 boyz. Against the Seekers, they've wiped you out, and are free to move on in their turn.

tl;dr my point is this. Seekers are killier (except against tanks). Fleshhounds are harder in both senses of the word. If you just want to zerg the enemy, use Seekers, but expect them to die very easily; S3 5++ is bad. If you have a little more finesse and want to tie down enemy units until your Fiends/Crushers/whatever arrive to murder them, use Fleshhounds. If you're struggling with Mech, use Hounds to compliment your fiends. Both however, are good units, and the difference is not as large as some make out.

DJ3
10-06-2010, 15:44
I love how you calculate the percentage change of the bloodthurster's attacks down to two decimal places. But then you just assume that Null Zone is always in play and all the meltaguns/terminators always successfully hit and wound etc. How does this fictional opponent always have the perfect counter unit in the perfect position on the table at all times?

Don't worry too much about it--those are the worst case scenario numbers, and they still aren't that bad. Like I said, Null Zone Librarians are becoming rarer than they once were, and that's still one army out of at least a half-dozen competitive armies right now. So you might play Vanilla Space Marines, and they might have Null Zone.

Fortunately, there's no "might" to Fateweaver--he's always around. At worst, he's bringing that hypothetical TH/SS combat back to base odds by cancelling out Null Zone. At best, there is no Null Zone, and he's turning that Terminator charge into only 1 wound on the Bloodthirster.

So the base odds are two wounds, Null Zone makes it three, Fateweaver makes it one. You can decide for yourself how likely each of those scenarios are.

Hashmal
10-06-2010, 15:46
;4723942']
Kudos to you, but experience from a single gaming group doesn't mean much. I have yet to lose a game with my IG army... And it's a foot-slogging list with 2000 points of pure awesome.


Fixed that for you. :D And good on you for fielding an uncharacteristic army and succeeding with it. Isn't it great when the opponent doesn't know how to deal with what you field?

In my area, Daemons are viewed as completely unbalanced, due to my own shenanigans and one or two other players who like the little gribblies. I have friends who have sworn to kill Fateweaver every game, no matter the cost.

Excepting a practice game for 'ard Boyz against a Mech Guard list practically tailored to beat me (Psyker Battle Squad... grrrr), I have never lost a game with the army. Daemons are by no means uncompetitive, but they do take a solid grasp of tactics to get down. Their key is in that an overall strategy almost need not apply, since the pace of battle can easily change with one die roll.

Pardon my ignorance Badger, but in the 12ish years I've been into 40k, between... at this point... 7-9 gaming groups, I've never seen one person take a Null Zone Librarian. Are they that prolific in your area?

As an aside, Horrors of Tzeentch are decent troops at a couple of things, but there are two areas where they truly shine: murdering Eldar and Tau. I'm not surprised an all Tzeentch list beat the Tau; it's almost the best thing we can take against them.

Reinnon
10-06-2010, 16:11
Daemons do suffer against armour 14 - this I think is undenialable due to our lack of seriously reliable long range anti tank - yet our best unit for dealing with this threat (bloodthirsters) is discounted as a crap unit because it has the same chance of destroying a land raider as a melta gun and happens to lose in combat against a unit sporting 3+ invul saves and power fists.

Thats like saying a rhino is crap against a firedragon squad at close range - its painfully obvious. Assault Termies role in life is to annhilate units in close combat - they are quite firmly in the list of 'under no circumstances charge!' units for my bloodthirster.

This weakness doesn't mean the bloodthirster is bad - he's a cleaver that should be used against targets that can't do a damn thing about him. Yes, he's not the golden 'kill them all!' unit that he is in fantasy, as there is units that can cause him significant trouble.

Is this a problem? Perhaps, i know from experience that the bloodthirster suffers against guard and space marines (and to a lesser extent orks) but only if they can dedicate a large volume of firepower to deal with him, or your a ninny and let him be charged by something nasty (like the aforementioned assault termies or abaddon). If a bloodthirster reachs a gun line - good game - he's a threat that can not be ignored.

But saying that, I think the arguement that land raiders cause significant trouble for daemons is valid. When i see the land raider, i;'m not too concerned about the tank itself, but because it often carries the aforementioned super unit inside of it. Thats the weakness of the bloodthirster, you destroy the land raider, mr bloodthirster gets charged by the unit thats hiding within it, which is normally enough to kill it.

In essence: i'm really not sure what i'm arguing here :) Both sides have their viewpoints and both sides have points that can be considered valid. Daemons suffer from armour 14 and assault terminators, its just a weakness you have to play around with. Sometimes i find it helpful to just throw a vast horde of horrors into combat with the termies to hold them up (don't laugh, i've killed abaddon and a daemon prince with this tactic) while the bloodthirster goes and wrecks the rest of the army.

Null Zone is always used as a counter arguement, but how many people actually run it? Seems like alot of daemon discussion is based around the fighting of this near mythical 'counter daemon army' thats tearing up local metas.

DJ3
10-06-2010, 16:27
I'm pretty sleep deprived today, so you're going to have to show me the math with the 'Thirster I'm afraid :(

5 * 2/3[3+ to hit] * 5/6[2+ to wound] * 1/3[3+ invul] = .925 dead TH/SS Terminator
15 * 1/3[5+ to hit] * 5/6[2+ to wound] * 1/2[4+ invul] = 2.083 wounds to the Bloodthirster


Seekers are generally better against units with good saves, or units in cover. Use your cavalry speed to seek out vulnerable units, and annihilate them before they get a chance to retaliate. A unit of 10 seekers will kill 5.5 MEQs on the charge, perfect to ensure you don't get shot to pieces in the enemy's turn (as you're locked in combat) and enough to ensure the unit is probably finished off in time for you to move again in your own turn. If the enemy runs away before you get to kill them all, you'll almost always catch up and force no retreat wounds (ATSKNF) or wipe the unit out (generally a bad thing). By comparison, 11 Fleshhounds + Fury (roughly the same cost as 10 Seekers)
will only kill 4 MEQs. Both units strike at a higher initiative than the MEQs, so the retaliation attacks (assuming 10 MEQs originally in the unit) will kill about 1 Seeker or 1 Fleshhound.

In this scenario, you're assuming the Flesh Hounds get to charge a target that is conveniently not standing in terrain. There's nearly zero chance this happens for us against a MEQ army, unless they've never played Daemons before. Also, the actual numbers are the Seekers would kill 5.5 MEQ and the Flesh Hounds would kill 3.6 MEQ.

If you throw the lack of Grenades into the scenario, the MEQ get to strike first, killing two Flesh Hounds, leaving 9 to attack and now only killing 3. The embarrassing part is this situation deteriorates quickly for the Flesh Hounds--on the following turn, the 9 Flesh Hounds will do 1.5 wounds to the MEQ while the MEQ do 1.16 wounds to the Flesh Hounds. They lack the ability to reliably finish that combat on their own--against a freaking Tactical Squad. Pray to Khorne that it isn't Space Wolves, who would make an absolute mess of them.


Fleshhounds are generally better against large units of badly-armoured soldiers you don't want tying up your Crushers or Fiends. Orks, Guard blob units and what have you. Against Orks, you can expect to kill 11 with the Seekers, or 9 with the Fleshhounds. The difference comes with the retaliation. A worst case unit of 30 slugga boyz (albeit now diminished) will then strike back against the Seekers and kill them all. Against the fleshhounds, they'll only kill 7 out of the 11. The orks have now lost combat against the hounds, and will probably lose another 2 boyz. Against the Seekers, they've wiped you out, and are free to move on in their turn.

Some of your math is wrong here--assaulting Ork Boyz are practically the only scenario in which Flesh Hounds will kill more stuff than Seekers. Seekers will kill 7.64, Flesh Hounds will kill 9.17. Practically any alteration from the Ork Boy stat line results in the Seekers being ahead again--Guardsmen included. Against Guardsmen, it's 13 for the Seekers, 12 for the Hounds--and the Seekers do much, much better on the following turn (so much so that any incoming casualties are practically irrelevant--each Seeker kills nearly twice as many Guardsmen as each Flesh Hound on the successive turns)

However, the mistake you made is the assumption that Crushers or especially Fiends want nothing to do with Ork Boyz. There's practically nothing in the entire game that is more efficient at killing Ork Boyz than Fiends. It is what they are, statistically, best suited to killing. By a pretty huge margin. 6 Fiends would kill 11 Orks, take 6 wounds in return, kill 4 more Orks on resolution. They then kill 5 more Orks, take 3 wounds in return. Leadership 8 test to stay. Kill 4 Orks, take 2 wounds in return. Leadership 5 test to stay, most likely Sweeping Advance'd by the one remaining Fiend.

Which is a paragraph of words to say that six Fiends can do that combat from beginning to end, with no backup. The presence of the Nob shifts the percentages a bit, and might require them to get lucky on that first Leadership test. But regardless, those Boyz aren't getting away from those Fiends with enough models intact to threaten anything--it's practically the only unit in the entire game that can fight Ork Boyz to a standstill (or a win) for an equal number of points--less, when you add in the Nob.


tl;dr my point is this. Seekers are killier (except against tanks). [...] If you're struggling with Mech, use Hounds to compliment your fiends. Both however, are good units, and the difference is not as large as some make out.

And I don't get where you came to this conclusion from. Your own numbers don't even back this up. Flesh Hounds will average more glances against rear armor 10, but not more penetrates. The Flesh Hounds are actually statistically less likely to penetrate (by a very tiny margin) rear AV10. They'll get one or two bonus glances, that's it. But two glances isn't killing anything, and destroying vehicles is all we care about.

Essentially, the Seekers are practically identical to the Flesh Hounds in the role people keep suggesting them for--hunting rear AV10--while being leaps and bounds ahead of them in practically any conceivable combat scenario.

Worsle
10-06-2010, 16:33
TheTrueSloth I might be disagreeing with you here but I will say that, thanks for making a proper argument. Dispite every thing I am human and I do make mistakes so it is nice to see an explained disagreeing point of view.


But that's also assuming that its' always going to be best to move the Land Raider - granted in a vacuum environment, it is, but in a battlefield position we've all had games where conventional tactics will just fly out of the window. If they want to keep running their Land Raiders who cost nearly as much as 'Thirster round through the game and drastically crippling their firepower? Fine with me, since he can't be shot at while in combat I'll get him stuck in with some infantry where his massive strength, WS and no saves will work wonders on near on everything. If he really wants to divert a large chunk of the points of his army to a singular model that just mills around because he's afraid my 'Thirster might assault it, then I'm game. I'll just tear into the infantry, lighter vehicles, artillery and anything else I can get to in his army and make sure he dies as horribly as possible.

First I thin people are overly focusing on the land raider. That always happens with orks too I say they have poor anti tank all round and no real answer to AV14 all rounds and we just get a never ending discussion on land raiders. This never count on hitting a tank on more than a 6+ does not just stand for raiders anyway, it is a point you should take to heart when dealing with all tanks and that why flesh hounds are better anti tank than a thirster. Also what infentry are you getting stuck into? Every one is in there tank and your blood thirster is just standing there howling impotently. See this is why the cavalry army is good it has the speed and the tanks to remove people from there tanks. It is not a perfect army but I don't think you can make one from daemons.


