PDA

View Full Version : Are Daemons tactically satisfying to play with?



adtheis
11-03-2014, 15:33
More specifically, are they more fun to play with than WoC? I've got 3k WoC and I'm tired of simply picking a good army list and moving forward. I like the Daemon models, but I've never played with/against them so I don't know how competitive they are.

Some general question:
How handicapping is the self destructing magic phase? My opponent isn't playing chaos, so that lightning storm is only affecting me.
What's a good size range for core? I'm thinking of taking bloodletters and plaguebearers. Is 20 survivable? 30? Especially if I'm zombie crumbling.
Is Epidemius the all-time MVP or what? Reminds me of Dr. Festus…
I'd like to take a Lord of Change because I think it looks sweet, but I've never tried the lore of Tzeentch. It seems Skaveny.
Are bloodcrushers worth taking? They definitely seem lighter than skullcrushers.
Are there any cheese builds I should avoid?

Thanks ya'll.

decker_cky
11-03-2014, 15:50
How handicapping is the self destructing magic phase? My opponent isn't playing chaos, so that lightning storm is only affecting me.

Q: On rolls of 5, 6, 8 and 9 on the Reign of Chaos table (namely
Storm of Fire, Rot, Glorious Rot, the Dark Prince Thirsts and
Khorne’s Wrath), doyou roll for all enemy units,oronlyforthose
that include models and/or Marks from therival Chaos God? (p27)
A: You roll forallenemy units.

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m3170234a_Daemons_of_Chaos_v1.0_APRIL13.pdf

Tae
11-03-2014, 16:32
More specifically, are they more fun to play with than WoC? I've got 3k WoC and I'm tired of simply picking a good army list and moving forward. I like the Daemon models, but I've never played with/against them so I don't know how competitive they are.

Some general question:
How handicapping is the self destructing magic phase? My opponent isn't playing chaos, so that lightning storm is only affecting me.
What's a good size range for core? I'm thinking of taking bloodletters and plaguebearers. Is 20 survivable? 30? Especially if I'm zombie crumbling.
Is Epidemius the all-time MVP or what? Reminds me of Dr. Festus…
I'd like to take a Lord of Change because I think it looks sweet, but I've never tried the lore of Tzeentch. It seems Skaveny.
Are bloodcrushers worth taking? They definitely seem lighter than skullcrushers.
Are there any cheese builds I should avoid?

Thanks ya'll.

No offence bug it seems you've misunderstood/been misinformed about how Daemons work.

The Magic Phase 'storm of lightning' effects both players, depending on which result you get - you only roll for it in your phase.

You don't zombie crumble, you take instability. It is very different. Undead lose a wound per point if combat resolution they lose by. Daemons take a modified Ld text and take a wound per point they fail that by (with a couple of minor points of exception to note).

Epidemics is susceptible to a cannon to the face as he gets no LoS.

Other than that, tactical advice is Daemons are more varied than WoC who are very combat heavy. You have a decent choice of lores (take Metal on your LoC) as well as shooting as well.

thrawn
11-03-2014, 16:43
daemons are rated a top tier team on the tournament scene, depending on the comp they can be very vicious.

spam beasts of nurgle, skull cannons, some furies for chaff and horrrors to fill in your core and act as little shooting units. done. you should win most games with this list.

IcedCrow
11-03-2014, 16:46
daemons are rated a top tier team on the tournament scene, depending on the comp they can be very vicious.

spam beasts of nurgle, skull cannons, some furies for chaff and horrrors to fill in your core and act as little shooting units. done. you should win most games with this list.

Which is ironic when you think about it because when the demon book came out it was largely panned as being horrible by the internet and too random to be able to compete.

:shifty:

Ramius4
11-03-2014, 16:48
daemons are rated a top tier team on the tournament scene, depending on the comp they can be very vicious.

spam beasts of nurgle, skull cannons, some furies for chaff and horrrors to fill in your core and act as little shooting units. done. you should win most games with this list.

He didn't ask if they could be powerful. He asked if they were tactically satisfying to play with. In fact since his last question was "are there any cheese builds I should avoid?" your post is probably the partial answer to that.

Tato
11-03-2014, 17:01
are they more fun to play with than WoC?
Depends on your definition of fun. Definitely no point-and-click army, but very strong nevertheless (I consider it in the top 5), very varied, many available builds. Please note this is a very random army, many things (gifts, warpfire effects, winds of magic) depend on dice throwing rather than planning. I consider it fun, but this can be daunting for many players.

How handicapping is the self destructing magic phase? My opponent isn't playing chaos, so that lightning storm is only affecting me.
As answered above.

What's a good size range for core? I'm thinking of taking bloodletters and plaguebearers. Is 20 survivable? 30? Especially if I'm zombie crumbling.
You're not crumbling (see Tae's post), PB or BL 30+ hordes are great.

Is Epidemius the all-time MVP or what?
Yes he is, so great in fact, that my friends banned me from fielding him in friendly games, and he is banned on most comps. He is not that OP though, as Tae pointed out he can be cannon magnet, and will also die quickly when his bunker enters CC.

I'd like to take a Lord of Change because I think it looks sweet, but I've never tried the lore of Tzeentch. It seems Skaveny.
Very good choice for a sorcerer, and can take other Lores if Tzeentch is not to your liking.

Are bloodcrushers worth taking? They definitely seem lighter than skullcrushers.
They are unfortunately. WoC version is much better.

Are there any cheese builds I should avoid?
All Nurgle with Epidemius and large blocks of Beasts of Nurgle will not win you many friends :), especially if you try to powergame putting Epi in the teleport (? dammit, forgot the name, one of the Hellforged Artifacts, never used it that's why) and try to convince your opponent that the Nurgle tally still counts. Otherwise most of it is good to go.

Edit: Portaglygh! That was the name. The cheese trick was to put Epi in the Portaglyph and actually never have him teleport to the field of battle, thus keeping him safe from harm arguing at the same time that his passive abilities to boost Nurgle models are in play. Cheap abuse of rules if you ask me.

Snake1311
11-03-2014, 17:07
Which is ironic when you think about it because when the demon book came out it was largely panned as being horrible by the internet and too random to be able to compete.


Being very vocal =/= being a good player ;)

Snake1311
11-03-2014, 17:17
I like the Daemon models, but I've never played with/against them so I don't know how competitive they are.
Very good book, offers good alternatives to running forward blindly.

How handicapping is the self destructing magic phase? My opponent isn't playing chaos, so that lightning storm is only affecting me.
The chance for results that are bad for you needs to be managed both in listbuilding and on the table (e.g. marking your Ld 2 furies same as your general and keeping them nearby so they don't just dissapear if you happen to roll a 2). the Reign of Chaos does affect both players though.

What's a good size range for core? I'm thinking of taking bloodletters and plaguebearers. Is 20 survivable? 30? Especially if I'm zombie crumbling.
Varying sizes are applicable, from 10 to massive hordes. Deamons don't crumble like undead, they have the best of both worlds - leadership test, then take the difference in wounds.Its worth noting that bloodletters are probably the weakest of the 4 core options now, and very rarely seen.

Is Epidemius the all-time MVP or what? Reminds me of Dr. Festus…
He provides army-wide buffs to nurgle units, which can make an all nurgle list very powerful.

I'd like to take a Lord of Change because I think it looks sweet, but I've never tried the lore of Tzeentch. It seems Skaveny.
Its a lot of ranged damage spells (Bolt and Gateway both very good, Signature blue fire is a random-ey fireball). No combat buffs to speak of makes it more suitable to a MSU/Avoidance army. The only other alternative on the LoC is lore of metal, which can be very good, but itsiffy if you face opponents with no or low armour.

Are bloodcrushers worth taking? They definitely seem lighter than skullcrushers.
No. There are better options fulfilling a similar function within the deamon book.

Are there any cheese builds I should avoid?
Don't overspam Beasts of Nurgle, and maybe stick to one Skullcannon. Thats about it.

Kingly
11-03-2014, 17:33
This has always been my fear that they play very one sided, but I think that's untrue. I don't know about skirmishers either but they do have an amazing Cannon unit and the models are a great range, I agree on the LoC he's ace.

Daenerys Targaryen
11-03-2014, 22:41
I wouldn't exactly call the book "great" or anything, the internal balance is all over the place and there's a lot of constant facepalm-inducing moments throughout...
(ie: random Gifts are lackluster to awful outside of the Lesser table, IP/BSB rules are plain dumb, 'Reign of Comedy' is typically worse for the Daemon player due to the disconnect between the low vs. high rolls, Khorne is generally overcosted to hell outside of 2 units, LoC is a better fighter than wizard, etc...)

