PDA

View Full Version : Contemplating Chaos Daemons



Desalbert
05-02-2010, 03:43
I'm considering delving into the madness of Chaos. Yes, Emperor damn me, I know.

I'm kind of leaning towards Chaos Daemons over Chaos Marines, but I'm not exactly sure....

I know this is a perilous choice; and I've heard that the outcomes may rarely be successful as the armies of Daemons are so often crushed these days-- but... I'm thinking about it anyway.

Now, because of this, my mind is racing at the possibility of starting a new army, and one that might also be used in Warhammer (which would be a nice bonus). Naturally, I have a few questions, which I'll just list here.

1) Would you recommend Daemons? Is it worth it? (I'm looking for your personal opinions and gut feelings on the army here; is it an army that is going to be phased out? A bad experiment gone wrong? Or does it have support and staying power in terms of new units/and future codicies etc)

2) Is it okay to use the square bases to field them in 40k, so that they remain usable in fantasy? (given that the base isnt as key in 40k as fantasy)

3)Are they fun to play? (I currently own Ork and IG armies, and am looking for a more elite and ridiculously evil army) I want to stand there and cackle evily as I succeed or fail, after all.

4) Is there enough variety in builds?

5) Should I just choose Chaos Marines instead? Why?


Any other thoughts would be great

Thanks very much guys!
-Des

Stumpy
05-02-2010, 04:30
There is a lot of variability and randomness in the daemons, which can be quite funny and stuff you up from time to time. They can be very competative, but if not built/used quite right they do get mashed due to deep strike issues and the enemy's ability to pick you apart as you drop in.
As for use in fantasy, you won't get any complaints using square bases in 40k. On the other hand, fantasy uses movement trays so you can actually make a tray with circular slots that ends up being the same size as what the normal movement tray size for daemons. I've seen it done, it works well and it actually looks cooler as they can slot into a scenic tray with the same basing style as their bases.

AlmightyNocturnus
05-02-2010, 04:30
I love my Daemon army (for 40K. I`ve used them in WFB, but they`re just no fun). Their unique deployment and other quirky rules make them a constant tactical challenge. The ability to place units almost exactly where you want (with some risk) instead of wading through torrents of fire is kind of cool. But this uniqueness is difficult to adapt to and I would never recommend them for a beginner or first army. I don`t like square bases in 40K so I used GF9`s magnetic round bases and then put the metal adhesive sheets on my movement trays when I used them in WFB. There is a variety of builds, but some units are real "role players" and seem to always end up in my lists. I also have 5000 points of Chaos Marines. Theyre fun too, but more forgiving and similar to other armies.

Almighty Nocturnus

Ozybonza
05-02-2010, 04:36
There is a huge variety of builds and they can certainly be competative, but they do rely allot on luck (which can be mitigated a bit by building 2 similar army-halves).

In terms of bases, square bases in 40K wouldn't be tourney legal but anyone outside of that complaining about it or not playing you is a douche.

Lastly, allot of noobs or whiners will call them cheesy because they don't really understand them, which of course makes them overpowered :P

AlmightyNocturnus
05-02-2010, 05:23
That`s an interesting point, Ozybonza. Some people feel they are cheesy, but they were also vote Most Deficient 5th Edition Codex on Warseer...so I guess they get perceived both ways. When your Daemon army clicks (not so many errant scatters, etc.), it can be utterly devastating. But more often than not, it doesn`t click and managing that chaos is sometimes an uphill battle (but fun).

Almighty Nocturnus

Xeno Xod
05-02-2010, 05:32
I am in a similar position as you are in that I am unsure of their future. I want to start Chaos Daemons, but it doesn't seem very wise to start such an expensive army that may not be around next edition. I have no desire to play Chaos Space Marines either which makes it an even harder choice if the Daemons and CSM end up going back into one codex.

Netfreakk
05-02-2010, 05:38
IMO, (I play them), they're fun, but they're not reliable to be considered 1st tier. They are lacking in their ability to deal with vehicles, but they have some crazy CC units (if they can get into CC).

They're very different and so very exciting to play with, the model range is amazing IMO and their play style makes everything fresh.

I would recommend it if you want something that's not like any other army and if you have $$$ to spend on those expensive metal models as they're necessary.

TheWarSmith
05-02-2010, 05:52
haha, netbook, I work in Glenview!!

Anyway, they're a fun army, and they're competitive. Will they always kick ass? no. Will they alway lose horribly? no. And that's what a good army should be. Great variability in model choices.

I say go for it.

ntin
05-02-2010, 05:54
1. A large portion of the army book is lacking official models so converting is necessary. Who knows what the crystal ball will hold for 6th edition? Staying power with the other 5th edition rulebooks they are on the weaker end everything after Chaos Daemons has cheaper troop choices and transports, along with safe deep strike (Trygon/Drop Pods) does undermine the list slightly. Daemons will always have a future in 40k but no one knows in what way.
2. You are allowed to base a model with whatever bases it came with so you can use square for 40k but the issue is square have a larger surface area so you will catch more templates than round.
3. They are very fun to play but you are completely dependent on your reserves.
4. Not really, if you want a competitive build it will be Nurgle heavy. Do to the randomness of the rulebook there is no safe build but a well performing list will be Nurgle/Khorne or Nurgle/Tzeentch.
5. Chaos Daemons and Chaos Marines are basically the same army, you will have Nurgle units to cap points with Daemon Princes to do the heavy lifting. Chaos Daemon Lash Spam is just not as good.

CrownAxe
05-02-2010, 07:34
1) I would to experienced players. They lack a fair amount of models and most they do have are pewter so are a great for conversion projects. They have a steep learning curve though so will take a few games to really get the hang of them but are great fun

2) Rules right now is to use the base they come with. Daemons come with both circle and square bases so it's good to go (barring lame opponents and TOs)

3) They sure are. They easily throw a wrench into any opponent's plan. They are the only army with this kind of play style. They are great for thematic playing to since they lend themselves to great fluff

4) For sure, maybe more then many other armies. Right away i can say they have 5 distinct builds for each god and a pantheon of all four. But that is a very broad view of it. Very few units are not worth taking so you can take just about anything to fit your tastes. I'm constantly taking units i just don't get to use in random pick up games because there is so many. Ignoring god specific lists, you can do a Daemonzilla list, list rotating around Skarbrand, Fateweaver and Epidemoius, a near swarm like list with Demonettes, it just goes on.