To add to all this, we are talking about one vehicle in the game (two if you count the Monolith, but conventional tactics is to just ignore it anyway). Every other vehicle in the game has much weaker rear armour, which means it is going to be much easier to tear into. And this is only one unit in the army we're talking about. It comes down far to as to how you use them rather than specifically they can do (bit of a no brainer that, but there you go). If they're being reactive to our monster with their tank and drastically reduce its' effectiveness or firepower because of a possible fear, then use it.

Again daemons have terrible anti tank (generally speaking, the cavalry army is about the only one with good anti tank against most things, bar walkers and AV14s), I said this at the start. All tanks are an issue for daemons and we are playing in the 5th edition (aka get in a tank edition). Oh and before any one says it I do think foot armies can work but only in some codexes (SM bikers, SW cavalry, BA jump packs and nids are you competative no tank armies) but that is because those books have tools you can use to take on mech players that daemons just don't have.


And the points comparison is relevant simply because (as I see it) a 'Thirster is potentially devastating against almost everything out there, purely and simply. Its' not just restricted to vehicle buster, it just does it up close and personal better than most other things. A land raider, on the other hand, does two main roles - shoots and transports, but does nothing else. Even then, realistically, the weapons a Land Raider has will dictate what it can shoot well against. With a 'Thirster, it doesn't matter if you're a unit of 8 Nob Bikers or 8 Sanguinary Guard, you are going to die.

So 8 TH/SS? There are other strong assault units and ones much better than nob bikes (over blown and not that good) or sanguinary guard (really who is hailing them as the new black?). There are better assault units than the thirster in many ways, and ones that are less expensive to boot (even inthe daemon codex). Only and transporting and shooting? So it can only pop tanks or kill infantry how terrible restricted. I am really lost at what you are trying to say here.


Honestly though most rainbow daemon players have very little trouble killing almost anything that comes out of a transport in HtH, they're not our concern, its' the transport's shooting (assuming its' say Crusader variant for example). If its' running nilly willy away from our one main "big flappy" then it has to sacrifice its' shooting to do it. If it has a death star squad in it, then it either has to leave them stranded or keep the squad inside where it doesn't actually do anything but means you still have that unit to pile in where you want it. That really isn't a bad thing, it means they become reactionary to an "unstable army" which gives us back a tactical advantage.

Who says it is is running away, it might be coming right at you. With a librarian for support (witch is the standard choice) I favour the terminators in a fight. Also who only fields one land raider? Well other than people not fielding a competitive army, it is 2 of them thank you very much.


Generally speaking Seekers are considered better than Flesh Hounds for the fact that (as I understand it):

Seekers have rending
Seekers have a greater quantity of attacks (double infact on the standstill)
Seekers count as having Grenades of both kinds, which means that it makes them much better at assaulting infantry in cover (which they normally are against daemons funnily enough :rolleyes:) as they can get their attacks (with better initiative) in and do their share of killing before an opponent hits back.

Flesh Hounds have:

2pts less per model, which does add up, granted.
Greater strength
Greater toughness

EDIT: They have the same Weapon skill, my bad. Perhaps typing at silly o'clock isn't always a good thing :)

But generally speaking if Flesh Hounds assault the same unit in cover that the Seekers did, the Flesh Hounds are going to get battered left, right and centre (the difference between T3 and T4 is just not that much in practice) before they get to attack (assume for sake of ease they're MEQ's). To add to that, on the standstill they have half the attacks and lack the ability to just ignore saves. Against bigger things like Tervigons, Wraithlords and Mawlocs even (purely as an example), after the first round of combat Seekers can still tear them open at high initiative with rending where Flesh Hounds can't (or are just going to be really bad at it). Don't get me wrong, I love Flesh Hounds, but I could never justify taking them over Seekers for most games (as they're really not "extra fiends" even so to compare them is somewhat foolish).

Sure, Flesh Hounds can tear open vehicles with rear AV10 (assuming its' not a walker - anything with rear AV11 means they only have one round to glance). But with rending, so can seekers. The difference is that seekers that even glance vehicles with AV12 in HtH and can penetrate AV11 tanks. Though this is still a moot point, if I want a vehicle hunter, to hell with it (in the fast attack slot) I'll grab 5 screamers at 80pts and use 5 meltabombs to blow up whatever horrible fire support tank they have. Or maybe a daemon prince (either as a support role or in HtH). Or maybe any of the Greater Daemons. Or maybe Tzeentch Heralds that can worry anything with AV less than 14 surprisingly well. Even Fiends and Crushers can tear most vehicles open. Flesh Hounds just don't become worth the Fast Attack slots.

If a Flesh Hound unit has to charge a vehicle, then generally it is a wasted unit. It it charges infantry, then normally either Fiends or Seekers will do a better job for the same charge range. As a result, they start to become a subpar choice. Which is why most daemon players won't take them and why I would only consider them if I was playing Mono-Khorne (but only to tie down heavy weapon squads, but even then 'Letters seem more tempting)

Ok I am going to respond to all of this at once as it is all basically on the same subject. First we all know the daemons have issues getting into tanks right? I mean with only bolt and the unreliable soulgrinder shot you can count on much from shooting, so that leaves you needing to do it in melee. Next we can all except that daemons have to much anti infantry units right? It creates to much of an over lap in most slots (daemonettes and bloodletters in the same slot, random example). This is the context of the daemon codex, this is important as comparing hounds to seekers without it is why theoryhammer fails so much (it is a bit like comparing a melta gun to attacking a tank in melee, devoiced from the realities of the game).

Next we can agree the odds of seekers doing any passable damage to AV12 is exceedingly slim right? You need the rendeing 6 and then the best rending roll and even then you only get a glancing hit. This means in melee flesh hounds are better against all tanks with rear AV10 while seekers have the edge against AV11 and neither stands much of a chance against AV12 (remember hounds have a rending upgrade so they can still hurt av12 if lucky). Now having had a look though Eldar, IG and BA codex (what I have to hand and covers nearly all tanks in the same) I find there is only 1 vehicle (walkers are excluded) with a rear value of 11 (a single lemon russ variant), no walkers (jumps from 10 to 12), and 2 vehicles with a rear armour of 12 (pods and the stormraven). Now from this it is fair to say that the hounds superior abilities against AV10 are far far more important when you are playing the game than the seekers ability to hurt AV11 (if you are lucky, as really it they are not really good against it). This goes back to what I said about theoryhammer against, numbers are good but if you don't give them context you can't do anything with them.

Next you say charging vehicles is a "waste" ok then then but given daemons have terrible anti tank shooting how exactly are you going to get to charge at people? See this is where daemons fall apart, you don't need a slightly better combat unit what you need is a good enough combat unit that can also get people out of their tin cans. This is what I was getting at before about the context of the daemon codex. I have slannesh heralds (in chariots), I have fiends and I can take even more melee units in heavy support and troops (woo redundancy exactly where you don't need it). Seekers offer nothing you can't get else where, flesh hounds are one of the few units that can offer the number of fast moving high strength attacks needed to bust open those tin cans.

Also no crushers can't open most tanks, they are too slow and don't give you enough attacks. Fiends are good but you only have 3 units of fiends and expecting them to bust a tank every time they charge is going beyond optimistic, instead you need a way of getting more fiends into your list. In steps the hound, a mini fiend, half the cost and nearly half as good.



As for the rest of the "junk" in the daemon codex...really? 1pt difference and I can switch out the Hounds for yet another troop choice loaded with power weapons that will simply ignore every armour save they go up against. Sure, they're not as fast, but with an average DS, run and move there's still a fairly good chance they'll get in early. Unlike Flesh Hounds however, when they finally get to strike back, they're going to kill stuff. Flesh Hounds don't have that guarantee. Or maybe for the same points, I should just switch them for Plague Bearers, drop near an objective or terrain and go to ground, at least they can capture an objective. Horrors, even with mediocre shooting and low toughness, can hold an objective and provide covering fire support.

Yes junk the army is filled with units that preform more of the same unneeded role or just aren't good enough. We are talking about an army that has a very small number of units to start with and from that an even smaller number of units worth taking. Also swapping plague bearers for hounds? :eyebrows: In what way do they even preform the same role? You take both, daemons need plague bears as troops is something of a problem child in a codex filled with issues so it is very hard to do without there survivability.


Yikes, how to insult the majority of daemon players out there in one chunk of a sentence :). Seriously though, are you really suggesting that a large chunk of our wins as daemon players are because of poor performances by opponents rather than because of our own skill (as such a statement would suggest)? *shakes head* If that is the case, then this conversation is less about codex structure and more about philosophical differences. Of course Daemons have glaring issues with their codexes. ALL of the codexes do. It doesn't mean they're rubbish, its' just part of the army that - if you are a competent player - you'll adapt to and compensate for.

Most people don't play competitively so why should they care? And if you are a competitive player and think the current competitive scene 40k has is acceptable then you are fooling your self. Also I find this a poor argument are you saying I should not speak the truth because it will hurt peoples feelings? That and any one boasting about having an unbeaten win record then you are clearly not playing any one in your league, 40k is not so unbalanced that that should happen when you are playing any army. An unbeaten win record or anything similar is not something to celibate but more some thing to be worried about.

Reinnon, pretty much the same odds as a single melta gun. If it was say the same odds as a squad of fire dragons (just an example, not the bench mark I am holding every thing against) then you could make that argument but when you are talking about a single melta gun it is a very different story.

Also null zone should be on pretty much any SM librarian you see (like blood lance for BA or living lightning for SWs), it is one of the best powers SM libarian s get. It is a great utility power that would be taken in most situations even if you ignore daemons.

edit. Just noticed this.


About Flesh Hounds and Daemon fast attack. Flesh Hounds suck. That`s the end of that debate. But mind you, most of the fast attack options are lacklustre. They are not tough like our HQ. Heavies, and Elites...and you can`t take them in big squads like our troops...so, they all die pretty easily. That`s really the weakness of Flesh Hounds - max squad size of 5?!? If you could put down 15 of them, you could lay some hurt on some things.

You might want to look at your codex again. You can take a minimum of 5 hounds not a maximum, so yes you could take 15. I would favour 12, mostly as it keeps them as equal to a full unit of fiends as you can get. Means you can take some of the edge of daemonic assault by keeping your two waves very similar.

Badger[Fr]
10-06-2010, 18:02
15 * 1/3[5+ to hit] * 5/6[2+ to wound] * 1/2[4+ invul] = 2.083 wounds to the Bloodthirster
And with Nullzone, you get roughly three wounds, which should enough to down the Daemon in one or two turns. To be fair, though, there are still few units that can take on a Bloodthirster in CC and win. Assault Terminators are amongst the best CC units in the entire game.



This weakness doesn't mean the bloodthirster is bad - he's a cleaver that should be used against targets that can't do a damn thing about him. Yes, he's not the golden 'kill them all!' unit that he is in fantasy, as there is units that can cause him significant trouble.
Indeed, the Bloodthirster is far from being bad, even though he's still a little bit overpriced. But, contrary to what has been said on this thread, it's not a reliable anwser to Land Raiders or Deathstar units. No one can deny that Daemons have trouble dealing with armour, and next to no reliable anwsers against Av14.

Does that make Daemons of Chaos unplayable? Not necessarily, but still, people should not make things up and say "Everything is fine, my Bloodthirster ROTFLpwns Land Raiders and Assault terminators", which was the whole point of my posts.