Overall the army is much more successful when running MSU or MMU - both Slaanesh & Tzeentch for example work well only if you think of them as being similar in style to Wood Elves, while only Plaguebearers & Bloodletters especially benefit from being 25-30+ strong units. (Plaguies are fine at 30 max thanks to their Heralds, while 'Letters typically like 35-40+ because they're rather average fighters at best)
Only Nurgle plays well with more 'typical/standard sized' units... however, Nurgle is undercosted in general outside of the GUO, so even just running a purely mono-Nurgle list probably won't win you many friends. (it does however have a huge weakness to P.Sun)

Tzeentch is a massive contradiction actually...
LoC is better off as a Lv2 w/Metal & toting the Eternal Blade, as he's simply an average wizard at best and his main lore is best utilised by the Tzheralds & Horrors! His Wand of Whimsy build is only ever worthwhile when combo'd alongside the +1 free dispel dice gift, otherwise it's too hard to build-up charges.
Horrors meanwhile may want big units to benefit from the added bonus to-cast, but as perpetual Lv1 wizards saddled with a 'meh' lore, they work better if kept to 10-15 (18 if you're into the sacred numbers stuff!), as only 2 spells really synergise with them! (Gateway & Firestorm)

Besides the grossly undercosted Skullcanon & the 'about right' Flesh Hounds, Khorne is overcosted to gak. Mono-Khorne is the easiest themed force to kick around, so if your local meta is full of still ******** 7th ed crankies, then a mono-Khorne force with only 1 Khannon should likely shut them up! (or at least keep the knee-jerk 'DoC = OP filth' comments to a more respectful level!)

The bearded one
12-03-2014, 00:23
Are Daemons tactically satisfying to play with? Mhm...

Roll a D6.
-1 no
-2 maybe, reroll on this table
-3 roll a scatterdice, and face yourself in the direction shown. Play the entire battle while facing that direction.
-4 roll a D6 for every unit in your army, on a 6+ the unit becomes erratic. Roll on table 6c on page 87 for further details
-5 sort of. Reroll twice on this table, applying both results.
-6 yes

:p


From what I've seen of them on the field so far is that you could build an overpowered army out of the book, or a solidly average army, or a painfully weak one. The tools for all levels of competitiveness are in the book, but the internal balance is pretty much out of wack, so you do need to know what to use. What Ive faced with some regularity is an army with a horde of plaguebearers, a skullcannon, a great unclean one, a soulcrusher and half a dozen beasts of nurgle, and that's a pretty tough force to kill, but the random lightningstorm and random gifts can potentially really mess things up. Once his 40 plaguebearers vanished in turn 1.

bigbiggles
12-03-2014, 07:48
They are a decent army, but the reign of chaos table is terrible. I'm either losing ward saves, trying to roll a 6 for half the units on the board and randomly killing enemy models when I do, or I get a free unit and feel bad about it

Vipoid
12-03-2014, 12:41
Which is ironic when you think about it because when the demon book came out it was largely panned as being horrible by the internet and too random to be able to compete.

Was it panned as being bad competitively?

I thought it was panned because some players actually like being able to choose their items - rather than only being allowed to buy a roll on a random table.

IcedCrow
12-03-2014, 12:46
Was it panned as being bad competitively?

I thought it was panned because some players actually like being able to choose their items - rather than only being allowed to buy a roll on a random table.

It was panned because it couldn't possibly competitive when you couldn't choose your items and GW had gone too far this time with the random. That it was understood their previous book was way too powerful but this was a super nerf that would leave them unplayed and help launch the GW apocalypse by having people leave those demons on the shelves and you would never ever ever again see fantasy demons on the table because of it.

SpanielBear
12-03-2014, 13:07
It was panned because it couldn't possibly competitive when you couldn't choose your items and GW had gone too far this time with the random. That it was understood their previous book was way too powerful but this was a super nerf that would leave them unplayed and help launch the GW apocalypse by having people leave those demons on the shelves and you would never ever ever again see fantasy demons on the table because of it.

Being on Warseer is a bit like being Buffy Summers.
"Hmmph, World is ending again. Must be Tuesday."

(Or Wednesday, Where applicable.)

To answer the initial post, I don't have a huge amount of experience playing daemons in fantasy, but I've played them a lot in 40k. From what I've seen that can be carried over-

Manage the odds. Random stuff WILL happen and it WILL ruin someone's day. That ruination is entirely non-discriminatory, but paying attention to leadership bubbles and having flexible tactics, that can cope with a Prince having to sit back and spell cast rather than charge up the table will pay off.

Trust in your core. In decent quantities the three close combat core units are very good at what they do, and everyone has a ward save. On that subject, a word about dice. As a daemon player you will need 5's and 6's on tap. If your dice are not performing to standard, it is sometimes worth executing a die to encourage the others...

Have fun. Daemons do not do well if you take them to seriously- either you or your opponent will not enjoy it. Embrace chaos- you play daemons, what else could you do!

DeathlessDraich
12-03-2014, 15:55
More specifically, are they more fun to play with than WoC? I've got 3k WoC and I'm tired of simply picking a good army list and moving forward. I like the Daemon models, but I've never played with/against them so I don't know how competitive they are.
.

1) Tactical limitations - daemonic units cannot flee - that reduces tactical manoeuvres ... but then again if your main experience is playing with WOC only it won't matter ...:)

2) Compared to WOC where you can have an all-winning, all comers list, Daemons have 2 serious weaknesses:
i) in magical defence - No Dispel Scroll equivalent! In general Daemons will lose to DE (Shadow Magic), HE, (especially with The Banner or if they get Okrams), Skaven, Lizards and of course WOC.
ii) Your general - Bloodthirster, Unclean One or DP has to hide against cannons or similar ranged attacks - so make sure you agree on a modified LOS and not an exact TLOS as stated by the rules

3) Unit choices - Core units - thats easy - Plaguebearers - the next best unit is the Bloodletter unit.
Special - Beasts or Bloodcrushers are the best

4) Gifts - Choose Greater Gifts

5) A simple trick is to use the Portaglyph and flank or rear charge a suitable unit early and overrun - especially effective if you get the first turn but will be highly unenjoyable as a game

Good luck:)

underscore
12-03-2014, 16:36
It was panned because it couldn't possibly competitive when you couldn't choose your items and GW had gone too far this time with the random. That it was understood their previous book was way too powerful but this was a super nerf that would leave them unplayed and help launch the GW apocalypse by having people leave those demons on the shelves and you would never ever ever again see fantasy demons on the table because of it.

Though there might have been a couple of examples of that I think that's something of a massive strawman. It's pretty safe to say that if anyone read the Beasts and Skullcannon rules and thought they couldn't be competitive they were being a bit of an idiot.

The issues about competitiveness come about because Daemons are essentially 4 mini-armies in one book. So yeah, anyone who plays Tzeentch can forget about competitiveness even if a Daemon army can still hold it's own.

IcedCrow
12-03-2014, 16:47
It was a regular read for a couple weeks, not just a couple of off the wall posts.

underscore
12-03-2014, 16:48
Not that I remember. Not in the context you've put it anyway.

Phazael
12-03-2014, 16:55
The book has a ton of bad internal pricing. Bloodletters are, EASILY, the worst core unit in all of warhammer for their cost. Meanwhile, PBs are ridiculously good and the other two are ok. Beasts are so ridiculously priced that they essentially make any other special option almost completely irrelevant. The randomness is a whole other can of worms, but the main issue is that it tends to punish already weak builds and tip the game radically without any tactical input from the players.

Having said all that, the army is enjoyable to play if you avoid netlisting it up. Mono Slaanesh is powerful, but beatable, requiring a very exacting general to get the most out of. Nurgle armies can be made tame and reasonable. The mono Khorne army, while fairly weak, is still good old fashioned smash mouth warhammer at its best. The boredom starts to set in when you do the old "pokemons of chaos" thing and put a hodgepodge army of the best units on the table and just 6dicegatewayftw every turn behind your army of beasts and Khannons. The best thing that can be said for the book is that there is a lot of variety in how it can be played and new builds are being worked out all the time.

Phazael
12-03-2014, 17:01
It was a regular read for a couple weeks, not just a couple of off the wall posts.

You are describing two posters on the legion forum who are still wailing with ******** to this day about it. Neither of them had to sit through the Storm of Chaos era, much less the pre Storm era with 15 point daemon infantry that lacked any saves against magic. The daemon community as a whole is generally in two camps. There are the competitive branch who are refining the Khurgle Gateway army in various ways and the more casual/old school crowd who are more interested in seeing standard armies (normal block armies with mono or dual god setups) being workable. Both generally agree that the Reign of Comedy table is a bad idea.

IcedCrow
12-03-2014, 17:04
It was more than two guys though screaming about non competitive random items and the giant nerf stick that units like blood letters took that make the army "useless".

The reign of chaos table was just one of the many things that were in that short lived but epic whinestorm.

Tae
12-03-2014, 18:03
I am inclined to agree with IcedCrow on this one. From what I remember the DoC release was just one giant 'zOmg we r teh crap' rant, and in some cases with only slightly better vocabulary that my above exaggeration.

People panned mono Tzeentch with its level 1 horrors, crap flamers, weak chariot, warpflame and lack of BRB lores (excluding metal).

Nurgle broadly 'won' but as no one had it last edition it was now powerful to sell models, obviously.

Khorne got a cheese cannon and crap core, which made them amazing/appalling depending on your perspective.

Slaanesh was laughed at, apart from herald loci.

Add to this random magic table, random gifts and no dispel scroll and just about every other post in warseer as a whole for the weeks around release were 'raging, one way or another, about DoC.

underscore
12-03-2014, 18:27
Considering that most of those points are still valid, that would make sense. I don't deny there was (and is) complaining, it's just that IC was giving a short-sighted summery of said complaints.