5) I can't say, but Daemons are a very distinct army while it could be said CSM is fairly typical compared to other SM armies out there


The most important thing to know about Daemons is that they are only as good as your are and your opponent is bad. They are very distinct in play so your pretty much have to learn how to play them for the ground up. YOu'll probably lose the first few games (especially if your playing at low point values) but once you get the hang of them they are kickarse.

Despite what most of Warseer says, Daemons are not the worse army out there, and they certainly are not so luck based that they suck. Again you just need to be a good general to not let Demonic Assault ruin your chance at victory.

When you set up your waves, try and set up both waves to work instead of simply taking your best units in your first wave. I personally out all of my shootings units in the first wave and assault units in the 2nd. That way I normally start with units that can deal damage right away which in turn reduces how much damage i will take in later turns which will help with my assault units getting into combat. If i get my second wave instead it means that all of assault units will get into combat as soon as possible so is still a plus. Putting all of your MCs in the first wave is a solid choice too.

Deep striking can work to your favor too. Units that ave the speed (Fiends of Bloodthirsters) or range (Lord of Change or Soul Grinders) to deal damage can easily deep strike a way's back, avoiding mishap and still being effective. While units that are dedicated purely to assault (like Bloodletters) should take advantage of terrain to get a cover save and block LoS to them, thus increasing the odds dramatically of their survival. You can also focus all of your deep striking on a single flank of their army, thus wasting the other flank of the army (since they'll be out of range) so will have to walk across the board to get to us.

Good generalship and great tactics make Daemons a powerful force

PS: Ignore ntin, most of his comments are just proof of Warseer's prejudice against Daemons

AlmightyNocturnus
05-02-2010, 07:56
Daemons aren`t going anywhere. Look at the Dark Eldar and the Inquisition - they may not get the support they deserve, but GW would never just remove the models or the rules.

I forgot to point out that Daemons ARE quite heavy, being a mostly metal army.

Almighty Nocturnus

Nurgling Chieftain
05-02-2010, 08:38
Very fun to play, rather tough to play. I must say, I quite enjoy my Daemon army, even when it loses, which is more often than I'd like, although I refused to kit it out all the way.

the Goat
05-02-2010, 12:48
Daemons aren`t going anywhere. . . GW would never just remove the models or the rules.

You imply I can still use my Space Slann and Squat armies?
________
FORD DLD ENGINE (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Ford_DLD_engine)

Souleater
05-02-2010, 13:06
I think he is hoping - as I am - that GW will stick to their promise of never removing an army in its entirety.

MarshallSam
05-02-2010, 14:23
I play 2 small armies of both, and combine them for apoc. But since I play monogod (Khorne) I tend to get stomped a lot. Its okay though cause Khorne cares not from where the blood flows as long as it does, so even in defeat I still win!!

Dark Primus
05-02-2010, 14:57
1) Would you recommend Daemons? Is it worth it? (I'm looking for your personal opinions and gut feelings on the army here; is it an army that is going to be phased out? A bad experiment gone wrong? Or does it have support and staying power in terms of new units/and future codicies etc)

Yes I would reccomend them they are fun to play. Phased out? Where have you heard that?



2) Is it okay to use the square bases to field them in 40k, so that they remain usable in fantasy? (given that the base isnt as key in 40k as fantasy)

If you are going to field them in a tournament game then maybe it could be a problem I don't know. Personally I would not have a problem with it.



3)Are they fun to play? (I currently own Ork and IG armies, and am looking for a more elite and ridiculously evil army) I want to stand there and cackle evily as I succeed or fail, after all.

In my opinion yes they are fun to play because every time you play them you take a huge risk. The can go toe to toe against the worst of the Tyranid units and come out it unscatched or they could die horrible.



4) Is there enough variety in builds?

There are A LOT of custombuild potential for this army which is fun in it's own way. I myself have tons of ideas how I want to make my Daemon Princes for example. But that involves taking parts from other armies like Scything Talons. But there are some missing models for Daemon Special characters as Fateweaver but that is easy to fix, just give the Lord of Change as second head and he is done.



5) Should I just choose Chaos Marines instead? Why?

In my opinion no. They have become a rather boring bunch, they are no longer interesting to play. But that's just me.



Any other thoughts would be great.

Read Redrivertears battlereports he plays Daemons, from there you do get a deep understanding how Daemons works and how to use them effectively.

Thud
05-02-2010, 15:00
1) Would you recommend Daemons? Is it worth it? (I'm looking for your personal opinions and gut feelings on the army here; is it an army that is going to be phased out? A bad experiment gone wrong? Or does it have support and staying power in terms of new units/and future codicies etc)

Chaos Daemons will stay in 40k. Worst case scenario is that you have to get some Chaos Space Marines to have a legal army some five years down the road.


2) Is it okay to use the square bases to field them in 40k, so that they remain usable in fantasy? (given that the base isnt as key in 40k as fantasy)

I recommend going the other way. Get regiment trays with holes for round bases.


3)Are they fun to play? (I currently own Ork and IG armies, and am looking for a more elite and ridiculously evil army) I want to stand there and cackle evily as I succeed or fail, after all.

They can be.


4) Is there enough variety in builds?

Depends. If you want competitive builds, you are pretty damn limited.


5) Should I just choose Chaos Marines instead? Why?

Not if you want to play Daemons.


One thing, though. Despite what some of the others are saying; Daemons are not a very competitive army. Against experienced players you will lose, and you will lose a lot. Chaos Daemons are the least forgiving army in 40k and they suffer badly from lacking anti-tank, especially now in 5th edition. Every mistake you make is a major one and can be capitalized upon by a savvy opponent.

gwarsh41
05-02-2010, 15:25
I wouldnt say you will always lose against an exp player. It is true that you should not get them if you play to win.
I play for fun, but even my spirits can be crushed when a horrible roll kills off my GUO on the first turn. I have played 3 games so far, and am going to a tourney with them tomorrow. Even though I lost 2/3 times so far, I have had a blast with all of them.

