# Codex Chaos Daemons - Competitive?



## D-A-C (Sep 21, 2010)

Hey everyone.

I've recently made the jump from Chaos Space Marines to Chaos Daemons (and might I add I am having no regrets so far!!!). 

I have enjoyed three things in particular, the fluff, the models and the *competitiveness* of the codex.

Now maybe I'm just in a state of shock for having to endure the piece of crap that is the Chaos Space Marine Codex, but I happen to think the Chaos Daemons Codex is incredibly competitive in an all comer's enviroment.
Almost all options are viable (bar a bad one or two).

So here are my arguments:

1. *Deepstriking -* This can be a blessing and a curse. Yes we can mishap (which is a bit stupid, we should never suffer a unit destroyed result) but we have the advantage of being able to deploy anywhere on the table.

Also we get to do one of my favourite things in the whole world ... avoid meching up. We don't have to tack on an extra 35pts+ a pop to transport our troops as we can drop them where we want.


2. *Eternal Warrior and Invulnerable Saves on Everything!!! -* That's right, everything with multiple wounds has to lose all those wounds before the unit is destroyed and you see that save, it's invulnerable, we ALWAYS get to try and save those wounds from even the most powerful weaponry.


3. *Strong Troop Choices - *In 5th edition Troops (are correctly) the most important units in the game, as 2/3 of missions now involve objectives you have to have strong troops to win games.

Daemonettes, Bloodletters, Plaguebearers and Pink Horrors can go toe to toe with any and all Troop choices from any and all other codices. Rending, Feel no Pain, Assault 3 Str 4 Ap4 shots and a little something called power weapons for everyone, that's what each of our Troops possess.

Daemonettes - Fleet, Rending, 5 Attacks on the charge.

PlagueBearers - Feel no Pain and just don't die and they have poisoned attacks that get to re-roll wounds vs Toughness 4 targets.

Pink Horrors - Mathhammer says 2.5 kills on MEQ's for 10 Pink Horrors ... Mathhammer can kiss my ... I've seen these guys decimate entire units.

Bloodletters - Furious Charge and power weapons as standard, you are charged by even 3 or 4 of these guys and you die.

And they are all cheap + as I said no vehicle needs tacked on.


4. *HQ Options *- Heralds are good and cheap with an average 5 Wounds on a Chariot (don't forget EW) and a variety of options and builds. Also ... Monstrous Creatures!!! Bloodthirster, Keeper of Secrets, Lord of Change and Great Unlean Ones, no matter what you use your opponent will need to rid of it fast (did I mention EW and Invulnerable? lol).


5. *Few of the options that are 'weak'* - Of all the options in the codex, you would be hard pushed to find more than one or two units that are truely useless, and even then, they will have their uses. In an all-comers enviroment all the options can compete, you don't have to worry about choosing too much melta and not enough plasma, or lacking ways to deal with mech or hordes, they are viable against all opponents.


Those are just some of the reasons why I think Codex Daemons is incredibly competitive. I might add more later.

The only knock people can really have on it is ... it's random. Yes we have to deepstrike and yes we have to split our army up on Turn One, but that is not difficult to tactically overcome if you know what your doing.

Anyway, the reason I'm starting this thread is to spread a little Daemon love aaannnddd get your opinions on them.

1. In any tournaments you've been to did you play them / have you played against them, how did they fare?

2. What is your opinion on them in terms of competitiveness vs the other armies and codices?

3. What are your thoughts and opinions on how they can be improved in their next edition?

4. What are your thoughts and opinions on them in general?

So what say you?


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

D-A-C said:


> 1. *Deepstriking -* This can be a blessing and a curse. Yes we can mishap (which is a bit stupid, we should never suffer a unit destroyed result) but we have the advantage of being able to deploy anywhere on the table.
> 
> Also we get to do one of my favourite things in the whole world ... avoid meching up. We don't have to tack on an extra 35pts+ a pop to transport our troops as we can drop them where we want.


I would say that being able to drop a close combat army where you want them should have a downside. Otherwise there is nothing to stop you from placing everything 1 inch away from the enemy. 

1. In any tournaments you've been to did you play them / have you played against them, how did they fare?

Ive fought them twice. First game was my shooty marines vs demons, he went first and was basically tabled by the end of my second turn. Second game was a team event, fought demons/chaos marines with guard and nids. Ended really badly for the demons.