Snake1311
12-03-2014, 18:28
Bloodletters are, EASILY, the worst core unit in all of warhammer for their cost.

Letters are EASILY the worst core unit in the Deamon book, but are faaaaaaaaar from the worst core in warhammer. They are indeed expensive, but still ITP, WardSave, Demonic instability bodies.

Vipoid
12-03-2014, 18:33
Letters are EASILY the worst core unit in the Deamon book, but are faaaaaaaaar from the worst core in warhammer. They are indeed expensive, but still ITP, WardSave, Demonic instability bodies.

Not disagreeing with you, but which specific units would you consider worse than Bloodletters?

IcedCrow
12-03-2014, 18:48
Considering that most of those points are still valid, that would make sense. I don't deny there was (and is) complaining, it's just that IC was giving a short-sighted summery of said complaints.

My comment was that it was ironic that upon release that they were panned by many people as not being competitive at all and that they could not exist successfully in competitive environments, yet today are considered one of the most competitive armies. They were panned by many people as not being able to work in competitive environments. That's not a short-sighted summary - that is exactly what was said by many people across many forums upon the first week of release.

Phazael
12-03-2014, 18:50
I would be impressed if you could name another core unit that is worse, at least on a per point basis. Yeah they are ITP with a ward, but 14pts for a T3 A1 S4 model? Skeleton Spearmen outfight them in equal points, ffs. I am intimately familiar with bloodletters because I have been dinking around with my old mono khorne army lately. Honestly, they were not exactly dynamite at S5, but people were abusing hordes with MoS Tzeralds to make them abusive. The same people who leaned heavily on that crutch are the ones who are whining the loudest, have revamped their armies into Gateway Wall of Khurgle, or both.

Phazael
12-03-2014, 18:56
My comment was that it was ironic that upon release that they were panned by many people as not being competitive at all and that they could not exist successfully in competitive environments, yet today are considered one of the most competitive armies. They were panned by many people as not being able to work in competitive environments. That's not a short-sighted summary - that is exactly what was said by many people across many forums upon the first week of release.

There is one specific build that scarcely looks like a traditional army on the table that competes well, plus two mono god builds that are solid mid tier armies. The BotWD pretty much single handedly wrecks most of the builds out there, plus DE just plain destroy any form of DoC. So, much like WoC, there is a low model count net build that people can exploit with hard counters. Performance wise, the army is fine, but the army as a whole is in a very ugly state where 80% of the material in the book is completely worthless.

IcedCrow
12-03-2014, 19:03
Yes yes. They are a horrible weak army. Players should run from it fast.

Send your models to me

Spiney Norman
12-03-2014, 19:26
My comment was that it was ironic that upon release that they were panned by many people as not being competitive at all and that they could not exist successfully in competitive environments, yet today are considered one of the most competitive armies. They were panned by many people as not being able to work in competitive environments. That's not a short-sighted summary - that is exactly what was said by many people across many forums upon the first week of release.

Its not really ironic, its well known that every new codex/army book is panned from the moment that the first (usually false) rules rumours show up until a week or two after release. There are a variety of factors that can affect how long that period lasts for including things like how strong the previous books was and how strong the new book is. Daemons was slightly complicated by a bipolar change in playstyle, they basically went from one of the most predictable and reliable armies in the game to one of the most random, and that upset a lot of people who were experienced players of the army.

It certainly didn't help that they were the book that broke 7th edition, and they wre always going to take a hefty swipe with the nerf bat whatever happened.

underscore
12-03-2014, 19:37
My comment was that it was ironic that upon release that they were panned by many people as not being competitive at all and that they could not exist successfully in competitive environments, yet today are considered one of the most competitive armies.
You see, I remember similar things with a massive disclaimer for Nurgle and Skull Cannons, which isn't too far from what's happened.

IcedCrow
12-03-2014, 19:40
Yes upon release it was rage on both ends.

Sexiest_hero
12-03-2014, 19:51
You want worse core?WoC marauders and empire handgunners, ir anything else that isn't a halberd wielder. I like 15 man units of bloodletters, they may not be the best but calling them worst is silly, I'd love them in my tomb kings.

I remember being blasted on this very forum for saying daemons wern't that bad, you can go back and read the daemonic tactica if you have the time, or take a wakl the the daemon forum. Blasted for my "Meatgrinder" herald set up, blasted for my love of burning chariots and keepers of secrets, blasted for using the portalglyph. Icedcrow isn't wrong, there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth, and high elves were the final nail in the coffin so it was said. I made a whole tactica of how I beat the BotWD combo, and was bashed for that too. People jumped on the hate bandwagon and now want to pretend non of that happened.

Lorm
13-03-2014, 00:44
You want worse core?WoC marauders and empire handgunners, ir anything else that isn't a halberd wielder. I like 15 man units of bloodletters, they may not be the best but calling them worst is silly, I'd love them in my tomb kings.

I remember being blasted on this very forum for saying daemons wern't that bad, you can go back and read the daemonic tactica if you have the time, or take a wakl the the daemon forum. Blasted for my "Meatgrinder" herald set up, blasted for my love of burning chariots and keepers of secrets, blasted for using the portalglyph. Icedcrow isn't wrong, there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth, and high elves were the final nail in the coffin so it was said. I made a whole tactica of how I beat the BotWD combo, and was bashed for that too. People jumped on the hate bandwagon and now want to pretend non of that happened.
Agree with worse core, but bloodletters aren't much better... and surely not the CC beasts they should be.
A lot of rage from daemons came from WACC players that saw their power lists crumble; that was expected, problem is also fluffy players got hit badly, very unfair in my opinion.
There are some power lists now, there are for ANY army, this is especially worse in internal balance is as bad as it is in the daemons' book.

Anyway i'm really puzzled by "I made a whole tactica of how I beat the BotWD combo, and was bashed for that too.", what? Your entire army have magical attacks what kind of tricks are you using? And why people should bash you for finding an effective strategy for their army to deal with one of the most broken things in warhammer?

English 2000
13-03-2014, 04:50
You want worse core?WoC marauders and empire handgunners, ir anything else that isn't a halberd wielder. I like 15 man units of bloodletters, they may not be the best but calling them worst is silly, I'd love them in my tomb kings.

I remember being blasted on this very forum for saying daemons wern't that bad, you can go back and read the daemonic tactica if you have the time, or take a wakl the the daemon forum. Blasted for my "Meatgrinder" herald set up, blasted for my love of burning chariots and keepers of secrets, blasted for using the portalglyph. Icedcrow isn't wrong, there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth, and high elves were the final nail in the coffin so it was said. I made a whole tactica of how I beat the BotWD combo, and was bashed for that too. People jumped on the hate bandwagon and now want to pretend non of that happened.

Do not under any circumstances waste your time reading the Daemon "tactica" on Warseer. To get to the occasional bit of helpful advice you have to wade through the other 80% of people arguing about how the Reign of Chaos table works and whining about how their army is so broken and unusable now. It's the worst excuse for a tactica I've ever seen.

The OP hasn't even bothered to update his first posts where he claimed the job of summarizing everything into one place.

Most of the major warhammer podcasts have done Daemon reviews/tactics and will give you a lot more information.

Hero, could you provide a link to your anti BoTWD tactica? I'm guessing it revolves around single Beasts of Nurgle?

English 2000
13-03-2014, 05:05
You are describing two posters on the legion forum who are still wailing with ******** to this day about it. Neither of them had to sit through the Storm of Chaos era, much less the pre Storm era with 15 point daemon infantry that lacked any saves against magic.

I had a mono Slaanesh army in the SoC era. It was the most horribly broken army I've ever owned, and I've been playing since the beginning of 4th edition. I never came close to losing a game with it. I got so bored of smashing everything that lined up against me I sold it off cheaply.... To my eternal regret... how was I to know the 8th edition book would rekindle my interest in Daemons... And how was I to know that the Juan Diaz sculpts would be dropped in favour of the crap we have now :(

I managed to scrape together 4 of his Daemonette fast cavalry from my bits box though so that made me happy :)

From my experience Daemons had it good during Storm of Chaos. Not 7th edition breaking good, but certainly nothing to complain about.

To the OP, yes Daemons can be fun but it depends on your build. It's possible to do a "push it all forward like WoC" army to. Avoid Epidemius if you are looking for fun games. All Nurgle with Epi and 2 Skull Cannons is the new Daemon filth.

True monogod lists look great and are more challenging than multi god lists.

To those who complain about Khannons... take solace in the fact that your opponent had to buy, build, paint and field the biggest pile of poo GW has ever produced. I don't care how underpriced and awesome they are, I want to vomit all over every one I see on the table.

Kingly
13-03-2014, 12:09
The OP asked if the army is more tactically satisfying than WoC, a point pretty much everyone has ignored.

This isn't about it being "The Internetz Competitive, oh I don't actually play games anyway…"

I would say, having only actually played against Deamons in a competitive environment, that they seem a lot of fun to take, they have fun rules and if you do feel like a good scrap against a guy who takes his hammer seriously, you can take a couple of Skull Crushers and some delicious Skull Cannons, which all performed most expertly against my High Elves, despite having a "Uber win BotWD" Sword Master unit, heh-heh...