(after my GUO went away, my soul grinder took out 7 gaunts, 2 warriors and a zonethrope in one turn. It made me smile)

I feel like marines are getting bland. Its always seems to be something like, transports with marines, hidden fist and melta. some heavy support and maybe a fast attack. They drive up, get out, get back in, drive away... bleh.

I want to say that out of all the armies, they have the most variety. Nothing in their book is really similar to anything else in the book. I like to look at daemons as 4 armies that can work together.
You have:
Tzeentch: shooting
Slaanesh: fast attack
Nurgle: Tough and slow.
Khorne: deadly in melee

I think of my daemons as a fun army only. I am bringing them to the tourney to have some fun and meet people, not win.

Oh yeah, dont forget how utterly sweeet daemons look!

Kriegschmidt
05-02-2010, 15:32
Just to add $0.02 from a fanatical Daemon player:

Do you want to develop a competitive armylist? A consistently-effective armylist? An army which plays better and better, the more you tinker with the list?

If the answer to these is "yes", do not play Daemons.

Do you want to play an army which plays like no other in 40k? Where you feel like you are using an army which stands apart from all the mortal armies? Where the rules and necessary playing style are so different from all the mortal armies that you really feel like you are jumping out of the immaterial dimension into your opponent's bewildered face?

If the answer to these is "yes", play Daemons ;)

If you read some of my posts on the Daemon tactica, I tell everyone the same thing: you need a particular mindset to play Daemons. You need to look at tiny little spaces between enemy units and ask yourself, "can I fit a greater Daemon in there?", then try and deep-strike it there anyway. You need to try mental things because they just might work, and if they do it'll create total carnage. And if they don't work, it'll create total carnage against you. And when it doesn't work, you cackle to yourself and remember that that means it'll definitely work next time.

No calculations. No careful planning. No "percentage shots".

If any of this scares you, don't play Daemons. You'll hate it.

ArtificerArmour
05-02-2010, 15:37
Well I tried making a dirty list with nids, and found I just kept coming back to the same thoughts.

Lots of deep striking.

And, to be perfectly honest, if you want a deep striking, gribbly army, Daemons are the way to go. I'm mono khorne and love them to bits. Except the juggernauts, they're just a pain :(

Bloodspeaker
05-02-2010, 15:39
I played the daemon codex since it's release and i must say they suck, and that's a pity for such an awesome army.

They suffer from poor design, lack of means to deal with mech armies and they are too random to be played competitively.
Furthermore many of their good models are metal thus expensive and you will probably need lots of them, half their troop choices are metal and ugly and most of their special characters are unreleashed.
The most important thing though is that they receive little or no support and that ain't gonna change in the near future, example: almost 2,5 years have passed since the codex release and still no second wave.

So unless you really dig the models and you don't play in a competitive heavy environment pretend this codex does not exist better choose chaos marines at least they can be somewhat competitive.
My personal advise though is stick with marines you are never gonna run out of codexes and chapters to make and you will receive all the support in the world.

That's the way it is sadly. :(

Kriegschmidt
05-02-2010, 15:45
I played the daemon codex since it's release and i must say they suck.......

[snip]

.......That's the way it is sadly. :(

I bet you hate Edward Monkton :D

Jovial banter aside, this person has one possibly valid attitude to Daemons. Another possibly valid attitude is:


RARR! Who cares if they win? Can I fit a Soul Grinder into that space? Let's give it a go.... RARR! It worked, woo! HAHA! Look at the expression on his face!

Darnok
05-02-2010, 15:49
Apart from ntins comment, which is so far off the point it is unreal (even though #2 is true: you can base your Daemons on the WFB bases), the truth is somewhere between what everybody else said.

I feel like I can't add too much, but one point is important in my opinion: do you want to play in a competetive environment, with a reliably performing army, Daemons are not for you. Kriegschmidt does sum it up perfectly.

Also have a look at some of the battle reports of Redrivertears. They are always an excellent read. This (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=242125) is one of them, a complete list can be found here (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=153826). It just never ceases to inspire me.

But also remember: this is the internet. You will find opinions here, but rarely facts. There are some educated guesses in this very thread, and some not so educated ones. Keep asking questions before you decide for yourself. :)

Grax
05-02-2010, 15:49
Chaos Daemons do not suck, no matter what anyone says. They've won Ard Boyz with the present codex, and I won a very competitive tournament in my home town with them, a tournament I've never ibefore won with any other army.

To sum up, the Chaos Daemons are the most powerful close combat army in the game. No other army gets nearly as close to the power they get during the assault phase, point for point. They're also all fearless, have invulnerable saves of at least 5+, and are all immune to instant death, which means that they're likely to survive the shooting phases before they reach close combat.

That said, they do have their weaknesses. They have very little shooting, they have very few units with a 3+ save and none with a 2+, and the randomness of the army can vex a lot of people, since you have to deep strike with everything. However, as long as you deep strike carefully, and use one icon in each wave, you should find them to be one of the most unique and interesting armies to play.

I wouldn't recommend them to a beginner though. If you're new to 40k, then I'd suggest Chaos Marines instead. However, if you're an experienced player looking for a cool 2nd army, then Chaos Daemons would be a more interesting choice.

ArtificerArmour
05-02-2010, 15:55
I actually think Chaos Daemons is one of the best designed, most balanced armies in the 40K GRIMVERSE at the moment.

They just work so well! You will annhialate you opponant in CC. He has one turn to kill you first. Then the rest of your army starts popping up, and his nice Blue Levi's change a darker shade around the crotch and seat.

True, the list could be tweaked here and there. Bloodletters could take daemonic space grenades built by chaos squats, Banners could not be comparable in price to a tyranid warrior, Juggernauts could not fall to bits in your hands and weigh half a kilo each and everyone could not have cheap **** transports, but it's not bad.