I love how you calculate the percentage change of the bloodthurster's attacks down to two decimal places. But then you just assume that Null Zone is always in play and all the meltaguns/terminators always successfully hit and wound etc.
Daemons have no psychic defence (they're supposed to be the bane of Psykers, go figure), and the odds of the Librarian failing to cast Nullzone are slim. As for my calculations, they're based on the average results.

My assumptions are perfectly reasonable.


How does this fictional opponent always have the perfect counter unit in the perfect position on the table at all times?
Charging a Bloodthirster from a Land Raider while casting a Psychic Power with a 24' effect radius is hardly a feat. If anything, this is what makes the whole Assault Terminators + Nullzone combo potent in the first place.

Reinnon
10-06-2010, 18:38
Well tbh - the bloodthirster does do a pretty good job at killing the land raider - but at close assault and putting himself in considerable danger to whatever is inside the thing.

I suppose that makes the bloodthirster an odd unit that can destroy a land raider but isn't a very good counter to it - sometimes i wish that bolt of change had the melta rule....

I don't think the bloodthirster is overpriced though, he just simply isn't his best against these sort of armies.

DJ3
10-06-2010, 19:01
This is starting to get fun.


it is a point you should take to heart when dealing with all tanks and that why flesh hounds are better anti tank than a thirster.

buhhhhhhhh

Seriously, my brain shuts down for like six seconds every time you say something like that.

Against Cruising Speed rear AV10, eighteen Flesh Hounds (a Bloodthirster's points worth) will average half of a penetrate more than a Bloodthirster. I haven't the slightest clue why anyone would ever use a Bloodthirster to kill rear AV10, but there's the numbers. Eighteen Flesh Hounds gets you half of a penetrate.


Also what infentry are you getting stuck into? Every one is in there tank and your blood thirster is just standing there howling impotently. See this is why the cavalry army is good it has the speed and the tanks to remove people from there tanks. It is not a perfect army but I don't think you can make one from daemons.

You know Bolt of Tzeentch does kill Rhinos every now and then, right? And that doing so is preferable in every conceivable way to doing so via Assault?

Also, I love the idea of a Bloodthirster "standing there howling impotently." I can't even begin to explain all the games I've played where I was sitting there going "man, I wish this Bloodthirster had something to do, but he just can't threaten any of the targets currently on the board."


Again daemons have terrible anti tank (generally speaking, the cavalry army is about the only one with good anti tank against most things, bar walkers and AV14s), I said this at the start. All tanks are an issue for daemons and we are playing in the 5th edition (aka get in a tank edition).

Also, completely seriously: Do you play against armies that contain nothing but empty Rhinos and Chimeras? Because I'm not exactly sure what's getting out of these tanks you're killing.

If it's Space Marines (even a Tactical Squad), they'll instantly kill 2 of your Flesh Hounds with Bolt Pistols (pray there's no Flamer), then Assault you. Assuming a Power Fist Sergeant and starting with 10 Flesh Hounds, you lose 4 and kill one of them, then lose two more to combat resolution--leaving two Flesh Hounds. This is assuming the Tactical Squad is even required to Assault--any nearby firepower could make this unnecessary--but your 150 points of Flesh Hounds have killed a Rhino and one Tactical Marine before dying. If your "all-cavalry Daemon army" is based around making these kind of trade-offs, it's not exactly a winning strategy.



There are better assault units than the thirster in many ways, and ones that are less expensive to boot (even inthe daemon codex).

Er, nobody's suggesting you use the Bloodthirster with his main goal being to punch Guardsmen. He's about taking out suitably heavy targets in the opposing army--you know, Land Raiders, characters, enemy MCs. Punching Infantry is not what he's supposed to be doing, but he certainly can if he needs to. Normally, a handful of Bloodcrushers/Fiends provide all the Infantry-punching that any army could ever require.



Only and transporting and shooting? So it can only pop tanks or kill infantry how terrible restricted. I am really lost at what you are trying to say here.

He's saying that since according to you, every Vehicle constantly moves at Cruising Speed, all the time, no questions asked--there isn't much Shooting being done. You can't have both. As we've said, the Transport capabilities of a Land Raider are not particularly threatening to us, and we worry more about the guns firing every turn. If you're running away from a Bloodthirster, you're not accomplishing this--and the main threat of the vehicle is neutralizing itself.


Who says it is is running away, it might be coming right at you. With a librarian for support (witch is the standard choice) I favour the terminators in a fight. Also who only fields one land raider? Well other than people not fielding a competitive army, it is 2 of them thank you very much.

You favor 500+ points of Infantry and 500 points of Land Raiders against a 250 point Monstrous Creature?

Well, at least we can agree on that one.

You know, until the following turn, when 4 Bloodcrushers or 10 Bloodletters would make an absolute mess of that unit of Terminators, for half the points.

(Also--I pray to god you don't actually play Space Marines, and you're just imagining a hypothetical of that combat. You'd have to have some kind of mental defect to actually send your Librarian with the Terminators into that Assault on the Bloodthirster. Guess who's receiving all the attacks and getting ID'd at I5!)


Ok I am going to respond to all of this at once as it is all basically on the same subject. First we all know the daemons have issues getting into tanks right? I mean with only bolt and the unreliable soulgrinder shot you can count on much from shooting, so that leaves you needing to do it in melee.

If by "unreliable" you mean 23% (BS5 Bolt on AV11) vs 28% (10 Flesh Hounds on Cruising Speed AV10).

A competitive Daemon army is likely to have four and up to five of those Bolts. On units who serve a purpose beyond suiciding into a Rhino and getting killed by its' contents.



This means in melee flesh hounds are better against all tanks with rear AV10

Here's some numbers with more digits:

10 Flesh Hounds on rear AV10, to destroy: .277777
9 Seekers on rear AV10, to destroy: .277777


while seekers have the edge against AV11 and neither stands much of a chance against AV12 (remember hounds have a rending upgrade so they can still hurt av12 if lucky).

Very lucky--1.8% to kill an AV12 Dreadnaught.



Now having had a look though Eldar, IG and BA codex (what I have to hand and covers nearly all tanks in the same) I find there is only 1 vehicle (walkers are excluded) with a rear value of 11 (a single lemon russ variant),

Three Leman Russ variants--including two of the most popular, the Demolisher and Executioner,


no walkers (jumps from 10 to 12),

Killa Kans,


and 2 vehicles with a rear armour of 12 (pods and the stormraven).

and obviously all the other Dreadnaughts.


Now from this it is fair to say that the hounds superior abilities against AV10

To recap:

10 Flesh Hounds on rear AV10, to destroy: .277777 (still!)
9 Seekers on rear AV10, to destroy: .277777 (still!)

Math is glorious!


are far far more important when you are playing the game than the seekers ability to hurt AV11 (if you are lucky, as really it they are not really good against it).

10 Seekers actually have a 46% chance to get at least one Penetrating Hit against Cruising Speed AV11. I'd certainly chuck them at an Executioner Russ if the situation presented itself--and, maybe it's just me, but I don't see many Executioner/Demolisher Russes going Cruising Speed. At Combat Speed, the Seekers actually have a 46% chance to kill it.

Since they're effectively identical to Flesh Hounds at killing AV10, I'll take the AV11 thing as a bonus.


Next you say charging vehicles is a "waste" ok then then but given daemons have terrible anti tank shooting how exactly are you going to get to charge at people?

Charging vehicles is not a waste--a unit whose only purpose is to charge vehicles is a waste. Destroying vehicles via Assault is inherently bad. It means you can't damage the contents of the vehicle this turn, and it leaves you in a giant pile to get Flamer'd to death, in the event that you Assaulted with a high-population unit (such as 10 Flesh Hounds).

Yes, we're often put in situations where we have to charge vehicles. That does not make it Plan A. Most people do not want to spend a ton of points on something that fills a role they hope they won't require--especially if practically everything else in their army can fill that same role while actually accomplishing something else.


See this is where daemons fall apart, you don't need a slightly better combat unit what you need is a good enough combat unit that can also get people out of their tin cans.

Luckily, that's not a decision we actually have to make. Seekers and Bloodletters are identical against AV10, Fiends and Bloodcrushers are superior. These are all common, incredibly deadly units that serve as the very core of our army. We don't want to have to Assault vehicles, but we already have the tools available to do so if we need to.



Also no crushers can't open most tanks, they are too slow and don't give you enough attacks.

4 Bloodcrushers on Cruising Speed AV10, to destroy: .2962
10 Flesh Hounds on Cruising Speed AV10, to destroy: .2777 (still!)


Fiends are good but you only have 3 units of fiends

Maybe your real problem is that you've never actually seen a Bloodcrusher. The last two statements would seem to suggest this may be the case.


Most people don't play competitively so why should they care? And if you are a competitive player and think the current competitive scene 40k has is acceptable then you are fooling your self. Also I find this a poor argument are you saying I should not speak the truth because it will hurt peoples feelings? That and any one boasting about having an unbeaten win record then you are clearly not playing any one in your league, 40k is not so unbalanced that that should happen when you are playing any army. An unbeaten win record or anything similar is not something to celibate but more some thing to be worried about.

I'm starting to think you might just dislike everything, across-the-board, except Flesh Hounds. Daemons, competition in 40k, peoples' feelings, unbeaten win records, Bloodthirsters, calculators, math in general.

But this thread is really getting entertaining. It's like you are the Avatar of Misconceptions About Daemons, and we get to get everything out in the open and point out why it's wrong, all in one thread, rapid-fire style. It's the Lightning Round of "daemons aren't that bad, guys."

Plus, at this point, I get to talk about Daemons way more in this thread than I do in the Daemon Tactica thread.

clangedinn
10-06-2010, 19:23
Avatar of Misconceptions?!?! does this mean a new Chaos god is coming into Existence :P

blood "fatty" thirster
10-06-2010, 23:09
First of all im tired and my spelling is gonna take one for the team!

Oh dear oh dear oh dear!!! Sorry guys but this is a bit of a joke now. maths,land raiders, anti tank,anti deamon armies!! lol You really are funny.

Can i suggest you look at the latest tourny results and see what deamon players are doing and what they have. I would love to play ANY of you with my army ( as detailed in a previous post )

You can have as many tanks as you like, 1,2 or 3 land raiders not a problem what so ever. My friend has a 3 land raider, double lash army(see birmingham expo best army winner) thats hard as nails with 3 khorne berzerker troops(try saving 50 plus wounds on fateweaver.....done!) I beat him 9 times out of ten, he has similar results against most armies he plays...........

you can talk all you want about stats and this is good,that is good,but it all boils down to the players and there tactics. The dice and a bit of luck help to.

cavelry armies work perfectly well infact can excell. The fateweaver army is awesome and can take on ANY army.

I also have a nice little tried and tested FACT for you.Any anti deamon army for example the psycher battle squad army (kills fateweaver in seconds), the full on grey knight/mystic army and the high shot guard army are pretty much awefull against anything but deamons!! The dudley destroyers have been playing about with these for ages and had many many games with them.

There is NO POINT at all in creating an "anti - " army , its unfair. The whole idea of this game is to make the best overall army that can take on anyone and have lots of fun doing it. ANYONE can make an anti army, few can make and overall GREAT army.

sorry to burst your bubble boys but deamons are starting to rock the tournys big time! They are hard,fast and difficult to play against and will soon be topping all the charts. If im wrong then so be it! But what if im right?............