Kingly
13-03-2014, 12:17
And also, having played Empire briefly, I would say;

1. Spearmen.
2. Archers.
3. Swordsmen.
4. Halberds.
5. Free Company.
6. Greatswords.
7. Flagellants.
8. Mortar.

Are all worse than Blood Letters.

theunwantedbeing
13-03-2014, 12:31
More specifically, are they more fun to play with than WoC? I've got 3k WoC and I'm tired of simply picking a good army list and moving forward.
For you, no.
For the player who doesn't just "pick a good list and move forwards" yes.


Some general question:
How handicapping is the self destructing magic phase? My opponent isn't playing chaos, so that lightning storm is only affecting me.
What's a good size range for core? I'm thinking of taking bloodletters and plaguebearers. Is 20 survivable? 30? Especially if I'm zombie crumbling.
Is Epidemius the all-time MVP or what? Reminds me of Dr. Festus…
I'd like to take a Lord of Change because I think it looks sweet, but I've never tried the lore of Tzeentch. It seems Skaveny.
Are bloodcrushers worth taking? They definitely seem lighter than skullcrushers.

Worst rule ever, apparently.
10-40 models. Yes, Yes, You're not zombie crumbling (unless that's a personal ailment).
I don't know what MVP means, but yes he is definitely that.
The LoC isn't skaveny, whatever you mean by that it isn't that thing.
Yes, they are lighter.

If you like how the daemons look then build an army.
Anyone can make any army interesting (even you could make an interesting WoC list), the best way to do that is to go off what the models are and make it work with those.

You do get more shooting with daemons, to that should help make the army more interesting.

Snake1311
13-03-2014, 12:56
lots of stuff thats mostly wrong

- I can name a ton of core models which are worse on a per point basis. And 'worse' does not necessarily mean 'lose 1 on 1'. WoC marauders, some empire state troops (spearmen?), a bunch of examples that aren't even core (so even worse off) like grail relique.

- Old bloodletters were broken on their own, and then even more bent with the double herald use. You know how most armies don't really go much over 25% core? You core is meant to be slightly worse than the rest if your selections. If you are a top army, and are fielding near 50% of the same core selection (which is what the triple letter horde was), it means that entry is BENT.

- Tons of bloodletters with tzeentch heralds and flamers around them didn't really 'feel' like a traditional army either, no more than the current tzeencth + nurgle + cannons thing. The most optimal builds for most army books are rarely all that sensible fluffwise.

- Monogod builds aren't really meant to be optimally competitive, the same way that pure orc or goblin armies aren't - you are meant to find an optimum point combining different elements of the armybook. That said, Tzeentch and Nurgle monogod lists still manage to be midtier, slaneesh and khorne aren't actually that horrible either (or at least no worse than any of the other single-theme themed armies out there).

- 80% of the book worthless is a gross overstatement. There is 1 out of 4 core options that doesn't really get taken competitively (bloodletters), 1 out of 4 lords (bloodthirster), 1 out of 4 heroes (khorne herald - you seeing a pattern?), 3 out of 10 Specials (bloodcrushers, flamers, seeker chariot - although the chariot isnt actually that bad), 2 out of 6 rares (the two chariots). So its more like 25-30%, not 80%. Which armybook out there doesn't have about 1 in 4 choices that doesn't see play?



I've been playing DoC for a few months. They are both fun and competitive - very largely, because their most effective builds are MSU, and the army competes at every phase on ad ecent level.

English 2000
13-03-2014, 12:58
The thing about Daemons from a tactical perspective is that being unable to flee limits what they can do in the movement phase. They also have limited shooting.
So 2 of the 4 phases of the game have limited participaton.

Something like High Elves or Dark Elves might be more exciting for the OP to play after pushing WoC accrosd the table.

Borgomos
13-03-2014, 13:08
- stuff

I would rate flail marauders higher than letters. They are "decent" in a core selection of awesome options, so we don't see them often.

I think if Letters stayed str5(6 from Khorne Deamon) with their current price tag, they would be perfect.

The Seeker chariot is just...bad....bad....so bad.

I agree with your other points.

SpanielBear
13-03-2014, 13:28
I would rate flail marauders higher than letters. They are "decent" in a core selection of awesome options, so we don't see them often.

I think if Letters stayed str5(6 from Khorne Deamon) with their current price tag, they would be perfect.

The Seeker chariot is just...bad....bad....so bad.

I agree with your other points.

Unsurprisingly it seems, but I have never seen a seeker chariot or played against one. But I have to ask- as a chariot with a ward save (presumably, being a daemon unit), what makes it so terrible? I mean, the model itself I quite like; it's taken GW's obsession with spikes to the point of self-parody, and then somehow gone beyond to something properly twisted.

underscore
13-03-2014, 13:35
Unsurprisingly it seems, but I have never seen a seeker chariot or played against one. But I have to ask- as a chariot with a ward save (presumably, being a daemon unit), what makes it so terrible?
It's basically a glass peashooter - doesn't have the strength to really cause much damage and gets swatted away by whatever it's charged pretty easily - a 5+ ward isn't that great of a protection when it's not very tough and has next to no armour.

It does an okay job (I actually have two of the models, for my sins) for getting rid of chaff and supporting other units, but generally it's just very underwhelming after facing WoC Chariots all the time!

SpanielBear
13-03-2014, 13:56
It's basically a glass peashooter - doesn't have the strength to really cause much damage and gets swatted away by whatever it's charged pretty easily - a 5+ ward isn't that great of a protection when it's not very tough and has next to no armour.

It does an okay job (I actually have two of the models, for my sins) for getting rid of chaff and supporting other units, but generally it's just very underwhelming after facing WoC Chariots all the time!

Fair enough, that's a shame. With that many scythes you'd hope it could do some damage.

HereComesTomorrow
13-03-2014, 14:11
It's kind of vindicating knowing people consider the Daemon book top tier (outside of Epi mono-Nurgle + Khorny Khannons) after the storm of negativity it got a year ago when I was defending it. IcedCrow is correct by the way. People HATED the book. The only other Daemon players I know just straight up quit the army because of it. Wouldn't sell me their stuff tho.

Its also fun knowing that when I suggested multiple Horror units were probably a good Core choice, I wasn't just being daft.

English 2000
13-03-2014, 14:27
It's kind of vindicating knowing people consider the Daemon book top tier (outside of Epi mono-Nurgle + Khorny Khannons) after the storm of negativity it got a year ago when I was defending it. IcedCrow is correct by the way. People HATED the book. The only other Daemon players I know just straight up quit the army because of it. Wouldn't sell me their stuff tho.

Its also fun knowing that when I suggested multiple Horror units were probably a good Core choice, I wasn't just being daft.

No, you weren't being daft, it seems to be a popular choice and has people going towards mono-Tzeentch or Tzeentch heavy MSU lists. The downside is that it is done with the hopes of getting Gateway on one unit and 6 dicing it every turn. It's not the most exciting way to play an army though it does let you play without a Greater Daemon.

Snake1311
13-03-2014, 15:45
I would rate flail marauders higher than letters. They are "decent" in a core selection of awesome options, so we don't see them often.

I think if Letters stayed str5(6 from Khorne Deamon) with their current price tag, they would be perfect.

The Seeker chariot is just...bad....bad....so bad.


Flail marauders (of slaanesh, if we want to incorporate some of the deamoney goodness) are S3(5) opposed to S4(5) (albeit slightly harder to get), have no ward save, have one less WS and movement, and (quite importantly) have no killing blow, and run off when they lose combat rather than lose a wound or two. Cost ratio its less than 3 marauders to 2 bloodletters. The letter seem a good choice to me.

The Seeker chariot is fairly poor when compared to WoC core chariots or the golbin wolf chariots, but in the end they are a M10 chariot with scythes and the impact hits are armour piercing to somewhat compensate for the S4. Its below average, and its in my list of units that dont get touched, but its not terrible.

Snake1311
13-03-2014, 15:47
No, you weren't being daft, it seems to be a popular choice and has people going towards mono-Tzeentch or Tzeentch heavy MSU lists. The downside is that it is done with the hopes of getting Gateway on one unit and 6 dicing it every turn. It's not the most exciting way to play an army though it does let you play without a Greater Daemon.

Merh, it means getting your minimum core, magic, and general requirements out in the first 30% of your army - which then leaves you with 70% of your army list being quite literally whatever the hell you like. The army lists based on this actually end up being quite fun for that reason.

Phazael
13-03-2014, 16:50
Ok, I will bite. I have been playing this army for as far back as the pre-Storm of Chaos Era. That's seven or so years. What you are pulling out of your butt is standard netlister tripe. The 80% useless crack is an exaggeration, I will grant you that, but there are so many outright useless and sub par units out there that it is not far off. Breaking it down:

Lords: Fat man and Keeper are the real deal, Chicken and Thirster are very sub par, so 2/4 here.
Heroes: Nurgle Herald is descent, but none of these guys are worth taking unless you want a BSB (or a L1 to ensure certain spells), so lets be generous and say 1/4 here.
Core: Horrors are workable as a means to get Gateway, PBs are solid, Nettes are very sub par (see DE Witch Elves, Saurus, ect), and Bloodletters are horrible, so 2/4 here
Special: Beasts are stupidly broken good, Furies, Seekers, and Nurglings are solid, Fiends and Screamers are sub par, Chariots and Blood Crushers are horrible, so 4/8 here
Rare: Khannons are good (though not the end all be all people think), Grinders are solid (though I am in the minority on this one), Drones are workable, and the two Slaanesh chariots are complete garbage, so lets say 1.5/5 for this section.