As the last 4th edition codex released, and a tie in to fantarsy, and with having a bunch of the powers from CSM (except with lash lite), it's a bloody balanced list.

Unfortunately, with your null zones, IG advisors, silly daemonhunter rules written 2 editions ago and space wolf powers that allow your opponant to take off a monster a turn, being a really nice, balanced list doesn't count for much when every other dex is unbalanced. They seem to get forgotten about, and little powers that may just irk another opponant screws around with your entire game.

Lordsaradain
05-02-2010, 17:06
I'd go for CSM. They have a better model range (more plastics, cheaper) are more versitale and rely less on luck.

If you start a CSM army, you can always try using the Chaos Daemon codex later using your lesser daemons, greater deameon, daemon prince and defiler.

Vedar
05-02-2010, 18:33
1) Would you recommend Daemons? Is it worth it? (I'm looking for your personal opinions and gut feelings on the army here; is it an army that is going to be phased out? A bad experiment gone wrong? Or does it have support and staying power in terms of new units/and future codicies etc)

2) Is it okay to use the square bases to field them in 40k, so that they remain usable in fantasy? (given that the base isnt as key in 40k as fantasy)

3)Are they fun to play? (I currently own Ork and IG armies, and am looking for a more elite and ridiculously evil army) I want to stand there and cackle evily as I succeed or fail, after all.

4) Is there enough variety in builds?

5) Should I just choose Chaos Marines instead? Why?


1. Daemon are unique. They are random. They are a good fun army. Quite often they are feast of famine based on you standing with the almighty dice gods. Pray to the scatter dice god alot for best results. They are here to stay.

2. You could use square bases in friendly games. Some older Daemons came on square bases. Tournament probably not.

3.Hell ya. Fun is the name of the game with Daemons. Will your flamers strike right on target to flame the hell out of something or will they scatter into oblivion? Roll and find out. Fun stuff.

4.All kinds of variety. I play all kinds of Daemon lists. I regularly play with all the Greater Daemons. Heralds are good too. Some units tend to be too good to pass up. Flamers and Bloodcrushers make it in to most of my lists.

5. Only if you want to. I play Both. I find the 4th Ed. Chaos Marine Codex pretty bland. It can be pretty powerful and fun, but bland. It is also easier and more forgiving.

I will close with Daemon have a hard time with Mech lists. If you face 10+ vehicles you will probably get a groan out of most Daemon players. Hitting on 6's for vechicle that move 6+" is quite the problem. Tzeentch bolt of change are only STR 8 so you need a MC to take down Land Raiders, which is not easy or safe to do as your MC will get shot up next round if he destroys the LR or not. Daemon are way fun and you can get very good with them, but if the dice gods are against you.....

druchii
05-02-2010, 18:37
I played the daemon codex since it's release and i must say they suck, and that's a pity for such an awesome army.

They suffer from poor design, lack of means to deal with mech armies and they are too random to be played competitively.
Furthermore many of their good models are metal thus expensive and you will probably need lots of them, half their troop choices are metal and ugly and most of their special characters are unreleashed.
The most important thing though is that they receive little or no support and that ain't gonna change in the near future, example: almost 2,5 years have passed since the codex release and still no second wave.

So unless you really dig the models and you don't play in a competitive heavy environment pretend this codex does not exist better choose chaos marines at least they can be somewhat competitive.
My personal advise though is stick with marines you are never gonna run out of codexes and chapters to make and you will receive all the support in the world.

That's the way it is sadly. :(

This quote is worth it's weight in gold. If all you care about is winning.

I picked up demons right when the new book came out. I remember getting yelled at by my team mates at Adepticon because I was camped out on the floor reading their preview copy of the book for so long.


I'm considering delving into the madness of Chaos. Yes, Emperor damn me, I know.

I'm kind of leaning towards Chaos Daemons over Chaos Marines, but I'm not exactly sure....

I know this is a perilous choice; and I've heard that the outcomes may rarely be successful as the armies of Daemons are so often crushed these days-- but... I'm thinking about it anyway.

Now, because of this, my mind is racing at the possibility of starting a new army, and one that might also be used in Warhammer (which would be a nice bonus). Naturally, I have a few questions, which I'll just list here.

1) Would you recommend Daemons? Is it worth it? (I'm looking for your personal opinions and gut feelings on the army here; is it an army that is going to be phased out? A bad experiment gone wrong? Or does it have support and staying power in terms of new units/and future codicies etc)

2) Is it okay to use the square bases to field them in 40k, so that they remain usable in fantasy? (given that the base isnt as key in 40k as fantasy)

3)Are they fun to play? (I currently own Ork and IG armies, and am looking for a more elite and ridiculously evil army) I want to stand there and cackle evily as I succeed or fail, after all.

4) Is there enough variety in builds?

5) Should I just choose Chaos Marines instead? Why?


Any other thoughts would be great

Thanks very much guys!
-Des

1. I think demons are easily worth it. Barring fully mech lists I haven't met a list or a person that I haven't felt like "I had no chance there". Against the vast majority of armies in 40k, right now, demons are quite competitive.

2. I'd honestly use the round bases, and make some movement trays for fantasy. Also, bases mean LESS in fantasy, than in 40k. Fantasy you need clearly defined outer edges of bases (corners, square/rectangle footprints, etc.) and everyone knows exactly how big a base is (so you KNOW that you'll get this many 20mm skirmishers ranked up against a 5 frontage demon unit because they always have the same measurement (25mm in the case of demons). Round bases look slick on a 40k table too.

3. Demons are amazing to play. They'll never get old. Even if you're playing the exact same opponent, with the exact same army, on the exact same board with the exact same mission, things will never go exactly the same. Deep strike ensures that your units will never come in in the same place all the time, and if you look at every turn with demons as a brand new game, you'll have the right idea.