Thankyou for reading. Gareth Blood "fatty" Thirster

jsullivanlaw
10-06-2010, 23:20
Interesting and entertaining thread. I don't agree that i need to be afraid of a land raider shooting at me as daemons. Landraider shooting is something to be ignored. A landraider is a major threat for 2 reasons and only 2 reasons. Number one is that they can put a unit right where they want for an assault which can deny bloodcrushers and bloodletters furious charge or hit our plaguebearers or do other annoying stuff. Reason number 2 is that a mobile landraider can tank shot our troops off objectives. Assaulting vehicles in general sucks, and the daemon army is pretty limited in shooting options. We can bring some bolt ect, but a smart mech commander can neutralize those guns and force us to assault. I never really figured out how to deal with fast armies like Eldar or Tau, they'd shoot down my fast units and then just run away from the slow ones.

TheTrueSloth
11-06-2010, 00:15
Lol, I'm going to come back to this one in the morning once I've had a nap or else I'm just going to fail to say anything properly :P

Worsle - you're welcome. I do try and explain myself even if on occasion I just waffle and occasionally make no sense :P

DJ3 - thanks for explaining some of the points I was trying to make for me, you pretty much hit the nail on the head for me :)

I do want to add though:


Next you say charging vehicles is a "waste" ok then then but given daemons have terrible anti tank shooting how exactly are you going to get to charge at people?


Charging vehicles is not a waste--a unit whose only purpose is to charge vehicles is a waste. Destroying vehicles via Assault is inherently bad. It means you can't damage the contents of the vehicle this turn, and it leaves you in a giant pile to get Flamer'd to death, in the event that you Assaulted with a high-population unit (such as 10 Flesh Hounds).

Yes, we're often put in situations where we have to charge vehicles. That does not make it Plan A. Most people do not want to spend a ton of points on something that fills a role they hope they won't require--especially if practically everything else in their army can fill that same role while actually accomplishing something else.

I wasn't trying to say that charging vehicles is a waste specifically - what I was trying to say (and failed at it seems) is that it is a waste generally to aim to charge Flesh Hounds into vehicles when they generally do a better job at failing against infantry :P.

And you really do underestimate Tzeentch shooting. Sure the Horrors aren't amazing, but everything else that can shoot does it pretty accurately.


Also I find this a poor argument are you saying I should not speak the truth because it will hurt peoples feelings? That and any one boasting about having an unbeaten win record then you are clearly not playing any one in your league, 40k is not so unbalanced that that should happen when you are playing any army. An unbeaten win record or anything similar is not something to celibate but more some thing to be worried about.

1) Whether you are speaking the truth or not was not being questioned. First, your claims are more subjective opinion rather than verifiable with empirical evidence, so you can't claim them as "truth" unless you want to talk in purely philosophical terms, which is subjective at best (and at worst, basically mental foreplay :P). It wasn't an argument either but a mere comment about the fact that I disagreed with the sentiment in your statement, but that is my opinion too.

2) I don't recall saying I ever had an unbeaten record? I did say I've been doing a lot better than people in my local group might have given me credit for (and to paraphrase, have stomped ALMOST everyone), but its' certainly not unbeaten.

3) With all due respect, I've been in and out of the hobby long enough and played on a competitive enough standard to know that if I do get an unbeaten record over a set period of time then I need to find harder opponents (Ironically as I proved to the last guy who made that claim to me :)).

@ Blood "Fatty" Thirster - do you have any links for sites where we can see some of the more recent tournament records?

Toodles

DeviantApostle
11-06-2010, 00:41
The thing with the Bloodthurster vs. Land Raider full of Th+SS Assault Terminators does strike me as odd. A total of 450+ points beats a total of 250+ points? Seems fairly logical.

So, let's even the odds. Mr. Bloodthurster brings along his friend and playmate, Mr. Soul Grinder. The two then reinact the Polar Bear Igloo joke: "I love these things! Crunchy on the outside with a chewy centre!" For 50 or so points less...

mafty
11-06-2010, 02:31
ugh, getting sick of mathhammer. mathhammer =/= actual game play and never will. Sure you SHOULD roll this and that, does it always (or ever) happen, no. Its a game of dice and LUCK (key word here). There is no certainty and saying x unit is better than x unit because its 0.01% more likely to do whatever is getting a little bit nuts here guys. Unless the odds are stagering (ie. 75% vs 5%) we can stop this bickering.


Also comparing unit x to unit x of another army can be done with ANY codex and any unit from said codecis. So this discussion could be how fire dragons arent as reliable to destroy a lemun russ as my wraithlord charging it (I have no idea, its an example, dont math hammer me out here). Point is, these examples are situational and dont prove anything.

DaR
11-06-2010, 07:17
Yea the daemons are already hitting well in assault. The other guy is missing more of his attacks. Ohh wait now he gets to reroll all those misses. Good thing I brought Skarbrand!

I just don't see the logic where it makes sense to pay extra points to give your opponent a reroll.

The point is that you are better in assault, for a number of reasons. Better initiative, higher WS/S, and more rending/power attacks. Therefore your rerolls are a bigger effect than your opponent's.

Look at this way, with some example combats.

6 Fiends of Slaanesh charging versus 10 Assault Squad Space Marines.

The Fiends swing first, being I5. Without rerolls, they will average 18 hits which translates into 12 wounds (3 of which are rending). That is 6 dead marines on average (9 regular wounds gets 3 actual dead and 3 rends killing 3 more).

The remaining 4 marines swing back on I4 and below. 6 regular attacks and 2 power fist attacks. That's 3 regular hits for 3/2 wounds which ends up being 1 wound after invuln saves. 2 power fist swings works out to be 5/9ths of a wound on average. That's 1 5/9s wounds total. Fiends win combat by 4 and 4/9s.

Now add Skarbrand's mere presence on the field.

Fiends still swing first, being I5. With rerolls, they now average 24 hits. This translates to 6 rends and 10 regular wounds. That's 9 and 1/3 wounds after saves. The single marine standing (assuming you round down on the fractional hit) swings his powerfist twice and does 5/9ths of a wound. Fiends now win combat by 8 7/9ths. He now can't hope to pass Ld and will almost certainly be cut down by the No Retreat wounds. The Fiends performance almost *doubled* overall against the marine squad.

Getting charged? Fiends kill around 3 with rends and 2 more after saves for 5 5/9s. The marines get about 4 5/6ths and only lose combat by one. With rerolls, the fiends kill 8 and 1/3 before the marines swing and assuming the fraction lives, the marines manage to still get 4 1/4th wounds through. But they lose combat by 4 now, and are fairly likely to fail and get chased down. In both cases you're losing 2 Fiends, but with Skarbrand on the field, you kill an extra 2 or 3 marines and are much more likely to chase down the other 2 from the squad.

10 Bloodletters versus a Squad of 29 Boyz plus a Nob? Without Skarbrand, the 'letters generate 30 attacks and produce a total of 13 1/3rds wounds. That leaves 16 Boyz and Nob to attack back, generating a total of 6 and 1/6ths wounds after saves. The Boyz lose by 7 and 1/6 and probably lose another 5 models, leaving 11 and the Nob. Your 'letters have lost over half their strength and killed only 18 Boyz in the round. Next round you kill only 2 boyz and then the remaining 9 and Nob clear you off the table. You are out all 10 bloodletters and the Orks have lost 20 boyz and still have a 10 strong squad.

With Skarbrand, the 'letters generate 17 7/9ths wounds. That leaves only 11 Boyz and the Nob to strike back, reducing Demon casualties to 4.5. Orks lose by 13 and only the Nob and maybe one other survive. You lost 1 or 2 fewer models *and* killed an extra 10 Boyz in the bargain. In the second round, your remaining 5 or 6 bloodletters easily finish off the last few wounds before the Orks swing. You have half your squad left, the Orks are out 29 Boyz and Nob.

Because you go first, you reduce their offensive power by a greater proportion than they do yours. And every assault phase that compounds, as you have more models left and they have fewer.

Even if you get charged by the Orks, it helps a little. Skarbrands presence lets you kill an extra two or three boyz before your squad is completely wiped off the table (with or without rerolls on the part of the Orks).

As I said, this can backfire. The same math works well for units like Harlequins and Genestealers, who can beat your Initiative, match or exceed you in WS, and have similar rending/power weapon capabilities with reasonably high numbers of attacks, or can completely soak up your attacks. But as long as you neutralize those few units, the advantage you gain is almost always superior to the advantage your opponent gains.

For instance, you will be using infantry of various sorts to crack vehicles in assault, but you have few ( 3 at most) vehicles which can be assaulted in return. So again, that's an asymmetry in the advantage. You get more out of it than your opponent does.

Worsle
11-06-2010, 16:23
Against Cruising Speed rear AV10, eighteen Flesh Hounds (a Bloodthirster's points worth) will average half of a penetrate more than a Bloodthirster. I haven't the slightest clue why anyone would ever use a Bloodthirster to kill rear AV10, but there's the numbers. Eighteen Flesh Hounds gets you half of a penetrate.

You get one bloodthirster, you can get 3 units of hounds. Thirsters are hqs, hounds are fast attack. See maybe this is because its suits your own argument but you seem to have it in your mind that I am saying hounds are wonderful and I would take them at the cost of all other units. No I am saying hounds are passable and make for a more useful tool in your army. Also you are really ignoring the balancing factor hounds add to daemonic assault, while you will still have in inferior wave at least when you are using 3 units of hounds 12 and 3 units of fiends 6 you can have them very similar (you know dealing with a big problem of the book, shock and horror).



You know Bolt of Tzeentch does kill Rhinos every now and then, right? And that doing so is preferable in every conceivable way to doing so via Assault?

The emphasis being on then rather than now. Bolt is crap for taking out tanks and mech is the reality of the 5th edition, either you deal with it or you whine about how over powered the "leafblower" is. Also you are telling me, the guy who has been saying the lack of good anti tank shooting is a fundamental flaw of the daemon codex, does not realise that anti tank shooting is good to have? Congratulations for stumbling into one of the reasons for why daemons are not competitive, you want to be able to hurt tanks at range but daemons are not any good at it.


Also, I love the idea of a Bloodthirster "standing there howling impotently." I can't even begin to explain all the games I've played where I was sitting there going "man, I wish this Bloodthirster had something to do, but he just can't threaten any of the targets currently on the board."

Boy I am sure putting a unit that costs nearly 300 points to good use by taking on 50 point units that I can't even attack till turn two at the earliest. This sure is a brilliant situation, created by a brilliant codex.


If it's Space Marines (even a Tactical Squad), they'll instantly kill 2 of your Flesh Hounds with Bolt Pistols (pray there's no Flamer), then Assault you. Assuming a Power Fist Sergeant and starting with 10 Flesh Hounds, you lose 4 and kill one of them, then lose two more to combat resolution--leaving two Flesh Hounds. This is assuming the Tactical Squad is even required to Assault--any nearby firepower could make this unnecessary--but your 150 points of Flesh Hounds have killed a Rhino and one Tactical Marine before dying. If your "all-cavalry Daemon army" is based around making these kind of trade-offs, it's not exactly a winning strategy.

Ok only SM tactical squads should never charge. Also those seekers you are saying are so much better in a moment, they are T3, while hounds are T4. Also I would happily lose some hounds if it got the other guy out of all of his transports. Oh yes and why is my only unit hounds? When did I ever say I was building an army with just hounds?