Total: 10.5 / 27 so more like 60% useless. Not quite Cruddace worthy numbers, but it takes real talent to write books as bad as that guy.

As for what is competitive, well, that is a more open debate. The internet would have you believe that 6 units of horrors and two Khannons hiding behind a wall of Beasts spamming cannonballs and gateway is the only way to win with this book. I am going to tell you flat out that this is not the case, though that is a strong list against the general field. At least two events have seen best general awards go to mono Slaanesh armies (Alamo, which was me, and Lord Inquisitor nabbing something in the south east) and I have seen many mono Nurgle armies doing very well over the last year, as well. While I think Mono Tzeench might have the tools to compete in the middle of the pack, warpflame is just too big of a handicap and the less said about mono Khorne, the better. Though to be fair, I have been doing pretty consistently well in softer environments with Mono Khorne, but it basically degenerates into Thirster and Grinder pulling all the weight while the rest of the army hides. So at least two mono god armies are strong in any environments and another in soft environments.

This is based on my own personal observation over roughly a dozen GTs and numerous RTTs I have been at since the current book debuted. The biggest obstacles to the book at the higher ends of play are Blood and Glory type scenarios and the BotWD entering the meta. The army of netlisters who think two cannons behind a wall of beasts is the pinnacle of tactical acumen have hurt the reputation of the army a lot, but good players tend to crush that list easily. Toss in the CacoKeeper and Horrors for Gateway and it gets a lot rougher, but only one of that sort of list hit the top three of the US Masters (the other was Mono Nurgle with a Khannon tossed in) and it still loses pretty horribly to Dark Elves (the longtime primary nemesis of DoC armies). The Chaos All Stars list is generally performing better now, though, than the big red lawn mower of Khorne ever did. The double Letter Horde is something you rolled out to stuff the pubeless wonders at your FLGS, it never really won major tournaments.

Phazael
13-03-2014, 16:54
Unsurprisingly it seems, but I have never seen a seeker chariot or played against one. But I have to ask- as a chariot with a ward save (presumably, being a daemon unit), what makes it so terrible? I mean, the model itself I quite like; it's taken GW's obsession with spikes to the point of self-parody, and then somehow gone beyond to something properly twisted.

For what it costs, it is super frail and has no offense outside of its impact hits. In a meta largely stuffed with DE Xbowmen and similar units, it dies before it ever does its one limited job. The sideways clowncar chariot is even worse. I mean, if you are going mixed god, a solo Beast for half the cost is just staring you in the face and its actually more mobile. In mono god armies, a three pack of Fiends is significantly superior and they are hardly a top choice.

Vipoid
13-03-2014, 17:12
Sorry if this is a silly question, but why are Dark Elves so good against DoC?

underscore
13-03-2014, 17:30
Sorry if this is a silly question, but why are Dark Elves so good against DoC?
Sheer numbers of missiles heading at you: there's not a lot of things with high toughness so you can get through ward saves pretty easily. That's exasperated against things that come in single or small numbers - so blocks of Beasts might not care but things like our non-cannon chariots will fall to pieces,

Then all the stuff that DEs are good at anyway - it's a pretty tough matchup in my experience.

Phazael
13-03-2014, 19:43
What Underscore... well, underscored (/drumfilled) plus one of the most powerful magic phases in the game. DE are also generally able to put superior troops on the table that cost the same or less than DoC ones. The roughest thing for them to deal with is generally a block of beasts, but even those go down in combat against Executioners. Further complicating things is that Dark Elves are supreme in the chaff war, which is one of the stronger aspects of the DoC book. So, basically, an average take all comers DE list will generally have a solid counter to anything a DoC player might bring to the table.

Daenerys Targaryen
13-03-2014, 20:44
I've found that HE's/DE's & WoC are basically my Kobiashimaru match-ups.
Lizardmen, Light Coven Empire & Skaven/horde O&G's are also quite rough.

Mono-Tzeentch is really just nothing more than wanna-be Wood Elves in this book who're limited to a couple of cheap gimmicks. It's pretty sad that I can't even dominate the one phase I should be able too, while my LoC is a better Bloodthirster than he is a wizard! (now that's a special kind of epic-fail I doubt even Cruddace could have pulled off...)

The bearded one
13-03-2014, 20:46
I can imagine that if the DE player has a decently sized block or two (or a horde) of witch elves, that you'll see daemonic chunks flying left, right and center. Daemons don't exactly have a great (armour)save, poison and murderous prowess diminishes the power of some of their units' toughness (like of beasts), and they strike first - generally with rerolls - with a crazy number of attacks.

GrandmasterWang
14-03-2014, 01:22
People hated the Daemon book due to its broken units (khannon/beasts) and horrific internal balance. My opinion on this is still the same.

Regarding competitiveness, the whinges I read seemed more about the randomness and lack of a dispell scroll than purely power level. There was lots of whinging about the heralds (sans Nurgle) being garbage but thats all justified.

That said due to all the different options I do think Daemons can be tactically rewarding.. even if their book is imo the worst 8th book released (internal balance and head scratchers)



Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

The bearded one
14-03-2014, 01:41
Im in the same camp. I'm not sure if I had entirely the same opinion as at the very start, but I dislike the book because of its painful randomness, wacky internal balance, and the headscratching pricing on the skullcannon. Also the fact they got a cannon. They have some tournamentworthy builds (lots 'o nurgle, skullcannons, and cacapohony spam primarily, I believe?)

I'm not sold on the strength of blocks of horrors either, at least as they look on the page, but I've not faced them on the field yet either, so I wouldn't be able to honestly comment. They just don't look particularly powerful to me compared to my regular (and actually comparatively priced) core troops in other armies, but of course they have a different role.


My primary problem is the freaky internal balance. Only nurgle seems done okay allround.

I just feel sorry for the people who have to play with it, even if you can build tourneysmashing lists with it. One of the guys I know, a GW staffer, built a nurgle army (lots of forgeworld in there too). He's a really fun and lighthearted guy, and - while he knows what he's doing - he really plays with fun in mind, but even he is getting tired of randomness. Particularly the charactergear can become tiring.

Maoriboy007
14-03-2014, 02:38
As far as the randomness of Demons go, to my mind OnGs are just as bad in that regard and plenty of players seem to have fun playing them, and are hard core to boot.
Bloodletters worst core? sorry look in the TK book for worst core choices.
Tactically speaking I've always wondered why the LD restriction on marks was such a penalty. Surely for an ITP army it shouldn't matter that much except to small fringe units who are generally expendable, outside the generals LD anyway and in every other army usually only worry about panic?

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath
14-03-2014, 02:43
I think that TK core is actually quite a bit better than VC core, but I agree with your point.

Also anybody saying that demons are bad haven't been paying attention to the tournament scene, where demons are frequently finding their way to the top tables. They have their downsides but there's plenty of ways to mitigate them.

The bearded one
14-03-2014, 03:39
As far as the randomness of Demons go, to my mind OnGs are just as bad in that regard and plenty of players seem to have fun playing them, and are hard core to boot.
Bloodletters worst core? sorry look in the TK book for worst core choices.
Tactically speaking I've always wondered why the LD restriction on marks was such a penalty. Surely for an ITP army it shouldn't matter that much except to small fringe units who are generally expendable, outside the generals LD anyway and in every other army usually only worry about panic?

I don't know, I think orcs are fairly predictable. Animosity is a major issue, but the chance of units becoming fully useless for a turn went down from the 1 in 6 chance of previously, to way less. Is it 1/12 now, or 1/18 or 1/36? And you can bring down the chance for the most important units with black orcs. Fanatics are random, but that's kind of the whole idea (and the fun), and they're a cheap, painful addition to soft units. Mangler squigs are actually controllable untill they've mangled something. That's the most of it.

Daemons have random tablewide effects that could benefit or hurt you, potentially a lot, their units could fully restore themselves or fully disappear due to daemonic instability (which can happen during reign of chaos as well. My opponent once had 40 plaguebearers vanish in turn 1 or 2) , and their character gear is almost entirely random. Also, beasts have a random number of attacks, flamers could either add several more casualties or give regeneration to their targets (was that regeneration permanent?) on usually a 50/50 roll, and horrors have all kinds of random effects and options, but those last 3 things are fairly small things. The first are pretty impactful.

As far as the leadership goes, my nurgle daemon opponent did nearly lose his skullcannon to the reign of chaos table ld test result in turn one recently. And a unit of nurglings on the flank that would've incredibly hampered my skinks if it had stuck around. All in all it's not a huge thing (I find it kinda fluffy, and at least generally less damaging than some kind of daemonic animosity might be).