Demons reward players with good, loose plans. Adaptability is your friend with these guys. You're not playing your usual rapidfire-in-rhinos build where you can envision 24" threat ranges around your units. Demons play like very few armies out there (arguably none since they're so assault heavy). Demons look like no other army out there. You can make an ENTIRE army out of counts-as models, and no one has a right to complain. They're demons! Half of our troops in metal? Blech. Turn some ghouls into PBs, or some bloodletters into Horrors. Heralds on chariots are easy to make, as are pretty much any of the other units in the codex.

4. Demons are a variety codex. They have (IMO) the best internal balance out of any codex thus released (with only two units being completely useless!), so you can make very well-rounded armies with almost anything in the codex. Mono-god armies tend to stuggle a bit here (hey, they even cop to that in the codex!) but that's because, like the eldar book, the demon book is a "toolkit" army. Each unit has a purpose, and they do that (barring the undivided units, which are good at whatever you build them to do). The downside is that if those units get caught NOT doing what they're meant to do, they're GONE. Gone gone gone gone. I've lost half my army in one turn before, due to poor rolling, good rolling and poor placement.

5. You should play chaos if you want to be another statistic. Everyone plays chaos, or space marines or IG, or Space Wolves, or Orks, or 'Nids. CSMs are cool, but you've seen them before. Forever. They do the same thing other armies do. Shoot, assault, run around in rhinos and Land Raiders, etc. That isn't to say CSMs are boring or usual (OK, I think they're boring and usual...) but demons are unique.

Things to know about demons:
Demons will punish you if you don't know what you're doing.
Demons will punish you if you let your opponent do to you what he wants to do.
Demons will look like NO other army at a tournament.
Demons will get you opponents based on the fact that they're unique and rare.
Demons will get you acclaim for playing a balanced (some say underbalanced), fun, creating, striking army.
Demons will make people whine about deep strike when your plans and dice go accordingly because when this happens demons are VERY nasty. It's just that those games are few and far between.

d

ps. check out the demon tactica thread, I know it's huge (that's what she said? does that even work over the net?) but a good rule of thumb is to ignore anything from that druchii guy...

the Goat
05-02-2010, 19:11
. . . bases mean LESS in fantasy, than in 40k. . .

Could you expand on that thought? Correct base size, shape and facing is very important in fantasy. But it is not really important at all in 40k.

Movement trays only work well while the unit is near full strength. I guess in 40k a player could use square bases and measure unit coherency corner to corner in order to have his guys a tiny bit further spread out. But you would have to work very hard to actually get a measurable advantage.
________
Fisting Arm (http://www.****tube.com/categories/561/arm/videos/1)

druchii
05-02-2010, 19:22
Could you expand on that thought? Correct base size, shape and facing is very important in fantasy. But it is not really important at all in 40k.

Movement trays only work well while the unit is near full strength. I guess in 40k a player could use square bases and measure unit coherency corner to corner in order to have his guys a tiny bit further spread out. But you would have to work very hard to actually get a measurable advantage.

Well that's why I said the outline of the base is what's important in fantasy. The facing is important, not so much the base size because it's pretty obvious where the square will be.Movement trays ALWAYS work because even if the unit is losing models you still know the edge of the square is the edge of the circular base. Movement trays essentially "fix" the problem of having circular bases on models. Putting circular bases on square shapes is a lot easier than doing it the opposite.

In 40k it's important for charge distances, shooting ranges and template hits, and DS patterns. In fantasy, unless the units are skirmishers it's pretty obvious where the squares are because if you rank up 20 bloodletters in a 5x4 unit you can pretty clearly see where they leave little "holes" between them.

And square bases look terrible in 40k.

d

jsullivanlaw
05-02-2010, 19:36
Daemons are not a weak army, but they take some finesse, luck, and some skill in minimizing the effects of bad luck. First off, daemons can destroy any other army in CC. IF someone wants to bring a CC army and go toe to toe with daemons then they will very likely lose. The daemonic assault rule isn't all that bad if you build a list that has a plan around what you will do with either wave. It's all about having dangerous and durable units come on with some serious target saturation.

You also really need to bring certain units to be effective. Fiends are a must, in my opinion as they provide some excellent anti tank and speed. Fiends can catch those pesky vendettas and down them fairly easily. Iconcrushers are nice too as, with a big squad of tricked out blood crushers you can deepstrike next to the enemy, let their whole army shoot at them, and shrug it off. The daemon elites are the core, after that you can mix and match other units. Plague bearers are the best troops in the game, they cost 1/3 less than plague marines. Deep striking troops are made of awesome in objective games.

Daemons are a fun army and i don't really believe that luck is as important as most people make it out to be. I've won my last 4 games with daemons ever since i discovered my magic 1850 list. I've defeated CC nids, Air Cav guard, swarm guard, all fairly handily. Deep strike over 7 inches away from enemy and friendly units. Daemons don't have much in the way of anti tank guns but transports can easily be dealt with by monstrous creatures and fiends. Both these units can whether rapid fire and still be able to assault a unit the next phase if they kill a transport.

The only downside to playing daemons is that your games will be tough if people tailor their lists to kill daemons. Null zone, mystics, stupid daemonhunter rules like sanctuary, masters of the fleet ect, can render your army useless without you being able to do much about it.

Shebnar
05-02-2010, 20:41
Well I tried making a dirty list with nids, and found I just kept coming back to the same thoughts.

Lots of deep striking.

And, to be perfectly honest, if you want a deep striking, gribbly army, Daemons are the way to go. I'm mono khorne and love them to bits. Except the juggernauts, they're just a pain :(


Daemons suck, but they *may* be fun to play with.
Your whole strategy is depending upon a 3+ dice roll at the start of the battle. You miss, you get screwed most of the time (unless you divide your army into equal halves).
The whole concept is too much impredictable for me.

("Hey, it is Chaos, it has to be unpredictable!" some might say.
They may have thought the same at Nottingham when they conceived the rules for Possessed in the actual Chaos Codex, i.e. the queen of dead entries).

And, btw, Tyranids have not the issue of the half army swap on a missed 3+ roll.

GD balanced the unreliability issue providing some punch to the list, but know that most of your units are going to get a 5+ ward save, which means that most of your (costly) units get decimated by massed bolter fire.