Er, nobody's suggesting you use the Bloodthirster with his main goal being to punch Guardsmen. He's about taking out suitably heavy targets in the opposing army--you know, Land Raiders, characters, enemy MCs. Punching Infantry is not what he's supposed to be doing, but he certainly can if he needs to. Normally, a handful of Bloodcrushers/Fiends provide all the Infantry-punching that any army could ever require.

Only we know the thirster is not any good at taking out land raiders. Really we have gone over this your odds of taking out a land raider are not good and your odds of beating what is in side it are even worse.


(Also--I pray to god you don't actually play Space Marines, and you're just imagining a hypothetical of that combat. You'd have to have some kind of mental defect to actually send your Librarian with the Terminators into that Assault on the Bloodthirster. Guess who's receiving all the attacks and getting ID'd at I5!)

You know the libarian does not have to get out of the raider right? Look up the IC rules, he can stay nice and safe in a unit you have next to no chance of harming while radiating null zone in the heart of your army. You know know a crazy tactic like that that means you need to be able to deal with the raider, only no you can'be because you are playing daemons.


If by "unreliable" you mean 23% (BS5 Bolt on AV11) vs 28% (10 Flesh Hounds on Cruising Speed AV10).

A competitive Daemon army is likely to have four and up to five of those Bolts. On units who serve a purpose beyond suiciding into a Rhino and getting killed by its' contents.

A hole 4 or 5 S8 shooting attacks. Damn this codex truely is the best thing ever. Also where are you getting so many BS5 shots? I mean really are you now pimping the lord of change too? Is he not taking up your precious bloodthirster slots? Or did you think I would miss that? Though woo my 250 points+ model might take out a rhino every 4 turns (assuming no cover saves!). The tzeentch price is at least passable though, needs to be better at least it is not like you are going against the wind there.


Here's some numbers with more digits:

10 Flesh Hounds on rear AV10, to destroy: .277777
9 Seekers on rear AV10, to destroy: .277777

You know you are right there, been so long since I have done the numbers I had forgotten that. However the extra dice roll for rending and the extra glances for the hounds does give them an edge against AV10. That and one unit does get the hound of vengeance, still you are right about the equal chance to destroy them on the charge.


Three Leman Russ variants--including two of the most popular, the Demolisher and Executioner,

Killa Kans,

and obviously all the other Dreadnaughts.

Ok so that takes it to 3 tanks and one dread with AV11 on the back. Well I am convinced this is the most present thing in the game and all those other tanks with AV10 are just flukes. All dessions from now on should be based on the idea that AV11 is the most common element in the game, even if it apparently only exists on a hand full of models in all of two codexes. This is clearly what 40k is.

Also most dreads don't have rear AV12, that is why I brought them separately, if we must be pedantic. Should have know to check the orks but given so much of there stuff is just a flat AV10 it did not come to mind.


Charging vehicles is not a waste--a unit whose only purpose is to charge vehicles is a waste. Destroying vehicles via Assault is inherently bad. It means you can't damage the contents of the vehicle this turn, and it leaves you in a giant pile to get Flamer'd to death, in the event that you Assaulted with a high-population unit (such as 10 Flesh Hounds).

Yes as there is no way 3 S5 I5 attacks would ever some in useful against anything other than a tank. I remember zero situations where being able to land 36 S5 attacks against an enemy unit would have ever have resulted in anything useful. Also when do you get to damage the units in those tanks? If you are not out there forcing them out. That is why you charge tanks, because daemon have a poorly desgined codex that forces you to deal with them like this.


Yes, we're often put in situations where we have to charge vehicles. That does not make it Plan A. Most people do not want to spend a ton of points on something that fills a role they hope they won't require--especially if practically everything else in their army can fill that same role while actually accomplishing something else.

It would not be plan A if daemons had good anti tank shooting. Only they don't they have some of the worst, if not the worst of any codex. If your plan a is to shoot people out of their tanks you don't have a plan a as your codex does not have the tools to do for it to work. It is like me making my plan a for making money to just stumble over some burred treasure.


4 Bloodcrushers on Cruising Speed AV10, to destroy: .2962
10 Flesh Hounds on Cruising Speed AV10, to destroy: .2777 (still!)

And that is why your fast attack slot is filled with bloodcrushers? You know what I am sold, 3 units of fiends and still room for crushers. Though on second thought maybe I could have fiends in fast attack and elites instead? Oh and hounds are still a lot faster than crushers, you know with one being cavalry and one not. Maybe your problem is you are not playing people who are smart enough to move out of your way? Also what do the eldar players do? Just park next to your crushers and forget to move?


I wasn't trying to say that charging vehicles is a waste specifically - what I was trying to say (and failed at it seems) is that it is a waste generally to aim to charge Flesh Hounds into vehicles when they generally do a better job at failing against infantry :P.

And you really do underestimate Tzeentch shooting. Sure the Horrors aren't amazing, but everything else that can shoot does it pretty accurately.

It is an even bigger waste to have have a unit that is just going to be sitting on its thumbs unless the other guy plays into your hands. People don't need to get out of their transports and if you can force them out then you are going to lose. It is that simple really.

No I don't underestimate the shooting either. You can't get that, many shots into a daemon army and they are only S8 to boot without either lance or melta status (or AP1). See against nids have better shooting than this and their anti tank is called terrible, but daemons are ok? I am rather confused here.


2) I don't recall saying I ever had an unbeaten record? I did say I've been doing a lot better than people in my local group might have given me credit for (and to paraphrase, have stomped ALMOST everyone), but its' certainly not unbeaten.

3) With all due respect, I've been in and out of the hobby long enough and played on a competitive enough standard to know that if I do get an unbeaten record over a set period of time then I need to find harder opponents (Ironically as I proved to the last guy who made that claim to me :)).

You might know this but many people don't. In fact it is a faily standard argument in favour of any codex. People go x can't get bad as I win all the time and I use x. Problem is that is not a good argument. If you are winning all the time then you are clearly not playing people who are of the same level as you can if you are not doing that you get sloppy and will have a hard time evaluating what is down to things being good and what is down to the skill gap. If you are winning all the time then you are not going to be in a good place for judging the strength of x.


Its a game of dice and LUCK (key word here).

I know lets have a mirror match only, all your units get -1 to their stats and mine get +1. It is all just luck after all so even though one army is clearly better than the other it is all good. Or no that would be stupid. Yes luck is a factor in this game but it is not the only one by a long shot. You can't luck your way into a bolter taking out a

DJ3
11-06-2010, 16:32
The point is that you are better in assault, for a number of reasons. Better initiative, higher WS/S, and more rending/power attacks. Therefore your rerolls are a bigger effect than your opponent's.

Unfortunately, you're assuming higher Initiative in all your hypothetical combats. The problem with this, and with Skarbrand, is that aside from Seekers, practically none of our important units have Grenades.

Fiends can often break-even through this (as WS4 means it benefits them equally to most of their opponents, and two wounds helps them maintain attacks through an odd wound), but it nearly makes Bloodletters unplayable. Many Assault Through Cover scenarios become borderline unwinnable for them if Skarbrand is around, because you're increasing the amount of Bloodletters that get punched to death before they get to attack.

Because of this, Skarbrand often results in fewer enemy models being killed. If you throw Bloodletters into that scenario against the Assault Marines (because we know what would happen to them against the Orks) going through terrain, the Assault Marines would normally kill 3 Bloodletters, and then the remaining 7 Bloodletters would kill 9 Assault Marines.

If you add Skarbrand, now the Assault Marines kill 5 Bloodletters, and the remaining Bloodletters only kill 8 Assault Marines. Skarbrand cost you two Bloodletters and one less dead Assault Marine.

Also, this:


The point is that you are better in assault, for a number of reasons. Better initiative, higher WS/S, and more rending/power attacks. Therefore your rerolls are a bigger effect than your opponent's.

is untrue. Whoever has the worse Weapon Skill benefits more from the rerolls, not the other way around.

If you're hitting on 4's, you go from 50% to 75% (which is a 50% increase in hits)
If you're hitting on 3's, you go from 66% to 88% (which is a 33% increase in hits)

And this doesn't even consider the fact that, for what he's intended to be doing, Skarbrand is a gimped Bloodthirster. The lack of Wings absolutely cripples him in relation to hunting heavy vehicles and important characters--as well as just general tactical flexibility, as people are getting better at blocking maneuvers all the time. You practically end up paying 300 points for a special ability which is just as likely to hurt you as help you (in an area we need no help with to begin with), and a model who is less useful in his direct capabilities than the less expensive normal Bloodthirster.

Basically, we don't need help in Assault. It's just not an area we lack in. Most of us have never watched six Fiends crash into an Assault Squad and thought "man, those Fiends really could use some help." Toting around Skarbrand to go from "I killed you!" to "I killed you slightly faster!" in most scenarios is not worth the flipside--introducing horrible problems relating to terrain charges and anyone who has higher Initiative than us.

He's certainly not terrible for random pickup games, and he absolutely will make a mess of less experienced opponents--but he's not a Tournament-level HQ choice. If you're getting all these open charges against Space Marines and Skarbrand's lack of Wings isn't negatively affecting you, it mostly says that your opponents haven't really gotten used to playing against Daemons yet.

Edit:

HOORAY WORSLE IS BACK


You get one bloodthirster, you can get 3 units of hounds. Thirsters are hqs, hounds are fast attack. See maybe this is because its suits your own argument but you seem to have it in your mind that I am saying hounds are wonderful and I would take them at the cost of all other units. No I am saying hounds are passable and make for a more useful tool in your army. Also you are really ignoring the balancing factor hounds add to daemonic assault, while you will still have in inferior wave at least when you are using 3 units of hounds 12 and 3 units of fiends 6 you can have them very similar (you know dealing with a big problem of the book, shock and horror).

I truly hope you don't actually take three units of Flesh Hounds. Has anyone informed you that Fast Attack isn't a compulsory FOC choice? You don't have to fill those--that's what optional means. It's starting to seem like it causes you physical pain to not fill all those slots.

Also, the mention at the end there about using 3x12 Hounds to balance 3x6 Fiends is hilarious, and shows a very basic misunderstanding of the actual gameplay implications of Daemonic Assault.

Hint: Nobody tries to balance their waves. At all. When we get entirely new players, we'll often advise them to start with balanced waves until they get a feel of how the army works. It's the Training Wheels of Daemons.



The emphasis being on then rather than now. Bolt is crap for taking out tanks and mech is the reality of the 5th edition, either you deal with it or you whine about how over powered the "leafblower" is. Also you are telling me, the guy who has been saying the lack of good anti tank shooting is a fundamental flaw of the daemon codex, does not realise that anti tank shooting is good to have? Congratulations for stumbling into one of the reasons for why daemons are not competitive, you want to be able to hurt tanks at range but daemons are not any good at it.

[...]

A hole 4 or 5 S8 shooting attacks. Damn this codex truely is the best thing ever. Also where are you getting so many BS5 shots? I mean really are you now pimping the lord of change too? Is he not taking up your precious bloodthirster slots? Or did you think I would miss that? Though woo my 250 points+ model might take out a rhino every 4 turns (assuming no cover saves!). The tzeentch price is at least passable though, needs to be better at least it is not like you are going against the wind there.

[...]