2. What is your opinion on them in terms of competitiveness vs the other armies and codices?

They are not as competitive as the other books for a few reasons. I would argue that point for point demons are the most killy army in the game right now. They do however suffer from significant problems that competitive players can exploit.

1-Lack of anti tank. If you want anti tank you have to take tzeentch units, and these guys are generally pretty bad at combat. So you have to drop your super weak combat guys in the enemies face, not good. Also, a horror squad is great anti infantry firepower, but if you shoot a tank you have wasted all those horrors. Finally, they cost a significant amount and take points away from close combat killing, what demons do best.

2-Have to deep strike. You have to come in with half your army 1st turn. Demons struggle against highly aggressive armies that can almost totally remove their initial drop before the second one comes in. 

3-Bubblewrap. Last time I fought demons with my nids, I deployed my 20 gaunts in a line about 6 inches in front of the rest of my army. He could try and drop between my bubblewrap and main list, but if he scattered he would mishap. Or he can drop in front of the gaunts and basically do nothing while my trygons, warriors, and stealers moved up and ate him. You can circle off a squad of bloodcrushers with 5 gaunts and laugh as they dont advance on the rest of your lines. Sure they will kill the gaunts, but thats irrelevant when the rest of the list is getting gang banged by an entire army. 

4-Predictability. One of the things you see in 5th edition about the best armies is their ability to do multiple things. The armies that are very predictable, orks primarily but demons and nids to a lesser extent is their linear playstyle. You know whats going to happen when you fight demons, unless you havent played them before, and as they are predictable you can better prepare than fighting, say, mech space wolves that can do most anything decently.

I would also like to add that their rareness and weirdness is one of the reasons a lot of players win with them. I feel its a lot like horde orks. First few times you fight the army, it just overwhelms you because its so off the wall compared to whats normal. By the 3rd or 4th time you know whats coming and can adapt better than the demons player.

3. What are your thoughts and opinions on how they can be improved in their next edition?

Give them more anti tank weapons.

4. What are your thoughts and opinions on them in general?

Very cool army, love the models and the fluff. Like the playstyle a lot. They suffer from n00bslayer syndrome though. Where you get some guy at the lgs who feels demons are the best army ever because he beats up on his buddies with them all the time. Maybe they still run crappy 4th edition gunline armies or just havent learned how to fight demons. Anyways he goes to a big tournament, and runs into someone who feels demons are average and knows very well how to beat them. The guy then feels that demons are some kind of army for tactical geniuses only, and claims the moral high ground for playing them over other 'cheesy' armies.


----------



## Tim/Steve (Jan 25, 2009)

D-A-C said:


> 1. In any tournaments you've been to did you play them / have you played against them, how did they fare?
> Well I've played with them in a small tourny before now- mono tzeentch 1k and I came 9th/30ish having 2 armies that could have been designed specifically to counter my list... they're pretty effective in general because their playstyle is so different to what most players build their lists to beat.
> 
> 2. What is your opinion on them in terms of competitiveness vs the other armies and codices?
> ...


Daemons are a huge amount of fun and I love them dearly... but they aren't _reliable_ which means I would be amased if they ever manage to win a big tournament- run enough games and they'll all scatter where you dont want or die. Basically I would expect a good player using daemons to certainly finish high, but not at the top of a proper tourny.


----------



## Stormbrow II (May 10, 2010)

> Basically I would expect a good player using daemons to certainly finish high, but not at the top of a proper tourny.


This. 

There's a bit more reliance placed on randomness when using them because you have the '1-2 I'm in trouble' deployment and the fact that your entire army scatters 2D6" when they arrive. There's a buddy that has played 17 games and hasn't lost yet and he's come up against an AV12 Guard Wall, Vulkan Marines, Razorwolves, Tri-Stormraven BA and Loganwing to name a few. 

Saying that I think they're too random to go the distance over a 5 or 6 round tourney simply because the dice will let them down in a bad way at least once. There will always be one or two games where you get the wrong wave down turn 1 and you're on the back foot as you won't be able to respond in a meaningful way until Turn 3.


----------



## shaantitus (Aug 3, 2009)

I am building a demons army for use in a campaign. Have not played with them yet but i think they will be a lot of fun. The alternative playstyle will certainly be interesting.