1) Would you recommend Daemons? Is it worth it? (I'm looking for your personal opinions and gut feelings on the army here; is it an army that is going to be phased out? A bad experiment gone wrong? Or does it have support and staying power in terms of new units/and future codicies etc)

They are a 'for fun' army, unreliable and full of flavorful choices. Do not expect to win very often with them. If this is not a problem for you, go for them.




2) Is it okay to use the square bases to field them in 40k, so that they remain usable in fantasy? (given that the base isnt as key in 40k as fantasy)

Except than in official tournaments, I don't think anyone is going to question about square bases :)



3)Are they fun to play? (I currently own Ork and IG armies, and am looking for a more elite and ridiculously evil army) I want to stand there and cackle evily as I succeed or fail, after all.

It may be exeedingly difficult to play with them, if you have bad luck with Deep Strikes. With Deep Strikes AND the 3+ roll at the start of the battle ;)

That severely impairs the 'tactical factor'. If you want a tactical army to play with, I suggest you to go for Tau or DA.



4) Is there enough variety in builds?

Well, I saw a lot of lists on the net, but in official contest I only saw 2-3 variants, comprending one big unit of Plaguebearers for Icon bearing, 1-2 Soulgrinder, 3 Bloodcrushers, 1 Greater Daemon.

Then there is the Mono-Khorne onslaught list, very fearful. And MUCH frailer than it seems. Once you've reap some victories with it, your opponents will learn how to deal with it and you will suddenly stop winning.





5) Should I just choose Chaos Marines instead? Why?

No. Daemons are better. The actual Chaos Codex is an absolute crap, with no flavour in it (which inevitably will disappoint the fluffy side of your personality) and only a viable list for competitive gaming (which WILL disappoint the power player in you). Chaos is dead in the 5th edition. I suggest you to go for some fun-yet-viable codex like Tyr or IG.

ArtificerArmour
05-02-2010, 21:53
Daemons suck, but they *may* be fun to play with.
Your whole strategy is depending upon a 3+ dice roll at the start of the battle. You miss, you get screwed most of the time (unless you divide your army into equal halves).
The whole concept is too much impredictable for me.

As you find with most lists, if somethings good its worth taking two of them. Split in half to minimise the effect of a poor roll. Yeah, so what if you get the wrong wave? it's hardly as annoying as rolling the wrong side of the table for outflanking.


("Hey, it is Chaos, it has to be unpredictable!" some might say.
They may have thought the same at Nottingham when they conceived the rules for Possessed in the actual Chaos Codex, i.e. the queen of dead entries).

Yeah...:shifty:


And, btw, Tyranids have not the issue of the half army swap on a missed 3+ roll.

They do have the issue of foot slogging across the board, or deep striking in dribs and drabs from turn 2 onwards...


GD balanced the unreliability issue providing some punch to the list, but know that most of your units are going to get a 5+ ward save, which means that most of your (costly) units get decimated by massed bolter fire.

GD have an invulnerable save of 4+, and a BT gets a 3+ armour save. Please, don't underestimate a 5+ inv, you shrug off a 3rd of ALL wounds, including las, melta, plasma and power weapons. plus Bloodletters have a toughness of 4 (again, THAT'S not bad), plaguebearers a 5+ and a 4+ feel no pain.

And most daemon players learn to use cover, so thats a 4+ cover on all wounds.




They are a 'for fun' army, unreliable and full of flavorful choices. Do not expect to win very often with them. If this is not a problem for you, go for them.

I come out roughly 50 50 in a competative environment. In tournaments I usually end up in the bottom third, but that's more as a poor gamer myself and restricting myself to running a themed army rather than the army lists.



Except than in official tournaments, I don't think anyone is going to question about square bases :)

I've seen square bases at GT so shouldnt be a problem.


It may be exeedingly difficult to play with them, if you have bad luck with Deep Strikes. With Deep Strikes AND the 3+ roll at the start of the battle ;)

Again, not a problem for seasoned daemon players.


That severely impairs the 'tactical factor'. If you want a tactical army to play with, I suggest you to go for Tau or DA.

Both army lists I regard as weaker than daemons, though I doubt a daemon would sift through piles of tactical dataslates before a battle...


Well, I saw a lot of lists on the net, but in official contest I only saw 2-3 variants, comprending one big unit of Plaguebearers for Icon bearing, 1-2 Soulgrinder, 3 Bloodcrushers, 1 Greater Daemon.

Then there is the Mono-Khorne onslaught list, very fearful. And MUCH frailer than it seems. Once you've reap some victories with it, your opponents will learn how to deal with it and you will suddenly stop winning.

My personal list, you can easily max that out with bloodcrushers.



No. Daemons are better. The actual Chaos Codex is an absolute crap, with no flavour in it (which inevitably will disappoint the fluffy side of your personality) and only a viable list for competitive gaming (which WILL disappoint the power player in you). Chaos is dead in the 5th edition. I suggest you to go for some fun-yet-viable codex like Tyr or IG.

I still see chaos lists topping tournament play, just for lash-bliterator spam.

Inach
05-02-2010, 22:21
Daemons made me like 40k again. CSM and necrons are fun but predictable armies.. tend to get a bit boring. That isn't the case with daemons... :D

Daemons are very good vs MEQ
Daemons have a hard time vs GEQ (orks / IG)
Daemons require a long learning curve (The first 10 battles with daemons will be against your self... 'Where should I place what?!')
Daemons will (!) be very hard for any opponent when played correct by a good general
Daemons have about the best elite choices in 40k (fiends / crushers)

Desalbert
06-02-2010, 02:31
Wow! these have been some absolutely fantastic responses! Thanks very much! I truly appreciate the depth that you have all gone to show me both sides of the issue. You know, I think I'm being swayed towards them, and before I jump in and buy my first (inexpensive) model, I have just two more small questions:

1. Can units like The Masque, Epidimus and Skulltaker be fielded as the garden variety heralds, or not? If not, what unit (without conversion) might be acceptable to fill that role? (Perhaps a simple chaos champion might do?)