No I don't underestimate the shooting either. You can't get that, many shots into a daemon army and they are only S8 to boot without either lance or melta status (or AP1). See against nids have better shooting than this and their anti tank is called terrible, but daemons are ok? I am rather confused here.

I've got to rearrange some of your post here, because I think you got confused between the start of that post and the end of it. Let's review.

--Your point is that Daemon Anti-Tank shooting is terrible, and your solution to this problem is Flesh Hounds.
--Upon being presented with the odds that show Bolt of Tzeentch is nearly identical to your preferred plan of chucking ten Flesh Hounds at Rhinos, (statistically better in every conceivable way once you consider Bolt can be fired on Turn 1) you rambled incoherently about where I'm getting four Bolts of Tzeentch. I'll help you out: HQ, HS, HS, HS.
--Woo! My 250 point model might take out a Rhino every few turns! Not like Monstrous Creatures have ever been known to accomplish anything else; especially not that darned Fateweaver, he's useless aside from his capabilities of shooting at Rhinos. I wish I'd saved those extra points and thrown Flesh Hounds at the Rhino instead! They'd show me what's what! Right before they died!
--Bolt of Tzeentch is definitely not AP1. I can assure you, someone would point out if you made a mistake here.


Ok only SM tactical squads should never charge.

I'll add this to the prior point about the Librarian (Yes--everyone else knows he can stay in the Land Raider, you're the one who implied he should be part of that combat) re: "I hope to god you don't play Space Marines."


Only we know the thirster is not any good at taking out land raiders. Really we have gone over this your odds of taking out a land raider are not good and your odds of beating what is in side it are even worse.

I'm still wondering what your standard of "good" at taking out a Land Raider is, at this point. Nothing short of ten Fire Dragons?

Or are you just allergic to numbers? Numbers are your friend. Remember: 72% to destroy at Combat Speed, 52% at Cruising Speed to at least Stun/Immobilize it and kill it during the opponents' turn. There's a few armies that would kill for those kind of odds to dispose of a Land Raider in the course of one turn.


That and one unit does get the hound of vengeance

Oh god. Wow.

Flesh Hounds are one thing--but jesus. Karanak? Seriously? Seriously. There's...really no way to even describe how bad Karanak is. Man, wow.

(Who wouldn't want to pay 50 points for Move Through Cover?!?)


Ok so that takes it to 3 tanks and one dread with AV11 on the back. Well I am convinced this is the most present thing in the game and all those other tanks with AV10 are just flukes. All dessions from now on should be based on the idea that AV11 is the most common element in the game, even if it apparently only exists on a hand full of models in all of two codexes. This is clearly what 40k is.

I like how you manage to amuse yourself with your own sarcasm, despite the fact that I even pointed out that the AV11 thing is nearly irrelevant, but still helpful since Seekers are just as good at AV10 anyways.

You're a special kind of person, and I like that.


Yes as there is no way 3 S5 I5 attacks would ever some in useful against anything other than a tank. I remember zero situations where being able to land 36 S5 attacks against an enemy unit would have ever have resulted in anything useful.

Do you even consider the context of these statements before you make them? Yes, if I were a Tau player, I would love the hell out of Flesh Hounds. Woo S5 I5 on the charge! But you know what I can get that's better than 3 S5 I5 non-Rending, non-Power Weapon attacks? Practically anything in the whole Codex.

I swear to god, if there were an entry in the Eldar Codex called "Discount Fire Dragons," and they were exactly the same thing as Fire Dragons, except they all cost two points less--you'd show up here every day telling us how awesome normal Fire Dragons are.

It doesn't matter how good something is in comparison to every other Codex. It matters how good it is compared to the other units in Codex that it's in. That's all that matters. By Daemon standards, 3 S5 I5 normal attacks are garbage.


It would not be plan A if daemons had good anti tank shooting. Only they don't they have some of the worst, if not the worst of any codex. If your plan a is to shoot people out of their tanks you don't have a plan a as your codex does not have the tools to do for it to work. It is like me making my plan a for making money to just stumble over some burred treasure.

If only we had some AP1 Shooting!


And that is why your fast attack slot is filled with bloodcrushers? You know what I am sold, 3 units of fiends and still room for crushers. Though on second thought maybe I could have fiends in fast attack and elites instead?

re: Have you ever seen a Bloodcrusher? Ever?

I'm sure your Hypothetical Cavalry Army is superfastohmygod, but not everything in the entire game moves at that speed. Not everything in the entire game needs to move at that speed.

You seem to love Tyranids as the One True Answer to why Daemons are bad--they seem to get by just fine with 6".

In fact, maybe you should actually be writing essays about Tyranids instead.

blood "fatty" thirster
11-06-2010, 17:53
To WORSLE
Ive tried to find results online but so far cant find a lot,only info ive been given by fellow team members and friends.

UK Games Expo - 40k Tournament
Deamons came 2nd and 4th(me)

A deamon player is ranked 2nd in the country(Rob madely)
http://www.gosfordgamers.net/ATR/ATR_home.htm

I think you should take into consideration that deamons have never been a popular choice because of one reason, COST. Now that they are fairly cheap on ebay etc etc more and more players are using deamons ( battle of the chumps has a very high number of deamon players this year)

If you factor the number of deamon players per tournament and the actual positions they come in, you will see that they do extremely well.

Also i have to say the argument that deamons have no long range anti-tank fire power is a joke!! Let me explain THEY DONT NEED IT!!! They excell in close combat,thats what they do!! If they had awesome anti tank at long range then they would deffo be very very very broken and far far to hard!!!

Again if any of you have any deamon issue and are uk based I would LOVE to play you.

Worsle, if your uk based this deffo means you! Get off your keyboard, put down your calculator and have a proper game!!!!!

TheTrueSloth
11-06-2010, 18:44
Ah damn it, this is the first time I've got to go on the computer properly today, just read possibly the most hilariously painful series of posts...and I have to go out again in a bit to go to the dojo where I'll probably get badly hurt enough that typing small essays will be a really bad idea for the rest of the night. But at least at this rate, if someone tries to apply shomentsuki sankajo on me I could just try throwing Seekers and Flesh Hounds at them and see which ones cause more damage based on the probability of the scenario :p

Sarcasm aside though, just quickly:



No I don't underestimate the shooting either. You can't get that, many shots into a daemon army and they are only S8 to boot without either lance or melta status (or AP1).

Actually Bolts are AP1 assault weapons and most players could take five (assuming they take a thirster) in their list given the points - two Heralds (BS4) and the three Tzeentch Princes (BS5) while still having the slot for the Bloodthirster.

Just remember kiddies, Daemons are a lot like sex - you need to have enough experience to know what you're doing, sometimes its' highly surprising and occasionally random, sometimes unfortunately painful and difficult to pull off and yes sometimes everything goes "bottoms up", but when it works it makes a real mess of anything there was and its' all over bar the shouting.

:p

See you later guys :)

Toodles

clangedinn
11-06-2010, 18:53
Just remember kiddies, Daemons are a lot like sex - you need to have enough experience to know what you're doing,
Toodles

so going to toss that into my sig, where do i send the royalties check :P

mafty
11-06-2010, 21:24
I've got to rearrange some of your post here, because I think you got confused between the start of that post and the end of it. Let's review.

--Your point is that Daemon Anti-Tank shooting is terrible, and your solution to this problem is Flesh Hounds.
--Upon being presented with the odds that show Bolt of Tzeentch is nearly identical to your preferred plan of chucking ten Flesh Hounds at Rhinos, (statistically better in every conceivable way once you consider Bolt can be fired on Turn 1) you rambled incoherently about where I'm getting four Bolts of Tzeentch. I'll help you out: HQ, HS, HS, HS.
--Woo! My 250 point model might take out a Rhino every few turns! Not like Monstrous Creatures have ever been known to accomplish anything else; especially not that darned Fateweaver, he's useless aside from his capabilities of shooting at Rhinos. I wish I'd saved those extra points and thrown Flesh Hounds at the Rhino instead! They'd show me what's what! Right before they died!
--Bolt of Tzeentch is definitely not AP1. I can assure you, someone would point out if you made a mistake here.


I assume your being sarcastic at the last point......since worsle seems to be mistaken at the fact it IS ap1 lol



Or are you just allergic to numbers? Numbers are your friend. Remember: 72% to destroy at Combat Speed, 52% at Cruising Speed to at least Stun/Immobilize it and kill it during the opponents' turn. There's a few armies that would kill for those kind of odds to dispose of a Land Raider in the course of one turn.


lots of people take EA (or spirit stones), so stunning something is a poor tactic to rely on. Also every army other than daemons, nids, and orks get melta (or something like it, like dark lances). Lots of armies can also spam said weapon in elite units (ie. fire dragons, combi-sternguard, wolf-guard, etc etc)



It doesn't matter how good something is in comparison to every other Codex. It matters how good it is compared to the other units in Codex that it's in. That's all that matters. By Daemon standards, 3 S5 I5 normal attacks are garbage.


Well said.....I hate cross codex comparisons, sometihng in every book will be better/worse than something else in another book, thats why they are all different....



If only we had some AP1 Shooting!




if only.....:P

Mentat
12-06-2010, 20:46
This thread is hilarious. I was lmao imagining my opponent's army all mounted in rhinos and land raiders and driving 12" in all directions trying to make me roll a 6 to hit them. Netlist people crack me up. Most of their armies are filled with useless things like power weapons, meltaguns, land raiders, and thunderhammer terminator squads. I just beat a mech list 2 weeks ago in one game and made him concede in the 2nd. I guess even having played since 1992 our group is still not able to play competitively. Flesh hounds??? LMAO. Do you actually play this game or just read about it on internet forums?? I have 16 and have a hard time justifying flesh hounds in my all-khorne fluff list.

TheTrueSloth
12-06-2010, 22:11
Sorry for the delay guys :)


You get one bloodthirster, you can get 3 units of hounds. Thirsters are hqs, hounds are fast attack. See maybe this is because its suits your own argument but you seem to have it in your mind that I am saying hounds are wonderful and I would take them at the cost of all other units. No I am saying hounds are passable and make for a more useful tool in your army. Also you are really ignoring the balancing factor hounds add to daemonic assault, while you will still have in inferior wave at least when you are using 3 units of hounds 12 and 3 units of fiends 6 you can have them very similar (you know dealing with a big problem of the book, shock and horror).

1) You don't have to have one bloodthirster, you can have two, it's not a 0-1 choice. Except most people balance up an inherent weakness in the list by taking Tzeentch Heralds, Lords of Change or Fateweaver (as a rule of thumb)

2) Yes, Flesh Hounds are a Fast Attack choice and yes, you can take three whole units. It doesn't make them any better as a choice with the sole exception that they don't interfere with any of our other, better units.

3) Ok, let's say you take Karanak (lol), 3 units of 12 Hounds, give each unit rending. You're looking at the 600pt mark for 3 units that still have generic toughness, a generic save, comparatively poor quantity and generic attacks within the codex (even with the upgrades, that's not enough rending to really make it matter). Even in the FA slot, Seekers are generally considered the better all round unit and second choice after Fiends for a fast and beastly CC unit (yes they don't have the strength, but they do have the obscene number of rending attacks). For those points, I could grab:

1 'Thirster
Then
Either Two Tzeentch Heralds (with Bolts) - 495pts
Two Tzeentch Princes (with Bolts) - 555pts
Something else to bolster out the army.