----------



## OrdoMalleus (Apr 24, 2009)

1. In any tournaments you've been to did you play them / have you played against them, how did they fare?

Erm..Unfortunately not too well as my main army is daemonhunters :S pyscannons and other weapons gallore that ignore their invulnreble saves, plus the fact that they have to deepstrike is not good when the opponent has mystics that grant free shots at every deepstriking unit.

However, they are one of the funnest armies to play against ( my opponent in particular was a great guy) and the randomness of them forces you to play better with them as you cannont really pull of any Pre-planned spam tactics.


However, From my (Daemonhunters point of veiw) the changes that stopped the shooting attacks being psychic and the loss of daemonic instability has made half of my special rules obselete, so I would like to see something balance that out a bit. However I still think they are a very competitve army and actully have the best troop choices out of any 40K codex!

My only disapointment is the loss of C:CSM not being able to take named Daemon units anymore, only the generic "Daemon troops" and generic "Greater daemon". Their was a lot of fluff to that I think has been lost. ( WordBearers certainly loved using daemon packs.)


----------



## D-A-C (Sep 21, 2010)

Any more thoughts or opinions from anyone about this topic?

(Thanks to all those who have contributed so far, I'll hand out a few +reps)


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

Not much to add really. I love Daemons but if you care about having a competitive record then don't bother. The units are generally more powerful than their point would suggest but with the fickleness of the Gods and the Deep Strike deployment you'll often find yourself on the wrong end of a bad result through no real fault of your own. That said a lot of people are pretty blasé about Daemons and if you get them on the table successfully they can do very well.


----------



## Calamari (Feb 13, 2009)

Daemons don't lack for anti-tank in the slightest, however, just like Orks they lack for _ranged_ AT. However they do have a counter for fast moving vehicles in the for of Fiends. Besides, every turn a tank moves fast is a turn that its not shooting me and that Ladies and Gents is the true weakness of the book. Low(ish) model count squads with crap saves.

Overall I think the book is about as good as it can be while sticking to the concept and apart from maybe some tweaks (and a re-write in the case of Beasts of Nurgle) I would leave it alone.

Oh yeah, plastic Plaguebearers and Fiends!


----------



## mynameisgrax (Sep 25, 2009)

Daemons are one of my 40k armies, and I like them, even though they are a bit random.

I have to disagree with one thing you mentioned, regarding their troops. In fantasy Daemon troops are top notch, but in 40k most of them are a bit overpriced for what they do, and they work best in small units. 5-8 bloodletters, 5-9 pink horrors, or 5-7 plague bearers is the way to go. I wouldn't use nurglings or daemonettes at all.

1. Tim/Steve seems to have it right. Daemons usually either win big or lose big. They do well at tournaments because they're more or less the opposite of what most players are prepared for. However, I've often had trouble against shooty versatile opponents like Vanilla Space Marines and Imperial Guard (especially if IG has Mystics and Officers of the Fleet).

2. They're a solid mid-tier army. They're not as competitive as Imperial Guard, Space Wolves, or Blood Angels, but nothing really is. I wouldn't worry too much about competitiveness though, as uber-competitive armies are boring to play, and your own skill will always matter much more. Pick an army that's fun.

3. I wish they'd drop the 'split the army into two waves' rule. I can deal with them all deepstriking, but having half your army in reserve, and not being definitely sure which half it will be, helps shooty opponents take you apart piecemeal. It'd also be nice if their troops were a bit cheaper, and if more non-Tzeentch units had anti-tank shooting. 

4. Daemons are a powerful and elite army, with some very powerful units, and they can do especially well if you use plenty of monstrous creatures, units with bolt, and either fiends or bloodcrushers (or both). 

Nurgle sort of gets the shaft, as only a few of his units are worth taking (Daemon Princes of Nurgle, Plague Bearers, and Great Unclean Ones). They have some trouble in team games (as deep striking gets tough), but a good daemons player can do quite well. 

Good luck!


----------



## Tim/Steve (Jan 25, 2009)

@Ordo Malleus- well there has been a little balancing... daemons no longer get the fun sustained assault rule (I think thats what its called) where whenever they play daemonhunters they get units respawning after death... 