Maoriboy007
14-03-2014, 03:58
I think that TK core is actually quite a bit better than VC core, but I agree with your point..
Meh, Zombies are utter crap, but are at least cheap and easy to raise in numbers, TK heavy horse however are nearly as crap and don't have a redeeming useful feature worth mentioning.
Skeletons in both armies aren't really worth their price
Dire Wolves and TK Horse archers come closest to being equal to their value, the horse archers could be a bit cheaper though.
Chariots and Ghouls are only slightly overpriced but are in themselves decent otherwise.

Bloodletters are what would be a special choice in other armies in your core and are priced as such, yes they would be overpriced if they didn't have killing blow.

Tactically, Id say the army is spoilt for choices, if you don't mind taking the odd knock where fielding multiple marks does occasionally hurt you, but I think the variety alone should grant a lot of tactical options.

HalfBlood
14-03-2014, 06:20
Bloodletters are crap. Case closed. See DE/HE core for more information.

In my opinion, Bloodletters in the last book were about average. When you added in magic for MoT heralds and Fatewaver they became significantly better. With the nerf to magic, increased Bloodletter point cost, and S4, Bloodletters are too weak compared to more stronger and cheaper core options from other books.

I've been experimenting with a unit of 60 Daemonettes (6 ranks of 10) With a BsB Herald, and a Herald with the 5 point loci for protection against Dwellers. Throw the +1 movement banner on them and you are moving 14" a turn. Add in Fateweaver for magic manipulation and it can be fairly strong. The issue is that DE Witches are just cheaper and better then the average Daemonette.

I enjoy the Reign of Chaos table. Lots of fun, I feel it helps more then it hurts.
The current book is mid-high tier. When the book was first released, it was clear that most competitive lists would span Beasts, and Kannons. I want more Variety!!!

Sir Didymus
14-03-2014, 07:33
If you want a satisfying army to play, I'd recommend an army that plays more by the core rules like the empire. One that adheres to all the basic rules of the game and takes no shortcuts.

My own personal warhammer journey went from Hordes of Chaos (Warriors), Wood Elves, Vampire Counts and ended up with Dark Elves. As you did, I found warriors to be too limited and losing access to beasts and daemons pushed me on to the next army. I chose woodies, cause I wanted something completely different, T3, no armour, no heavy cavalry seemed like the way to go, but their skirmishy non-linear style didn't sit well with my opponents, so I went on. To Vampire Counts where I just loved the concepts and the models, but playwise they were as limited as WoC. So I ended up with the darkies, they had the speed of the elves, the block infantry of the VC and the ferocity of the WoC.

underscore
14-03-2014, 11:05
Tactically speaking I've always wondered why the LD restriction on marks was such a penalty.
Because of Daemonic Instability, basically.

moonlapse
14-03-2014, 11:20
Are bloodletters really that bad? A 5+ ward save is awesome, they have killingblow and high weaponskill, unbreakable, cause fear. Against things like white lions they effectively have a 2+ armour save.14 points is maybe a bit pricey. Hmmm, I just started thinking about what dwarfs can get for the same points. 5++ parry, same WS and S, same +1S on the charge - but a 3+ armour save and +1T. I don't know though, a ward is better than parry, unbreakable is better than stubborn, killing blow is great.

underscore
14-03-2014, 11:40
Are bloodletters really that bad?
I find them to be... okay. As I never played with or against the 7th Ed book maybe I just never saw them at their prime to compare. The main trouble is that to make them a really good unit means taking an extremely expensive and vulnerable Herald with upgrades on top of an already expensive unit.

I dunno, I can't argue with a lot of your points - but in practice I find that they generally end up taking more damage than they put out. Maybe if the book had a more cost efficient troop to compliment them they'd be more satisfying to play with.

And remember: Daemonic Instability != Unbreakable. Lose a combat and the entire unit can go poof!

Snake1311
14-03-2014, 12:15
Lords: Fat man and Keeper are the real deal, Chicken and Thirster are very sub par, so 2/4 here.
Heroes: Nurgle Herald is descent, but none of these guys are worth taking unless you want a BSB (or a L1 to ensure certain spells), so lets be generous and say 1/4 here.
Core: Horrors are workable as a means to get Gateway, PBs are solid, Nettes are very sub par (see DE Witch Elves, Saurus, ect), and Bloodletters are horrible, so 2/4 here
Special: Fiends and Screamers are sub par
Rare: Khannons are good (though not the end all be all people think), Grinders are solid (though I am in the minority on this one), Drones are workable, and the two Slaanesh chariots are complete garbage, so lets say 1.5/5 for this section.

Total: 10.5 / 27 so more like 60% useless. Not quite Cruddace worthy numbers, but it takes real talent to write books as bad as that guy.

As for what is competitive, well, that is a more open debate.


The Chicken has been used competitively quite extensively. Its had a strong presence in the Euro scene, and made a showing at the UK masters. Its far above subpar, most people rate it over the keeper. It does make the bloodthirster redundant, as its nearly as good.

Heralds get taken in armies without a GD, so tzeentch ones see quite a lot of use. Have seen the odd slaaneshi one in there, but I'll admit its not common.

Horrors are good, plaguebearers are good, nettes are actually fine considering their speed (and no, comparing them to anything from the dark elf book isnt acceptible, plus they are not frenzied and have Dinstability).

Screamers are actually fine, see terradons or gyrocopters for comparison. Fiends were long considererd subpar, but are making a return due to the presence of warlocks in the meta. You forgot flesh hounds (solid choice due to cheap ambush) and flamers (trash).

Khannons are the signle best unit in the game. Since you are in favor of drawing comparisons to other random books, please see Empire cannon. Drones are good, not 'workable'. I'm a fan of the grinder too, but the cost is prohibitive. You forgot the burning chariot, which is 'workable'.

BotWD is annoying, but in an army which has furies and single beasts as a staple, and then a bunch of other chaff, the deathstar with the banner will pick up no more than 300 points, while the remainder of the DoC army picks up anything outside it.


The old book won about half a dozen big tournaments (100ish attendees) in the UK with bloodletter spam + supporting goodies, and that was despite the fact it was comped down.

Vipoid
14-03-2014, 12:25
In my opinion, Bloodletters in the last book were about average.

They were much better than 'average'.

For a start, they had all the advantages of undead (Unbreakable, ItP, fear), and a kinder version of Unstable. But, whereas undead troops are pants, bloodletters were WS5 S5 I4 troops, with 5+ ward saves. They also had magic weapons (and this was when there was no disadvantage to that), so have fun if you happened to bring ethereal units against them. Furthermore, for ~150pts, you could add a durable Herald of Khorne with good stats and a 3+/5+ save (possibly even immunity to magic weapons), who gave the unit Hatred. He could even be a BSB with a magic banner, and still have his full allotment of gifts. Finally, they had Killing Blow - so if you want to put a character against them, there's a good chance he'll just lose his head to a unit of core.


Are bloodletters really that bad? A 5+ ward save is awesome, they have killingblow and high weaponskill, unbreakable, cause fear. Against things like white lions they effectively have a 2+ armour save.14 points is maybe a bit pricey.

Well, I think they got nerfed too hard, and also in the wrong areas. IMO they should have stayed about the same, but lost killing blow - it's just an unnecessary ability on a core unit. Also, the problem in 7th was that Bloodletters were damn good in combat, *and* a death-trap for many characters. Now, they're pretty mediocre in combat so their Killing Blow doesn't really matter - there's no longer any need to send a character in to try and tip the balance or anything.

Then, there's the second nerf that isn't apparent on Bloodletters - Heralds got much more expensive, worse and also more vulnerable. Khorne heralds can no longer get a 3+ armour save, and if they want to give their unit hatred then they cost 175pts without gifts.

enyoss
14-03-2014, 14:21
Because of Daemonic Instability, basically.

I was thinking the same, but I do kind of get what he means.

With my High Elves, if I can't use my general's leadership and fail a break test by 1 or 2 points, I lose the whole unit (effectively). With my daemons I lose... well, just 1 or 2 more models than I would otherwise. Having played only HE and WE up until this year, I reckon I can live with that :).

As for the BSB though, losing those re-rolls has a much bigger impact in my opinion.

On that note, I never get why DoC players complain about units popping on double-6. In my HE experience, more than 50% of the time a unit breaks from combat it gets caught and effectively popped anyway, and breaking from combat happens a hell of a lot more than that double-6. I wonder sometimes if some DoC players have forgotten what it's like to actually have to worry about that kind of thing :D.

Back on topic though: I've only been playing with them for a short while, and at pretty low points values, but I find DoC to be really fun to play.

I like the Reign of Chaos concept, and while I quite like the implementation I think it suffers from adding too many low-impact extra rolls, or swaying the game too much on a double-6 (I wish this result just let you add to existing units, not create a new one).

I also like the random gifts. Sure, most of the time I might take the same thing, but then again I more or less always take exactly the same builds on characters in my other armies when it really gets down to it.

HalfBlood
14-03-2014, 15:12
The old blood letters would get smashed to units with high attacks high initiative. See DE and HE books. I played several games with blood letters as core last book and I found that they could not compete in CC vs these books without magical support. Remember letters have 1 attack at S 5. Doesnt really compete well vs a t3 elf.