Or even scarier

3 units of 4 Bloodcrushers with Full Command - 600pts (and to be honest, 'Crushers are infinitely more useful)

My point is that those 600+pts on Hounds (which again, within the codex, just aren't worth the points) could be spent on the same number of units (if not more) that will do a better all round job.

4) Most daemon players leave their waves deliberately unbalanced on purpose for tactical reasoning anyway.



The emphasis being on then rather than now. Bolt is crap for taking out tanks and mech is the reality of the 5th edition

Yes, 5th has a lot of mech. You're also missing the fact that, since we can drop near on anywhere on the board, we can get a lot more side armour shots in against most vehicles, which tends to be just a bit better than shooting at the front. Couple that with the obscene combat power that daemons have (heaven forbid it might actually be enough to balance out all the deep striking) and you have an army that is a lot more capable than its' given credit for.



Boy I am sure putting a unit that costs nearly 300 points to good use by taking on 50 point units that I can't even attack till turn two at the earliest. This sure is a brilliant situation, created by a brilliant codex.

That's nothing to do with the codex and everything to do with the tactics of the players. Attacking on turn two is still an impressive rate (especially if you're against an army that doesn't run at you) and if you are sending the 'Thirster in against 50pt targets, then that's not a fault with the codex, that's a fault with the player.


Ok only SM tactical squads should never charge.

Really?! :eyebrows: Sure they're not the best CC troops in the game and you probably shouldn't look to just go stomping in, but...never charge?!


Also those seekers you are saying are so much better in a moment, they are T3, while hounds are T4. Also I would happily lose some hounds if it got the other guy out of all of his transports. Oh yes and why is my only unit hounds? When did I ever say I was building an army with just hounds?

1) What army do you play anyway?

2) T4 is still nothing to brag about. Yes, T3 does suck, but people don't buy them for the durability, they buy them because they're better killers than anything else in the FA slot, when they do hit they're going to kill stuff. Hounds on the other hand with half the attacks on the standstill, no grenades, no rending and an ability that only makes them almost passable for one round of combat just don't cut it compared to Seekers. In another codex, they might be considered alright, in an All-Khorne army they might just be passable because of the weaknesses of a mono-god list. But in general, Hounds just simply aren't worth taking.

3) "I would happily lose some Hounds if it got the other guy out of all of his transports" - no-one would get out of all their transports to take care of a couple of units of Hounds - again, the simple reality of the matter is that in your scenario, you end up tossing away 180pts of models to try and get to one squad when normally with a few Bolts in the army you can easily knock out the vehicles as you land.

4) I think the point DJ3 was trying to make was that no, you weren't just taking Flesh Hounds, but you are putting them as a priority over the superior Seekers who are all round much better.



Only we know the thirster is not any good at taking out land raiders. Really we have gone over this your odds of taking out a land raider are not good and your odds of beating what is in side it are even worse.

Again, most of this comes down to tactics. You said earlier that the Land Raider could be coming towards us. Fine, if they do that removes your earlier concern about not being mobile enough by allowing them to come closer to us - yes they could have one or two devastating units and those 500pts+ or so of Terminators in a Land Raider could kill our 'Thirster. But if they do that they've just dedicated 500pts or so to kill a single monstrous creature and leave their wonderfully powerful exposed to an assault. Sometimes you have to deliberately sacrifice a unit to go for the greater prize. In which case yeah, I'll lose my 275pt monster to access and murder your beastly CC squad and (depending on what else is in the list) have a go at the Land Raider too.



You know the libarian does not have to get out of the raider right? Look up the IC rules, he can stay nice and safe in a unit you have next to no chance of harming while radiating null zone in the heart of your army. You know know a crazy tactic like that that means you need to be able to deal with the raider, only no you can'be because you are playing daemons.

And as pointed out before the LD is easier to destroy than you claim it is unless it moves the full 12" every turn and gives up any realistic shooting it could do, which even then is not always the best option, while even then we're pretty likely to have done enough damage to it to tear it open in your turn.


Though woo my 250 points+ model might take out a rhino every 4 turns (assuming no cover saves!).

Now break that many turns down by at least four (realistically) and look, now they're blowing up four times faster! Gasp, what kind of arcane sorcery is that?! And yes they could gain cover saves, but IIRC you need to move over 12" or be half obscured. If they move more than 12" then they can't shoot at all anyway and if they're obscured, since all the Bolts are Assault weapons and normally attached to something that can fly, moving enough to get a clear shot isn't hard.


Yes as there is no way 3 S5 I5 attacks would ever some in useful against anything other than a tank.

We're not saying they're not useful, we're saying that in our codex there are much better things we could have (like I6 rending attacks with grenades).


I remember zero situations where being able to land 36 S5 attacks against an enemy unit would have ever have resulted in anything useful.

But you're just not going to get that many attacks in. If its' against infantry they're either going to be in cover so they go first and hurt you a lot for the pleasure of charging them or they'll be a dedicated combat squad coming towards us, in which case (since they can't ignore saves) we have to hope we're charging something like an Ork Mob (which Fiends are better at killing anyway) which generally have crap saves in order for them to earn their usefulness back. Against mech armies, either they will have some troops in cover so they can fire a full squad's shooting into them after they land (so you have less attacks anyway) or they'll all be in vehicles like Chimeras where they can be shot down in droves. Which, while it sucks, means that what attacks we do have, we need to make count. Bolts, rending and monstrous creature attacks all can make it count. Limited Flesh Hound attacks just won't.


If your plan a is to shoot people out of their tanks you don't have a plan a as your codex does not have the tools to do for it to work. It is like me making my plan a for making money to just stumble over some burred treasure.

Primarily a Mono-Tzeentch player (which is still weaker than a rainbow list IMO) admittedly, but I'm gonna call you on that. Simply because you don't rate Bolts as very good (especially since you didn't even seem to know they were AP1), it doesn't mean that they don't work. Once again, how you use them is more of a tactical call and frankly, with some of the comments you've made here in this thread, I've got to question your tactical understanding of the daemon codex.


Maybe your problem is you are not playing people who are smart enough to move out of your way? Also what do the eldar players do? Just park next to your crushers and forget to move?

And what do Daemon players do, deliberately drop their Crushers on the other side of the board and try and slog it over? Vehicles can't move that fast and fire as a rule of thumb anyway (BA excepted and a couple of others too). Bear in mind that even crushers have a realistic 15" bubble (run after DS'ing, move next turn, assault, as well as any potential threat area that the DS itself gives us). And yes, they can run from one unit, but there's normally more than one thing if we need it to get to, normally we can create enough of a threat bubble we can get to pretty much anything the turn after we land. I've still yet to find a game where my daemons couldn't assault a mech player, if only because of all the DS'ing. Pretty quickly you create enough of a threat bubble that covers enough of the board that they can't run without being charged (assuming there aren't any other better units to go for, there aren't objectives we can go to ground on and that the Bolts have done nothing).


People don't need to get out of their transports and if you can force them out then you are going to lose. It is that simple really.

I think I would enjoy that. If they're all hiding in transports, it means all the infantry with their small arms fire can't hassle us very much at all upon our landing, which works wonders for most our guys. And since most transports aren't AV14 (which is the only real AV facing that can prove problematic), its' not like their hard to kill either.


You might know this but many people don't. In fact it is a faily standard argument in favour of any codex. People go x can't get bad as I win all the time and I use x. Problem is that is not a good argument. If you are winning all the time then you are clearly not playing people who are of the same level as you can if you are not doing that you get sloppy and will have a hard time evaluating what is down to things being good and what is down to the skill gap. If you are winning all the time then you are not going to be in a good place for judging the strength of x.

That's all well and good, but since I can't recall anyone stating this...what made you go on with this ramble?


so going to toss that into my sig, where do i send the royalties check :P

Send it to the guy that has "I charge a dime in quote royalties" in his sig (is it Druchii?) lol :)


This thread is hilarious. I was lmao imagining my opponent's army all mounted in rhinos and land raiders and driving 12" in all directions trying to make me roll a 6 to hit them. Netlist people crack me up. Most of their armies are filled with useless things like power weapons, meltaguns, land raiders, and thunderhammer terminator squads.

Lol, I had the same reaction, I would love to play a Mech player that refused to disembark his infantry and unload all those anti-infantry shots in my daemons (or even more dangerously, stay already in cover and take the opportunity to shoot our troops to hell on the turn they land).

EDIT: just to add:


Also swapping plague bearers for hounds? In what way do they even preform the same role?

I wasn't trying to say they perform the same role, I was pointing out the fact that there are better things to buy with those 15pts a model on Flesh Hounds in the Daemon codex, like Plague Bearers (since you referred to the rest of the codex as junk).

Toodles

TheDireAvenger
12-06-2010, 23:15
ugh, getting sick of mathhammer. mathhammer =/= actual game play and never will. Sure you SHOULD roll this and that, does it always (or ever) happen, no. Its a game of dice and LUCK (key word here). There is no certainty and saying x unit is better than x unit because its 0.01% more likely to do whatever is getting a little bit nuts here guys. Unless the odds are stagering (ie. 75% vs 5%) we can stop this bickering.



Have you ever heard of something called Statistics? People who claim mathhammer is useless are people who can't math-hammer themselves.

Just don't try and be a stock market analyst, you'll be terrible at it.

STATISTICS does matter. Refusing to acknowledge so is superstition at best, downright ignorance at worst.

mafty
13-06-2010, 02:27
Have you ever heard of something called Statistics? People who claim mathhammer is useless are people who can't math-hammer themselves.

Just don't try and be a stock market analyst, you'll be terrible at it.

STATISTICS does matter. Refusing to acknowledge so is superstition at best, downright ignorance at worst.

I can mathhammer, its not difficult. Taking 40 attacks/shots and multiplying by percentages until you resolve wounds/saves isnt rocket science, so dont try and insult me with this garbadge.

Mathhammer is useful for people who theory hammer all day and dont play 40k, sorry, but it is.

I also suppose that lotteries that offer 1 in 3 odds of winning and when I purchase 6 tickets and dont win once I should complain to them right?

Probabilities =/= certainty and I dont like people preaching it like its the end all, you should look up what probability actually means and maybe youll understand why I see it this way, and if you actually play 40k youll further understand why mathhammer really isnt the greatest.

ReveredChaplainDrake
13-06-2010, 05:01
Probabilities =/= certainty and I dont like people preaching it like its the end all, you should look up what probability actually means and maybe youll understand why I see it this way, and if you actually play 40k youll further understand why mathhammer really isnt the greatest.
Probability doesn't have to be a certainty. Chess is a game for certainty. Luck happens. It ebbs, it flows, and so on, but you can generally expect that, over time, your overall averages are going to fall pretty darn close to the statistical averages. It's not infallible, but you can generally count on results, landing fairly close to statistical averages.

Voss
13-06-2010, 05:34
Yeah, there is something to be said for having a reasonable expectation of what various units can do and how they are likely to perform. Thats all probability is: a reasonable expectation.

You can of course throw 5 horrors into close combat against a 30 ork mob and say probability doesn't matter, but expect other people to laugh.

DaR
13-06-2010, 08:09
Unfortunately, you're assuming higher Initiative in all your hypothetical combats. The problem with this, and with Skarbrand, is that aside from Seekers, practically none of our important units have Grenades.