@grax- of all my mono-armies I think that slaanesh is the nastiest. I'm now banned from playing against my mates because they just cant seem to get to grips with it... and a big part of that is daemonettes. I use a converted KoS as Skarbrand (its mono-slaanesh in look and feel...), 18 fiends, 30 daemonettes and 10 seekers... used to have a grinder or 2 but I dont think they fit anymore.
The daemonettes are great and a solid part of the army... the problem with them is that you need very high numbers of them- they are best when they can charge from distance and overwhelm the enemy with I6 rending attacks before they have the chance to retaliate... Skarbrand is perfect for this army (which is why he is honorary slaanesh... that and the fact he has fleet) as he means my daemonettes should average 90 hits against most enemies (thats a lot of rending).


----------



## TheSpore (Oct 15, 2009)

To me this has been a fun army to play and ive played almost every army in the game.

IMO i dont think it is built for new players but more for those vets that very tacticle minds. 

Yes the dice can be your friend and your enemy with this army but its no more randoom than any other army you play.

As for daemonettes honestly if you are gonna take on an army with with alot of multi wound creatures (NIDS) these chicks can bring some pain big time. Nurgle princes are CC power houses and Zteench princes can really fire off some anti tank shots. Soul Grinders only work unless you use at leat two per game. Fiends rock like crazy and the keeper is by far one of the best HQs in the book. Flamers are another great choice.

Really to use daemons (i know this contradicts something said earlier) you have to really think out what your doing and be able to adapt to the situation on the fly. also its not true that ounce you face one daemon army you have faced them all. Every time i play a game with them my opponents are always guessing on what way im goin to field them but then again im weird i spent alot of time studing and tweaking the lists with them and i was ounce in the navy as an analyst and that alonehas taught me a great deal about being unpredictable.

What they should do in new edition is yes give them a lil more range ability. make a couple units that can assault after deep striking because the only troops that can survive a volley of shots are plaguebearers and horrors. Maybe make and option where some units can actully deploy first turn without deep striking. Never understood why GW never can get over daemons just simply already being there instead haveing to be summoned.

Really though i have found thousands of odd ways to use the daemons if anyone wants to hear some thoughts just let me know in a private message i dont share tactics lightly


----------



## Luisjoey (Dec 3, 2010)

Demons are cheesy in fantasy, well as far i can remember, but in 40k is a nice army and uggly when uses the epidemius combo, a lot of critters hitting at 2+ with power weapon and lot of feel no pain... how friendly is that?


----------



## Cruor99 (Mar 11, 2009)

Luisjoey said:


> Demons are cheesy in fantasy, well as far i can remember, but in 40k is a nice army and uggly when uses the epidemius combo, a lot of critters hitting at 2+ with power weapon and lot of feel no pain... how friendly is that?


Yeeee, no. Epidemus doesn't work.

I've played with daemon for a bit, and the build that really hit the sweet spot was 4 tzeentch heralds on chariot with bolt, sorcery, legion, max fiends, 4 squads of PB's, seekers and tzeentch princes with bolt and armour (armour is optional) 

Ended up tied for second in a tournament I went to (but eventually got fourth because of a lacking system for deciding tie-breakers. )


----------



## mynameisgrax (Sep 25, 2009)

Daemonettes may seem great, but match them up against a horde opponent (Orks or Imperial Guard, usually) and you'll find that they just aren't resilient enough to be effective troops, even in large numbers. More elite opponents won't have the shooting to spare on them, but if you're facing a wall of Orks or lasguns, those daemonettes are going to be shredded to pieces.

That's why I prefer seekers of slaanesh. They have all the advantages of daemonettes, and they're faster. Plus, you can afford a unit of 5 or so without spending too many points, and if they're wiped out, it's not the end of the world.


----------



## jaws900 (May 26, 2010)

D-A-C said:


> 1. In any tournaments you've been to did you play them / have you played against them, how did they fare?
> i have seen them played several times. The one person uses a moslty hybrid army with Kugath. It often works quite well. and then there is another guy who uses the big ass Apocalpyse Nurlge daemon. But alas i have never faced them and i play for fun
> 
> 2. What is your opinion on them in terms of competitiveness vs the other armies and codices?
> ...


I hope that helps


----------



## D-A-C (Sep 21, 2010)

Well I've begun getting my 500pt army ready, and I must admit I'm definately excited about using them officially as my army (long time Chaos Marine Player). 