HE and DE devour DOC core now and back then.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Snake1311
14-03-2014, 16:55
The old blood letters would get smashed to units with high attacks high initiative. See DE and HE books. I played several games with blood letters as core last book and I found that they could not compete in CC vs these books without magical support. Remember letters have 1 attack at S 5. Doesnt really compete well vs a t3 elf.

HE and DE devour DOC core now and back then.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Not really a surprise considering bloodletters are meant to be dealing with elite targets (heavy infantry/cavalry), while you have deamonettes for shredding t3 junk.

HalfBlood
14-03-2014, 17:01
The issue arises when daemonettes get shredded by the thing that are suppose to destroy and are not able to deal with heavy armor elite units either.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Fear Ghoul
14-03-2014, 18:16
The old blood letters would get smashed to units with high attacks high initiative. See DE and HE books. I played several games with blood letters as core last book and I found that they could not compete in CC vs these books without magical support. Remember letters have 1 attack at S 5. Doesnt really compete well vs a t3 elf.

HE and DE devour DOC core now and back then.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Wait...are you actually suggesting that S5 isn't good against T3 Elves?

HalfBlood
14-03-2014, 18:51
When your dead because of higher I and rerolls to hit and wound you can't strike back. Therefore s5 won't help you against t3

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Daenerys Targaryen
14-03-2014, 18:59
Wait...are you actually suggesting that S5 isn't good against T3 Elves?

S5 is meaningless when your unit gets murdered before they can actually swing - which is what those T3 elves routinely do to Daemonic Core.


As for breaking/running away being 100% worse than DI, maybe for M4 units it sucks... But M5+ gives you a decent enough chance to get away an rally, unless your infantry got nailed by cavalry.
Double 6 is always a disaster for Daemons however, and the nonsensical BSB rules help compound it because we don't typically get the re-roll benefit that everyone else can rely on.
Besides, most of an army's most vital units are typically covered by both the BSB + General's IP rules anyways.

Fear Ghoul
14-03-2014, 19:02
When your dead because of higher I and rerolls to hit and wound you can't strike back. Therefore s5 won't help you against t3

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

As far as I can recall, the rerolls to hit from ASF didn't exist last edition, and Dark Elves didn't get to reroll 1's to wound either. Furthermore, the Bloodletters could easily get their own rerolls to hit through their Herald, and would often survive the Elven attacks due to their lower number and lower quality. There is no doubt that that Bloodletters were amongst the best core units of the last edition.

Lord Inquisitor
14-03-2014, 19:20
As far as the leadership goes, my nurgle daemon opponent did nearly lose his skullcannon to the reign of chaos table ld test result in turn one recently.
Meh anyone can lose their skullcannon to a Slaanesh roll on the table. I've lost my skullcannon turn 1 to a khorne roll on the table. Now that's something.

Thing is, the top daemon lists seem to embrace the randomness. While burning chariots and tzeentch magic are random, throw enough mud and some will stick. Just keep throwing dice and the bell curves will appear. Considering most of the top lists are multi god and don't even bother with a BSB or the book of rereoll winds of magic, I can't say it is a major issue.

enyoss
14-03-2014, 19:43
As for breaking/running away being 100% worse than DI, maybe for M4 units it sucks... But M5+ gives you a decent enough chance to get away an rally, unless your infantry got nailed by cavalry.

Not sure what you mean by this. Surely for non-swiftstride stuff it's just a 2D6 roll for flee/pursuit whatever your movement value? Considering your opponent only needs to match your roll, and might have swiftstride (consider I'm mainly talking about HE versus Daemon core, who don't), breaking is still a terrible situation to find yourself in.

I definitely know that with my Daemons I'm far less worried when I lose combats than I used to be with HE/WE. So I fail my instability roll by 4?... big deal, as long as there's 1 guy left at least I'm holding you up for another turn, which I wouldn't be doing if that was a break test. Hell, most of the time if I fail by 1-2 I probably wouldn't bother using the BSB re-roll anyway in case I roll worse, I'll just absorb those couple of extra casualties thanks :).

Granted, other armies have more BSB access, but again, the consequences of failing a break test by 1 are much worse than failing instability by 1.

That said, I did say the god specific BSB rules are a much bigger issue for DoC than the god specific General ones :).

Tato
15-03-2014, 01:34
I would be impressed if you could name another core unit that is worse, at least on a per point basis. Yeah they are ITP with a ward, but 14pts for a T3 A1 S4 model? Skeleton Spearmen outfight them in equal points, ffs.

You are joking, right? I understand the importance of hyperbole during emotional discussions :) but come on...
For 300 points one gets 21 Bl's and 50 TK Skellie Spearmen with LA. If these 2 stand against each other in horde formation, letters win by 6,27 wounds after 1st round of fight. Yeah, skellies are still steadfast, but wait! They're also Ld5... Goodbye TK. Hello Khorne.

Lord Inquisitor
15-03-2014, 02:03
Yeah, skellies are still steadfast, but wait! They're also Ld5... Goodbye TK. Hello Khorne.

But ... but ... but ...

English 2000
15-03-2014, 02:38
You are joking, right? I understand the importance of hyperbole during emotional discussions :) but come on...
For 300 points one gets 21 Bl's and 50 TK Skellie Spearmen with LA. If these 2 stand against each other in horde formation, letters win by 6,27 wounds after 1st round of fight. Yeah, skellies are still steadfast, but wait! They're also Ld5... Goodbye TK. Hello Khorne.

Rules. Good to read once in a while. ;)

The bearded one
15-03-2014, 04:19
I must be really bad. I've never managed to get a skeleton unit to flee :(

Phazael
15-03-2014, 05:15
Steadfast Skeleton hilarity aside, who in their right mind fields skeletons in horde? Column that crap to keep incoming attacks down by reducing frontage and to bust steadfast on the off chance the enemy does whiff. Also, last time I checked Bloodletters are the one Daemon core that have literally no chance of being raised back in the magic phase, unlike those skeletons who often start the game half the size they end it. TK heavy horse cavalry is the one core choice I totally agree being worse than Bloodletters for the value, though. Holy crap are they bad.

Vipoid
15-03-2014, 11:41
Steadfast Skeleton hilarity aside, who in their right mind fields skeletons in horde?

*Raises hand*

Borgomos
15-03-2014, 12:23
The comparison is faulty. Skeleton Hordes begin to shine when they are buffed with Nobles and other support characters. In a way, that is exactly why letters were good: They had a good force-multiplier in the form of cheap, armored Khorne Heralds.

I don't think they are bad to the point of being utterly useless, but they do look pretty unnecessary compared to their competition.

Vipoid
15-03-2014, 12:31
*Raises hand*

(With VC Skeletons, anyway - I don't own TK.)

Daenerys Targaryen
15-03-2014, 14:19
The comparison is faulty. Skeleton Hordes begin to shine when they are buffed with Nobles and other support characters. In a way, that is exactly why letters were good: They had a good force-multiplier in the form of cheap, armored Khorne Heralds.

I don't think they are bad to the point of being utterly useless, but they do look pretty unnecessary compared to their competition.

They're useless because Daemonettes exist to kill those T3 horde units, while Gateway Horrors are easily capable of breaking anything armoured.

English 2000
15-03-2014, 14:55
They're useless because Daemonettes exist to kill those T3 horde units, while Gateway Horrors are easily capable of breaking anything armoured.

Most armies have to deal with some sub-optimal choices. 3 of the 4 core Daemon units are good, 1 is sub-par. That's actually not bad.

Compare that to Empire where Inner Circle Knights, Archers and Halberdiers are good, regular knights are ok, Militia, Spearmen, Swordsmen, Handgunners, Crossbowmen are actually crap.

Or High Elves where Silver Helms, Archers and Reavers are good, Sea Guard are ok to crap (depends who you ask) and Spearmen are crap.

Or WoC where Marauders are sub-par.

Every edition/book there are winners and losers within an army book. It's disappointing when it happens to make some of your models unusable or less than optimal, but that's Warhammer.

75% good core is nothing to complain about in the grand scheme of things.

9th edition might see a resurgence of Bloodletters and Plaguebearers could become crap. Stuff like that happens every edition.

DoC is still better off than a lot of other books.

underscore
15-03-2014, 15:10
They're better off than a lot of books in terms of competitiveness, but I'd still consider it the worst army book in 8th in terms of design. But then that's almost entirely down to it being a bad 40k port - most of the overall concepts are well and good, just implemented badly.

Daenerys Targaryen
15-03-2014, 16:04
Most armies have to deal with some sub-optimal choices. 3 of the 4 core Daemon units are good, 1 is sub-par. That's actually not bad.

Compare that to Empire where Inner Circle Knights, Archers and Halberdiers are good, regular knights are ok, Militia, Spearmen, Swordsmen, Handgunners, Crossbowmen are actually crap.

Or High Elves where Silver Helms, Archers and Reavers are good, Sea Guard are ok to crap (depends who you ask) and Spearmen are crap.

Or WoC where Marauders are sub-par.

Every edition/book there are winners and losers within an army book. It's disappointing when it happens to make some of your models unusable or less than optimal, but that's Warhammer.

75% good core is nothing to complain about in the grand scheme of things.

9th edition might see a resurgence of Bloodletters and Plaguebearers could become crap. Stuff like that happens every edition.

DoC is still better off than a lot of other books.