2. Where can I acquire trays that have spaces for round bases? Must I make them myself?

Thanks again everyone!

fluffstalker
06-02-2010, 02:52
In response to the first question, as long as you let your opponent know beforehand, heralds aren't a big issue. Just do a little bit of converting or use more ornate models if you have them to signify that they are meaner than your average daemon.

I use my Slaneesh herald on a chariot from WFB so its pretty easy to tell. I imagine models like the Masque would be fine.

As for the second question, I think, but am not sure, that the LOTR system has those kind of trays. Be warned though, they will restrict your movement and make you vulnerable to blasts.

Chem-Dog
06-02-2010, 03:36
1) Would you recommend Daemons? Is it worth it? (I'm looking for your personal opinions and gut feelings on the army here; is it an army that is going to be phased out? A bad experiment gone wrong? Or does it have support and staying power in terms of new units/and future codicies etc)

First question's a doozy...
I'd recommend them, but I don't play tourney style (not often) and I've heard tell from tourney players that the Daemon list is terribly hamstrung by it's deployment rules (I don't see it personally, but then I don't play tourney style...)
Regardless of people's personal feelings about the Daemons as a separate codex (I don't see the harm tbh) they're here to stay for a good while yet, even if they don't get an outing in the next edition of 40K and get sucked back into the CSM's that's a long ways off, so don't worry that your army is suddenly going to get killed off any time soon, indeed, there are at least two units just waiting to come out.
I'm not sure how development will go, the Daemons Codex did dissapoint with it's lack of "new" units, the one that was included was a fairly sub par daemon tank (fluff wise) where a tank wasn't really needed. Perhaps a further itteration of the Daemons Codex would see a few more creatures added to the Daemonic menagerie (as opposed to the Big Daemon/Little Daemon/Cardboard box format we have currently), personally I'd like to have seen a few more "undivided" Daemons to accompany the Furies, perhaps even a GD of unalligned-ness.


2) Is it okay to use the square bases to field them in 40k, so that they remain usable in fantasy? (given that the base isnt as key in 40k as fantasy)

Yeah. I would have no qualms about fighting any army on square bases, I've seen CSM's on squares and it looked cool.
Remember you can use the LotR movement bases to rank up round based models if you are so inclined, these accomodate standard 40k infantry bases as well as the next size up (40mm?) so you can field a large majority of the Daemon army's troops on round bases in them, but squares are probably easier.


3)Are they fun to play? (I currently own Ork and IG armies, and am looking for a more elite and ridiculously evil army) I want to stand there and cackle evily as I succeed or fail, after all.

Yes they are, as long as you can laugh at Daemonprinces who like to be fashionably late or decide not to bother turning up at all (DS mishap, my first Daemons battle....stupid Slaanesh) and as long as you're prepared to loose a large chunk of your army before it hits home.
Remember in the grand schemes of Tzeench, if you loose, it's supposed to happen like that and you're just furthering the plan.:shifty:


4) Is there enough variety in builds?
Well there's any number of mixed armies to suit your taste and then there are the monogod armies, where the Codex is "designed" to favour a mixed army with Daemons from most of, if not all, of the gods a Monogod force can still be an extremely dangerous proposition, each of the four powers has it's own strengths.
A Khorne army is strong, quite tought and lethal in close combat (as you'd expect)
A Nurgle army is slow but incredibly resilient.
A Tzeench army isn't too crash hot in the combat phase (although the MC's aren't to be trifled with) but they can hurl out an astonishing hail of fire.
A Slaanesh army is fragile (T3 Daemonettes with a 5+inv die just about as quickly as guardsmen) but they are FAST, virtually everything has Fleet and a high Initiative along with defensive/offensive grenades, a fair amount of an all Slaanesh army can be cavalry and virtually everything is at least rending.

So it's a pic 'n' mix or be a bit more selective...


5) Should I just choose Chaos Marines instead? Why?

No
Get some Daemons, try them out, if you don't like them you'll at least have a few summoned Daemons for your CSM army. It's win win...

Vineas
06-02-2010, 03:43
I think GF9 makes a square movement tray with round holes, not sure though.

Heralds are basically badder, meaner versions of their lesser daemonic counterpart. Chariots are easy to mount heralds on as WFB has chariots readily available (HE Lion Chariots work great for Slaanesh Heralds).

I'd also recommend either Ghouls or Zombies for PB's. Zombies are 20 to a box I believe so right there gets you 2x 10 for objective holding (always try to place objectives in area terrain and DS Plaguebearers into it. You get your invul against any 1's you roll so a group of 10 dropping in might lose 1 to dangerous terrain).

Flamers are a good choice as well but I'd never take more than 3 in a unit. 3 is more than enough overkill if used correctly. The thing about Flamers is you can either DS far enough away to not worry about mishap and thus rely on their S4 AP4 3shot/model "gun" or display a pair and drop them down 2-3 inches from something scary and kill that unit with 3 templates that wound on 4's with no armor or cover saves allowed. 3 is generally plenty. Non-SS terminators make good targets, as do devastator squads or scout squads.

Daemons are a blast and as drucchi pointed out. You could play the exact same list and opp on the exact same board at the exact same points and no 2 games will ever be the same. I like Daemons because it isn't as "point and click" as some armies.

IcedAnimals
06-02-2010, 06:34
I will offer this. I just started playing Daemons using a friends models. I only own a single model and its the FW KoS. Everything else I was using was his. I enjoyed the army so much even with all the luck it requires that I am buying models of my own so I can continue to play it.

Nurgling Chieftain
06-02-2010, 07:43
...as long as you can laugh at Daemonprinces who like to be fashionably late..."Kairos Fateweaver is never late. Nor is he early. He arrives precisely when he means to."

Souleater
06-02-2010, 16:07
daemons are a fantastic opportunity for conversions.

What about a force of 'daemonic' Orks converted from a mix of WFB and 40K greenskins?

Vineas
06-02-2010, 21:52
The FW GD's are, IMO, the biggest reason to play Daemons.

I will someday have the FW LoC.