I've actually proxied them a few times already in small games with my nephew in order to teach him the rules and gain some experience (we proxied with some of those green plastic men and a few other bits and pieces) and so far I can appreciate how deepstriking can go wrong. 

We placed an awful lot of terrain on out tabletop ... cough ... the floor ... cough ... in order to show him the rules about cover and difficult terrain etc and two out of my 4 units in the 500pt game scattered onto flipping terrain. One of which resulted in my Daemon Prince (without wings) being placed by him in such a way that it did bugger all for 3 turns.

Overall it makes me appreciate that the size of unit Deep Strike areas has to be really taken into account, and has given me some pause for thought about auto taking x2 Soul Grinders, due to the size of the things. Even though they look amazing.

But in saying that (and even though I was playing against a novice) I still think that it has the potential to be a really really competitive army, with the added bonus that there is no real set tactics for it, so each game and first wave sent will probably always be different.

But I'd love to hear any more thoughts and opinions about the army in general and your opinions of it; especially about experiences in larger point games, as so far I've only proxied in small ones.


----------



## SilverTabby (Jul 31, 2009)

I've played a few games now with my 1000 points, and I think I might start using 'counts as' a bit more. I'm working on mono-slaanesh, based off the Fall of Ker-Ys, but it's just too fragile and restrictive. So maybe a few more beefier units, with converted figures, that fit the theme - like possessed Wraithguard as a unit with a better armour save and toughness, and possibly a shooting attack (maybe something nurgle?), and some possessed striking scorpions (using bloodletter rules, maybe?). My soulgrinders are possessed Wraithlords. 

So long as my opponent knows exactly what rules I'm using, there's no reason you can't do things like this and remain within your fluff boundaries. The names of each unit entry in the book shouldn't blind you to possibilities.


----------



## D-A-C (Sep 21, 2010)

SilverTabby said:


> I've played a few games now with my 1000 points, and I think I might start using 'counts as' a bit more. I'm working on mono-slaanesh, based off the Fall of Ker-Ys,


That is a favourite story of mine. I think it's just pure awesomeness throughout. Although, I'm not fussed on mono-God lists, but each to their own.


RANT

Yep, I decided to use this thread for a bit of a rant, basically:

*What the hell is up with all the people creating daemon lists with so much shooting anti-mech*?

Basically, I'm having a bit of a go at alot of the people who are posting Daemon army lists here at Heresy (and elsewhere) that are full of Chariots of Tzeentch / Tzeentch Daemon Princes equipped with Bolts of Tzeentch.

What the hell is their problem?

Here is a typical Daemon list I'm seeing:

*
HQ*

Only unit taken = Tzeentch Chariots w/ Bolt of Tzeentch


*ELITES*

Only unit taken = Fiends of Slaanesh


*TROOPS*

Only unit taken = Plaguebearers, with maybe a sprinkle of Pink Horrors w/ Bolt


*FAST ATTACK*

LOL

*
HEAVY SUPPORT*

Only unit taken = Daemon Princes of Tzeentch /w Bolt



Honestly, I blame .... somebody.

Daemonettes and especially Seekers of Slaanesh can take out vehicles, because so many attacks + rending vs. AV 10 rear armour = death. All you need is about 2-3 6's from 30 + attacks and you can pretty much guarantee a dead or dieing vehicle. 

Bloodletters = Strength 5 on the Charge with 30 attacks (from a unit of ten) vs. AV 10 = dead or dieing vehicle.

Not to mention Monstrous Creature +2 D6 fun.


I just don't understand these people who play Daemons and take the same 3-4 units in the entire list. Daemons are as random as it gets and yet they are playing for competitive certainty and mathhammering stats. Why bother? 

:rtfm:

Most units in this codex are perfectly viable (I'm looking at you Beasts of Nurgle) so why restrict yourself? And why do people assume that Bolt is the only way to take out all those tin cans scattered across the battlefield? Bolt isn't even that good!!!

People it seems just want the easy time of dropping their guys right beside the enemy and firing their Bolts of Tzeentch and opening all those tin cans. But there are sooo many other ways to do it, albiet with a little more thought involved and the use of cover.