Most of those units are simply less than optimal when looking at it from a purely "highly competitive" (as in tournament) guidelines.
I still see plenty of Empire Spears/Halberds/Handgunners, MoT sword & board Marauders, HE Spears/Seaguard bricks, etc... being played in non-tournament lists/friendly leagues and such.

Bloodletters however on the level of TK Heavy Horsemen levels of useless.
As in, even if you take a large unit, and add in their required supporting character(s), they still fall completely flat after a single combat due to a combination of crap rules/stats, lack of protection, over-costing, etc...

Lord Inquisitor
15-03-2014, 16:26
They're better off than a lot of books in terms of competitiveness, but I'd still consider it the worst army book in 8th in terms of design. But then that's almost entirely down to it being a bad 40k port - most of the overall concepts are well and good, just implemented badly.

Why do people consider daemons to be a "40k port"? Daemons have existed in both systems since Realms of Chaos and if anything the 40K army seems like a WFB port - it's got to make rules for musicians and standards (obviously WFB) and even things like reign of chaos seem to be designed for the magic phase.

Although I agree with you, the daemons in WFB are conceptually pretty good, much better certainly than any previous ruleset of daemons. The random tables really make them both unique and capricious. Certainly room for improvement here and there.

Lord Dan
15-03-2014, 16:39
Yeah they are ITP with a ward, but 14pts for a T3 A1 S4 model? Skeleton Spearmen outfight them in equal points, ffs.

Fighting each other? No.

30 Bloodletters vs. 84 Skeletons

B: 30 attacks, 20 hits, 13.33 wounds, 11.11 after saves.
S: 30 attacks, 10 hit, 5 wound, 2.7 after saves.

Bloodletters win by 7.41, so skeletons are down to 65.48 models to the Bloodletter's 27.3, meaning that the Skeletons have 77% remaining and the Bloodletters have 91%. Obviously this doesn't take anything external into account, like Skeletons being re-raised or the fact that the Bloodletter likely would have gotten the charge with a herald and locus of some kind. Unaided, however, it takes the Bloodletters 3 turns to cut through that unit.



I would be impressed if you could name another core unit that is worse, at least on a per point basis.
Eternal Guard, Flagellants, Marauders, and Skink Cohorts. They'd be a lot better if they had their permanent S5 back, but let's not pretend they're the worst unit in the game.

underscore
15-03-2014, 16:51
Why do people consider daemons to be a "40k port"?
The key word, for me, is 'bad 40k port' - there were lots of parts of the Army Book that left me scratching my head, not sure what they were thinking of, before reading the Codex and realising the intention. I'm also purely looking at this book rather than the overall idea of the army.

The main points, for me:

The DoT rules compliments the 40k cover save rules nicer than the static ward saves in Fantasy.
No fancy banners in Fantasy.
Worse range of Gifts - most of the ones in Fantasy are either bad or lazy rules. Put it this way: I look forward to my Gift rolls in 40k, in Fantasy it's always done with a sigh. Having Warlord Traits actually complements the system as well I find.
Gifts being limited to Magic Weapons is both boring and a bit silly.
I kinda feel the loss of Deep Striking in the Army Book as well, it seems there's a lot of toys that work with it in the Codex and it always feels like there's a tactical hole in Fantasy that hasn't been filled.
You never run out of Magic Dice with a Tzeentch army in 40k due to the magic rules they use.
Rolling an 11 on the Reign of Chaos table.
Daemon Princes getting access to more Lores.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I like playing with Daemons and don't regret starting the army or anything. The Reign of Chaos doesn't bother me, really, but the Gifts means that I don't feel any connection to my Heroes when I build them.

Tato
15-03-2014, 23:26
Rules. Good to read once in a while. ;)

And dont these rules say: "crumble, crumble"? :)
I mean, I agree that BL's are overpriced but "worst core in game"? As compared to skellies who do nothing? Please.

theunwantedbeing
16-03-2014, 00:53
Why do people consider daemons to be a "40k port"?

Because nobody puts them on square bases. :shifty:

English 2000
16-03-2014, 05:59
And dont these rules say: "crumble, crumble"? :)
I mean, I agree that BL's are overpriced but "worst core in game"? As compared to skellies who do nothing? Please.

Yes they do say crumble. Hence my point.

Anyway, enough making jokes at
Tato's expense over the rules, bqck to the topic at hand: Worst core ever (that is what this thread is about right?).

Comparing BL to Skellies doesn't make sense. They're designed for totally different things. Skellies are there to bunker necros and or deliver killy vampires and break steadfast.

Bloodletters are there to kill stuff (supposedly). You can't compare the two meaningfully.

I think most of not all Daemon players can agree that they're the worst Daemon core, and that they don't shine in too many match ups.

Hopefully the OP can wade through this to come to the conclusion that yes, Daemons can be interesting to play. The fact that there is so much randomness (love it or hate it) and the fact that the Daemon community is so divided on what is great, good, OK and crap should indicate there are many ways to field a successful and interesting Daemons army.

How do you get the most excitement playing Daemons? Probably mono Slaanesh these days. Fast and fragile, but so are elves and they have more variation.

Are Daemons the most interesting army to play from a tactical perspective? No, not to me. I'd say that honour belongs to HE and DE, provided you don't build gunlines or shooty avoidance armies. Will you regret starting a Daemon army? Unlikely.

Will you be really happy if 9th merges WoC and DoC together again? Yep!

AmaroK
16-03-2014, 08:57
Yes they do say crumble. Hence my point.

Anyway, enough making jokes at
Tato's expense over the rules, bqck to the topic at hand: Worst core ever (that is what this thread is about right?).

Comparing BL to Skellies doesn't make sense. They're designed for totally different things. Skellies are there to bunker necros and or deliver killy vampires and break steadfast.

Bloodletters are there to kill stuff (supposedly). You can't compare the two meaningfully.

I think most of not all Daemon players can agree that they're the worst Daemon core, and that they don't shine in too many match ups.

Hopefully the OP can wade through this to come to the conclusion that yes, Daemons can be interesting to play. The fact that there is so much randomness (love it or hate it) and the fact that the Daemon community is so divided on what is great, good, OK and crap should indicate there are many ways to field a successful and interesting Daemons army.

How do you get the most excitement playing Daemons? Probably mono Slaanesh these days. Fast and fragile, but so are elves and they have more variation.

Are Daemons the most interesting army to play from a tactical perspective? No, not to me. I'd say that honour belongs to HE and DE, provided you don't build gunlines or shooty avoidance armies. Will you regret starting a Daemon army? Unlikely.

Will you be really happy if 9th merges WoC and DoC together again? Yep!

I have to agree in the mono slaanesh idea, or at least using it in your army. Yesterday I had a 2400 points battle against the new dwarfs with my slaanesh/nurgle list and I had a lot of fun with it. A horde of daemonettes, a pair of fast cavs and one unit of 3 fiends and a lvl 3 keeper on the slaanesh side, and a mid size unit of plaguebearer as anvil and a pair of lonely beast of nurgle. Fast flanking units, good anvil, nothing too overpowered and up to tactical play and picking your fights. Even if not all the units in the book are good, it gives a good sense of variety and possibilities, I prefer this book over the previous one hands down, even with the wtf moments.

P.D. Btw, Icedcrow was totally right about the panning of the daemon book during it release as non-competitive pile of garbage, and by many posters, not just one of two.

IcedCrow
16-03-2014, 15:24
Dont forget the Tamurkhan list. You can combine demons with woc already.

English 2000
16-03-2014, 19:02
I've never looked at the Tamurkhan book so I didn't know that.

Thanks for info Icedcrow, I might have to look at that list soon.

Lord Inquisitor
16-03-2014, 22:22
Theres not much in there on the subject if you're looking for structured rules. There are some rules for combined hosts but nothing like a full army list or anything - before you run out and get tamurkhan.

Tato
16-03-2014, 23:02
Yes they do say crumble. Hence my point.

Anyway, enough making jokes at Tato's expense over the rules, bqck to the topic at hand:...
Oh, please by all means do joke, serves me right for forgetting about Unbreakable and Unstable, especially being a TK player... *stands in corner and showers ashes on head*

Anyways coming back to the topic, I fully agree with the remaining part of your post and support the answer to the question at hand about DoC and tactical satisfaction.

IcedCrow
17-03-2014, 03:42
Theres not much in there on the subject if you're looking for structured rules. There are some rules for combined hosts but nothing like a full army list or anything - before you run out and get tamurkhan.

Well it has the full chaos dwarf list in it, which can be combined as well.

HalfBlood
17-03-2014, 15:37
As far as I can recall, the rerolls to hit from ASF didn't exist last edition, and Dark Elves didn't get to reroll 1's to wound either. Furthermore, the Bloodletters could easily get their own rerolls to hit through their Herald, and would often survive the Elven attacks due to their lower number and lower quality. There is no doubt that that Bloodletters were amongst the best core units of the last edition.

Last edition was a long time ago. We are talking about the last edition book being played in 8th edition compared to the 8th edition book being played in 8th edition.

I always find DoC to be a ton of fun, yet not 'tactically satisfying to play with' because of the random rules. A few lucky rolls on the Reign of Chaos table can dramatically increase your chances of winning. For me this is a kill joy.