Agreed. It would be very nice if more units did. Princes and Seekers are about it.



Also, this is untrue. Whoever has the worse Weapon Skill benefits more from the rerolls, not the other way around.

If you're hitting on 4's, you go from 50% to 75% (which is a 50% increase in hits)
If you're hitting on 3's, you go from 66% to 88% (which is a 33% increase in hits)


WS alone is not an advantage. In sheer number of attacks landed, it's better for those with only slightly lower WS (WS4 vs 5), and equal for drastically lower (WS4 vs 10 for Bloodthirsters, or WS3 vs 7 for Demon Princes). However, my point was the combination. It's WS combined with attacks that ignore armor and/or toughness.

The point is that when you strike with weapons that eliminate a major fraction of the enemies durability (by ignoring their armor or toughness), every extra hit you make counts for more than the hits your opponents make that do not ignore your durability increasing stats. On average most opponents do not have high strength, poison, rending or power weapons or are not monstrous creatures.

A marine swinging on a bloodcrusher goes from having a 5.5% chance of causing an unsaved wound to an 8.3% with a reroll to hit. Yeah, it's a 50% greater chance to hit increase over the base, but it's less than 3% absolute conversion to wounds.

A Bloodcrusher swinging on a marine goes from a 44% chance to kill a marine to a 59% chance, if not on the charge. Only a 33% increase over base in capacity, but that's a 15% absolute increase in wounds, which is much greater than the 3% absolute increase the marine got.

That is the point. Almost every unit in a Demon assault army has at least one if not multiple of those advantages. And every extra hit Skarbrand gives you brings them into play.




And this doesn't even consider the fact that, for what he's intended to be doing, Skarbrand is a gimped Bloodthirster. The lack of Wings absolutely cripples him in relation to hunting heavy vehicles and important characters--as well as just general tactical flexibility, as people are getting better at blocking maneuvers all the time. You practically end up paying 300 points for a special ability which is just as likely to hurt you as help you (in an area we need no help with to begin with), and a model who is less useful in his direct capabilities than the less expensive normal Bloodthirster.



You're paying 25 points and giving up wings for fleet, in order to get an ability that is more to your benefit than that of the opponent most of the time, an armor-ignoring template weapon, and an extra attack in combat. That seems like a pretty good deal to me.

Fleet is not slow. Especially for a deep-striking MC that's rolling 3 dice for terrain anyhow. Fleet means you're still fast enough to close with any vehicles that's not moving over 12. A bloodthirster has a maximum 18 inch bubble of Vehicle threat. Skarbrand has a bubble from 13 to 18 inches, averaging about 15 and a half. And on a board jam packed with difficult terrain, a bloodthirster has a 16-17 inch range, give or take, while Skarbrand still has about 13-15. Giving up a 2-3 inches of threat range for his other benefits seems very reasonable to me.

And if Skarbrand does make to a vehicle that moved more than 6 inches, he's over 110% more effective than a regular Bloodthirster at generating a kill. He'll average a bit over 2 hits on the charge, while a regular bloodthirster averages exactly 1. He'll also generate 2 and 1/4 more hits on vehicles that moved less than 6.



Basically, we don't need help in Assault. It's just not an area we lack in. Most of us have never watched six Fiends crash into an Assault Squad and thought "man, those Fiends really could use some help." Toting around Skarbrand to go from "I killed you!" to "I killed you slightly faster!" in most scenarios is not worth the flipside--introducing horrible problems relating to terrain charges and anyone who has higher Initiative than us.

He's certainly not terrible for random pickup games, and he absolutely will make a mess of less experienced opponents--but he's not a Tournament-level HQ choice. If you're getting all these open charges against Space Marines and Skarbrand's lack of Wings isn't negatively affecting you, it mostly says that your opponents haven't really gotten used to playing against Daemons yet.


Yes, those combats were picked to show off the advantages. And yes sometimes it backfires. What do you expect for something you're basically paying less than 20 points for and helps out your army so much, normally?

Using large units of demons in assault with Skarbrand requires knowing where and when to charge, and making use of multi-charges. Just 'killing faster', against single units isn't a help. It does help when your squad of fiends or bloodcrushers can suddenly reasonably expect to nail two squads at once and still walk away victorious. Or spread out and hit 2 or 3 vehicles that moved over 6 inches and still get a few pens on rear armor. Or Skarbrand himself makes it to a Land Raider that's moved over 6.

I've played Skarbrand lists at a number of tournaments, including at a GT (finished tied for 3rd in battle points there, as I mentioned earlier in the thread), and found that his rerolls have very consistently helped me more than any opponent I've played. In around 20 such tourney games, I can think of less than a handful of assaults where it helped my opponent more than me. Of those, most of them large units of boyz on the charge; few people I've played against run 'nids with genestealers or lictors, and the only Eldar players tend to be mech.

That said, I did build my army around the idea of the units that benefit most from the rerolls. 18 fiends, 3 Demon Princes or Soulgrinders, 2 Heralds of Khorne or a second Bloodthirster. All of those units benefit greatly from the rerolls. And even Plaguebearers (my preferred troop choice for this army) benefit as much or more than the typical Marine Equivalent unit, due to their S4 Poison weapons making them fairly likely to wound if they hit.

TheTrueSloth
13-06-2010, 12:51
I've played Skarbrand lists at a number of tournaments, including at a GT (finished tied for 3rd in battle points there, as I mentioned earlier in the thread), and found that his rerolls have very consistently helped me more than any opponent I've played. In around 20 such tourney games, I can think of less than a handful of assaults where it helped my opponent more than me. Of those, most of them large units of boyz on the charge; few people I've played against run 'nids with genestealers or lictors, and the only Eldar players tend to be mech.

That said, I did build my army around the idea of the units that benefit most from the rerolls. 18 fiends, 3 Demon Princes or Soulgrinders, 2 Heralds of Khorne or a second Bloodthirster. All of those units benefit greatly from the rerolls. And even Plaguebearers (my preferred troop choice for this army) benefit as much or more than the typical Marine Equivalent unit, due to their S4 Poison weapons making them fairly likely to wound if they hit.

I don't have the stones to run Skarbrand in my main circle of friends (as in particular one of opponents runs a Stealer Spam list which is pretty hard to go up against, but not impossible) but I was wondering if anyone had made Skarbrand work. He does seem rather double edged though.

So what did you take for your GT list then and what possessed you to fly in the face of "conventional wisdom"?

Toodles

DaR
13-06-2010, 16:30
I don't have the stones to run Skarbrand in my main circle of friends (as in particular one of opponents runs a Stealer Spam list which is pretty hard to go up against, but not impossible) but I was wondering if anyone had made Skarbrand work. He does seem rather double edged though.

So what did you take for your GT list then and what possessed you to fly in the face of "conventional wisdom"?

Toodles

I posted it earlier in the thread, but here it is:
1 Skarbrand, The Exiled One @ 300 pts
1 Herald of Khorne @ 100 pts (Unholy Might; Chariot of Khorne)
1 Herald of Khorne @ 100 pts (Unholy Might; Chariot of Khorne)
6 Fiends of Slaanesh @ 190 pts (Unholy Might x1)
6 Fiends of Slaanesh @ 190 pts (Unholy Might x1)
6 Fiends of Slaanesh @ 190 pts (Unholy Might x1)
1 Soul Grinder of Chaos @ 160 pts (Mawcannon - Phlegm)
1 Soul Grinder of Chaos @ 160 pts (Mawcannon - Phlegm)
1 Soul Grinder of Chaos @ 160 pts (Mawcannon - Phlegm)
5 Plaguebearers of Nurgle @ 75 pts
5 Plaguebearers of Nurgle @ 75 pts
5 Plaguebearers of Nurgle @ 75 pts
5 Plaguebearers of Nurgle @ 75 pts
5 Plaguebearers of Nurgle @ 75 pts
5 Plaguebearers of Nurgle @ 75 pts

The logic behind this is all about maximizing Demons melee advantages.

Every model is high strength or poison, and most of them either ignore armor outright or are rending and have chance to. The only models that don't have at least 4 attacks each are the Plaguebearers, who are literally there to hold objectives and/or screen the other units in KP games, and again everything except the Plaguebearers is S5 or better. Many of the models are I5 or better and thus get to go first, as well.

Conveniently, most of these attributes tend to come on models with relatively decent defenses. The fiends are the only T4 models in the army, and they at least have 2 wounds.

So what I end up with is an army that's relatively hard to kill with a single wave of shooting, that if you don't kill, is going to be in assault with some of the most capable offensive assault units in the game.

In most games the Fiends turn out to be my primary offensive power of the list. I try to get two units in the first wave, so that once Skarbrand is down, they're already ready to charge. My priority targets with fiends are general vehicles first (anything with rear armor 10 or 11), then larger infantry squads, and finally 'dangerous' infantry squads like terminators, Sanguinary Guard, MegaNobz or Nobz, Banshees, etc. I try to multi charge whenever possible, as the pure volume of wounds that a fiend unit or two can put out can really wreck armies with fearless. Two fiend squads into 3 or 4 units of MEqs can pretty easily destroy them all between the initial wounds and followup No Retreat or run downs. Likewise a single fiend unit can potentially wreck a half dozen vehicles in one charge, if they can spread out enough; I love seeing multiple IG tank squadrons, Land Speeder squadrons, etc. In a few worst case games, I've even used them to kill Land Raiders. 30 or 36 S5 rending attacks will eventually glance a Land Raider to death.

The Heralds and Soul Grinders soak up a lot of early firepower as they seem intimidating with their 4 high strength power attacks and good armor. They're also visually imposing models on the table. If they do survive, the Heralds tend to go after non-combat units. Devastators, Guardian Squads, Lootas, etc. The Soul Grinders tend to plow into heavy vehicles if any are around (Land Raiders, Monoliths). If there are no vehicles that need destroying, they target any infantry that are hard to deal with with the rest of my army. Ork Boyz mobs, Genestealers, etc. Most of those can do almost nothing to a Soul Grinder in combat, and being in combat makes them immune to meltas and lascannons. I don't bother with Tongue because 4 rerolled S10 combat attacks is usually enough against vehicles, but I do take Phlegm because wiping out the very large units is a fairly primary consideration for the Grinders, and 4 attacks at a time, even with rerolls, means it can take a long time if you don't whittle them down first.

I keep Skarbrand in the second wave, and tend to put him down a little back from the rest of the army. If necessary I can play games with moving him so that my models are in his Rage Emobdied range and my opponent's aren't (or at least, few are). He tends to be a trouble-shooting unit. If some portion of my attack wave has failed, he'll go there to shore things up. It's not uncommon for him to die. Most opponents recognize what a huge boost he is to my army and try to gun him down with everything they have. Usually, though, I only need one or two turns of Rage Embodied for the Fiends to take apart the most threatening portion of the opponent's list.

All in all it's definitely not "best list EVAR". It wins more than it loses, on average, but not by a lot. It doesn't take much bad dice luck to come apart at the seams. A few rounds of failed saves or good shooting from an opponent can leave the army relatively crippled. I tend to have very good luck with reserve and deep strike rolls, but I've also had a few games where a couple of mishaps and units not showing up let an opponent whittle me down.

On the other hand, if I'm having even an average dice day, it's capable of destroying almost any other list on the table, and on a good dice day I've tabled opponents on turn 3.