*
If they fix anything with 5th edition, it has to be to get rid of the Mech fascination people have. Although I know they won't, as it makes GW a ton of money, as people go out and by all those Rhino's, Razorbacks and even Tri-Land Raiders. *

It's the same with all codices though. I mean you would think melta is the only way for SM's to take out a vehicle, jeez people vary your lists a little.


Anyway, there is a point in there somewhere, and those of you with a similar mindset will probably recognize what I'm talking about. It's basically the slippery slope nature of the current way 40k is played that makes you just go ... sigh ... or worse ... :ireful2: .


I know people will say, each to their own, and I agree up to a point, but with the (relatively) few number of people who play the hobby; the more people play games of 40k in this way, the less players there actually are to have a decent game with.


Anyway, what say all of you? 


RANT OVER!!


----------



## Forty Three (Jun 20, 2008)

D-A-C said:


> That is a favourite story of mine. I think it's just pure awesomeness throughout. Although, I'm not fussed on mono-God lists, but each to their own.
> 
> 
> RANT
> ...



The issue lies with the way the game turn is structured. Having shooting then assaulting means that destroying vehicles at range (even if that range is 6'') is infinitely better than doing it at CC. In this way, the Daemon codex and the Ork codex (a usual comparison in terms of lack of ranged anti tank) actually behave in a different manner. The fact that Daemons have to deepstrike somewhat lessens one aspect of the need of anti tank that Orks really suffer from, which is that you can't actually break any tanks before turn 3-4. The Daemon codex will be able to assault turn 2 with its first wave, and so that is mitigated. However, the fact that if you kill something with shooting you can then assault its components is HUGE. Yes, fiends will wreck anything that has a rear armour of 10. The issue though is that then they won't be able to assault the actual units, and will get shot up/assaulted the next turn.

The Daemon codex, much like for example the Tyranid codex, has anti infantry built into it, whereas anti tank, especially of the ranged variety, has to be intentionally included. You'll be hard pressed to make a daemon army that can't deal with infantry, but on the other hand it's very easy to make a deamon army that can't deal with tanks. And unfortunately, that's the most common mistake when making daemon lists.

Which leads to the 'monobuild' situation that we find ourselves in. The daemon codex, having 4 'themes' throughout, really limits the choices you have. Basically, you NEED to have a bunch of Bolts if you want to have a chance, otherwise you'll be assaulting rhinos one at a time while your army gets taken apart by shooting. With that being said, the first thing we have to look for when building a list that has a chance is the best place to get those Bolts. At first glance, it seems like there are actually quite a lot of options for it. In fact, you can include units with bolt in all FOC slots barring Fast Attack. However, looking at it deeper shows that the opportunity costs of using half of those slots for bolt are quite high for one (Troop) and extremely high for the other (elite). This means that yes, you CAN take bolt in horrors and in flamers, but there are some problems with that. Horrors are BS3, and you're wasting the entire shooting potential of the rest of the unit, while you're neglecting Plaguebearers. The Plagueys is a minor issue, since with 6 troop slots you'll still be able to take some. The flamers, on the other hand, really have troubles with Opportunity Cost. Simply, fiends are entirely too good not to take 3x of them, they are miles ahead of the rest of the elites. Not to mention the fact that you end up paying a lot of points for just one bolt in a 6 wound unit.

This leaves tzeentch heralds and tzeentch princes the most reliable, point efficient way of getting those bolts you need in your list. This reliability and efficiency are formed through several factors. I'll go into each at a time.

Herald. The herald has BS4, is extremely fast, being a jetbike, and has 5 (!) EW wounds with a great invulnerable save. He can also split fire, which makes sure he won't waste his other shots if you take them. When you look at the price of this and see that it's the same as a unit of Flamers with a bolt, the difference in efficiency is huge - and that's without taking into account the opportunity costs of losing fiends. The herald also has furious charge, which means he can do assault as a last ditch attempt. It's mobility means it can get the bolt where it matters, and you can give it breath and/or gaze to be able to use all his aptitudes.

Prince. The prince can get more expensive than the herald, but if he's kept cheap he can still be very efficient. The best thing about the prince is the BS5, which will give you a very reliable bolt which you won't find anywhere else (other than a LoC, but then you're paying the cost of almost 3 heralds for just one bolt. yeah.) The prince also brigs other things to the table though. 4 wounds, MC status (so once stuff is suppressed/destroyed, he's no slouch in combat, unlike horrors and flamers). He can also get gaze, which, together with the prince being able to shoot 2 weapons means slightly more chances of suppressing those low AV vehicles (chimera sides, etc).