Fallenturtle
06-02-2010, 22:26
To answer the base size question, I have yet to come to a tournament where i have been yelled at for my square bases. I also have a few models on round bases so maybe thats why I dont get yelled at. I do play fantasy mostly for my demons and they have a good tournament record with them. Besides, I doubt you can argue with the rules in the book stating that you have to play with the models on the bases they come with.

Shebnar
06-02-2010, 22:26
As you find with most lists, if somethings good its worth taking two of them. Split in half to minimise the effect of a poor roll. Yeah, so what if you get the wrong wave? it's hardly as annoying as rolling the wrong side of the table for outflanking.

it's not so easy conceiving an army which can be divided into two equal parts. I know it can be tactically challenging for someone,

In the end, the viable units are

Fiends of Slaanesh
Bloodletters
Plaguebearers + Icon
Bloodthirster (fully tooled up)
Bloodcrushers
Soulgrinder
Heralds of Khorne
Lord of change + bolt of tzeentch

Daemons are very specialized, so if you want to build an assault-oriented list you have to keep your fragile Bloodletters in reserve. Unless, of course, you play mono-Khorne (with all the problems that derive).
Plaguebearers are good at taking abjectives and holding the Icon, but they suck in almost everything else, you can't spam too many units of them in the field to build two equal parts of your army (unless you play a mono-Nurgle army and Epidemius, which in this case is a mandatory choice). And that would be a severe point sink, considering that you also have to provide for some good anti-tank fire in the army (i.e. Soulgrinders or Bolts of Tzeentch - Screamers are overcosted for what they do).

Some people (and some of my friends too) would consider that a challenging way to improve your tactical skills.
Honestly, to me this is just a cul-de-sac, a dismaying array of forced choices (if you want to play a symmetric army) or random madness (the 3+ roll at the beginning of the battle). Not exactly my idea of 'tactics', anyway.

The idea of a full Deep Strike non-Terminator army is nice, but has been very badly implemented IMHO. Not considering the damage done to the Chaos Legions removing the dedicated Daemons from the summonable bonanza, or raping the historical BG of the Chaos Powers (i.e. Happy Buddies from Beyond) but... oh well, this is entirely another story. ;)





They do have the issue of foot slogging across the board, or deep striking in dribs and drabs from turn 2 onwards...

Yes, but their units are muuuch cheaper than Daemons'.



GD have an invulnerable save of 4+, and a BT gets a 3+ armour save. Please, don't underestimate a 5+ inv, you shrug off a 3rd of ALL wounds, including las, melta, plasma and power weapons. plus Bloodletters have a toughness of 4 (again, THAT'S not bad), plaguebearers a 5+ and a 4+ feel no pain.

GD here is Game Developers :( sorry for the mishmash (damn acronyms!).




I come out roughly 50 50 in a competative environment. In tournaments I usually end up in the bottom third, but that's more as a poor gamer myself and restricting myself to running a themed army rather than the army lists.


Well, the friend of mine who plays Daemons has succeeded in beating very competitive lists (or better: lists which usually are considered 'competitive'): monozillas, lash+oblits, the new SW.... but lost badly to Deathwing, old IG, vanilla SM.
He's a skilled player, usually it is very difficult to wipe his forces from the table, regardless of the army he's using.
At the beginning he thought Daemons were an engaging army, where you have to learn how managing a full Deep Strike army with special rules. Then he grew tired of them, simply because there's no improvement in using them, you only have to rely on some good rolls in the right moments. This is true for all armies, but Daemons have to rely upon a few good rolls in the right moments... and constantly feeling that the turn of the tide may be decided by a single roll, well, it's not much fun. And no matter how many icons you can put, with Daemons you find yourself craving for single lucky rolls more often than with other armies. He felt that playing with them is like gambling, more than wargaming, so he quit.



Both army lists I regard as weaker than daemons, though I doubt a daemon would sift through piles of tactical dataslates before a battle...

Tau and DA are difficult to play, but as much reliable as other armies. No gambling effect for them (except maybe with Deathwing).



My personal list, you can easily max that out with bloodcrushers.

it's all depending on the type of army you are facing.
monokhorne daemon army are great against some kind of MEQ/Elite armies, but very vulnerable against horde hth armies (Ork green tides, for instance).
And you still need Troop choices to take objectives.




I still see chaos lists topping tournament play, just for lash-bliterator spam.

Yes, but is that fun to play with? You don't even have to rack your brain to create something original, just to cut and paste the list from the net: it is the only chaos power list around, there's no other combo or viable units.
The heaven of lazy power players. :shifty:

jsullivanlaw
09-02-2010, 20:39
I totally disagree with a lot of the comments in this thread. Daemons can be very competetive precisely because they are different. In a tournament setting when you are up against all comers lists daemons tend to have an advantage. All those low ap or anti tank weapons are fairly ineffective when it comes to daemons. If someone brings an assault army then you shouldn't ever lose either, barring bad rolling. I can't think of any other 40k army that can go toe to toe with daemons in assault.

As far as the wave splitting goes, you do NOT need to build a mirror image of waves to competetive. You simply need to have a plan based around that wave. Wave 1 might be a heavy shooting wave where you weaken the tough enemy targets and try and knock out some vehicles and make things safer for the fast assaulters. Wave 2 might have your fast assault stuff so if you get wave 2 you simply deploy for safety and reposition with a run, then your reserves come in shooting while the fast assault lays into the enemy. Every list you make needs to have a plan with each wave, then you are fine either way.

arachnid
09-02-2010, 21:23
2:

Use the round bases, they rank up just fine in the movement trays anyway.

It's a bit more problematic using the square ones in 40k.

Kriegschmidt
10-02-2010, 10:14
I recently made the transition from 40k to Fantasy and I have mostly round bases. For the meantime I use "trays" which are just rectangular sheets of corrugated cardboard. But my friend Mondobot came up with a better idea: get tray-sized sheets of plastic/plasticard/thick card, spread a layer of air-drying clay over, rub a little cooking oil over the top, then press round bases into it in ranks/files.

I looked at using the LotR trays but the holes were too widely spaced and the trays too small.