The advantages of these 2 units are exacerbated by the fact that there is very low competition in those slots. Everything else in the HQ slot is either way to expensive for its purpose, or doesn't bring bolts. The heavy slot has only other princes and soul grinders. We know the problem with soulgrinders ( they would be awesome if there was a way of getting more armour saturation. As it is, a bs3 shot in the only armour you have is not gonna last long), and other princes get quickly very expensive, and they are not THAT much better than the tzeentch one at what they do (yay, one more attack for the khorne one? I'll take the bolt instead of that 1 attack, thanks).

So, now that we have established why those 2 slots are so often fixed, we can look at the rest of the list. Fiends have been written tons about, but in short, they're the best unit in the codex. They are killy enough ( no, you don't NEED everyone to have power weapons when you have 6 attacks per and rending), and, through their speed they're actually more survivable than BloodCrushers. that 3+ save doesn't matter against anything that matters (melta, rapid fire plasma, missiles), and thus are almost the same. The difference is that the fiedns will reliably hit combat on turn 2, then hit and run around staying in combat, while bloodcrushers will crawl around for 2 turns before they can hit something, annihilate it, then get shot up.

The troop slot then leads us in the same direction. Specialize. Bloodletters are excessively killy and not fast enough. Seeing as you'll be deepstriking and NEED to get in combat, the speed of units is actually a critical aspect. This is why flesh hounds are actually better than bloodletters. You don't NEED the power weapons on everything, and being able to assault 2 turns earlier will help you win games.

So, to conclude, I think your argument that 'the codex is already random, so why try to mathhammer it' is flawed. The way it works is, it's so random that you need to be able to mitigate some of it with things you can rely on. This you do by having fast units (if you notice, the 'monobuild' you posted above has minimum 7, maximum 10 cavalry units. This helps you mitigate the randomness of deep strike with the reliability of a 19-24 assault range, so if you scatter, you can still assault turn 2.), and by having lots of bolt (so you can break some rhinos even if your preferred wave stays behind. This is the only way of trying to make something close to an all comers list with daemons. Yes, if you make a list like fatecrusher, you'll beat the crap out of some armies (foot lists mainly) but you'll get slaughtered by others. If you want to be able to have a chance against everything, you NEED to mitigate the randomness.

Whew, that ended up being a little longer than I intended, but hopefully it'll clear some doubts.

43


----------



## unxpekted22 (Apr 7, 2009)

This has been a great thread, I've learned a ton about this army. Props to everyone who posted on the first two pages.


----------



## Tim/Steve (Jan 25, 2009)

@D-A-C
You can either take a cheap, tough unit with a bolt... able to hit and destroy enemy transports at range.
or
You can take combat units, which unless they are slaanesh would have trouble catching the enemy... you likely hit on a 6 and then either way you're left clumped ready to be blasted to bits. You are also risking close range fire, either as you close or after you have caught the transport.

Basically bolts are the less risky option, so most competetive armies will use them as a basis... that doesn't mean all do (and I much prefer to not use them).


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

Got to agree with tim here your rant was kinda irrational. 

To point out why I will direct your attention to the applying the same logic to another army. 

What the hell is with all the laz cannons/melta in SM armies. I mean their is a lot of good choices in the codex for busting tanks that don't require long ranged fire, Like 5 terminators on the charge = dead or dying vehicle, or a 10 man assault squad would also mess up transports, and hell a chapter master will a thunder hammer would really scare most vehicles.

So even though the context is different you can see why such a rant borders on the idiotic. For one most vehicles move a hell lot faster then infantry, and fast vehicles can escape while shooting you hence making trying to take them out with CC a idiots game. So yah I fail to see why a thinking individual wouldn't spam the only decent ranged anti tank weapon the codex has (Flamer can stun lock, but even they have better targets to prioritize. 

Seriously even tyranids don't often really on CC to damage tanks, and most of the ranged weapons are sub par compared to bolt.

I mean sweet damn it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the problem in depend on range 0 weapons to try and take out targets that can move 6-12 inches and fire their weapon at you.


----------

