Why do people hate us?

[Vassakov]

Daemons are an interesting army. I started one to take to the UK Schools League, it's now closing on 2K pts. So far, its been beaten once, and that was by a friends Orks list, at 500pts had 65 bodies on the table. I designed that list.

 

At the schools League, I faced 3 opponents. Only one had ever seen Daemons before, the other two had no real idea what I was doing. All three got tabled. (For interests sake, list was 1 Naked Tzeentch Herald, 10 Letters, 8 Horrors w/Bolt and 3 Crushers w/ Fury) The DS's, Inv saves and close combat mayhem took all three off guard, and the sheer power of the Crushers was almost unchallengeable at that points level, especially with the restrictive ruleset.

 

Now, this might seem like its a good argument in favour of gentlemenloser, but I suspect that part of the Daemons sheer nastiness is that they screw the metagame massively.

 

Inv Saves instead of Armour Saves - Oh look, all that Melta/Plas/Las spam is suddenly useless. Or at least, heavily neutered. Admittedly, against horde lists it suffers as well, but with our units Inv Saves a Lascannon is no better against a Daemon than a Heavy Bolter (and in many cases, worse.)

 

DS - Well, lets be fair. This is not really very broken at all. And Frankly, with the Drop Pod Lists, Deathwing Lists and the new Ride Of the Valkyries with Outflanking, Speeding AV 12 Flamers full of Veterans and the Straken Command Squad, the Daemonic unpredictability means it falls well short of the lethality of these kinds of lists.

 

Psychic Powers v Shooting Powers - Frankly, if most of our shooting was worth a damn you could complain.

 

Warpfire, whilst looking nice on paper is not really very good, as BS3 makes it miss, and AP4 means that the best targets are the horde targets, where you tend to not make to great a dent.

 

Gaze is nastier, especially as it is mounted exclusively on BS4/5 models, but even so you can at best get 7 in a list, which is only 21 Shots. Which amounts to a total of 10 dead Marines, or a single tactical squad. Hardly as powerful as the massed Las/Plas fire that can still be delivered, or 20 DP Sternguard with Kantor.

 

Death Strike - Yep, enough about that. Pointless power.

 

Bolt - Our one ranged AT shot, basically a non-Melta Multi Melta. Again, the 9x SM Attack Bikes or the 12 Piranhas make this look laughable.

 

Pavane - A shooting Power. Mini Lash, whilst can be annoying is nowhere near the power level of its bigger brother - of course, this being unblockable somewhat mitigates this.

 

Which brings us to Winds... yes, it is very nasty, especially when mounted on an MC, as it's a lot less fragile than on the Flamers. But it's not game winning - it can mitigate a threat very fast, but most armies have the ability to do this.

 

Basically, Daemon have their tricks. But a competent player can make up for this, and can adapt on the fly. The unpredicibilty of the list means that games can change rapidly and you need to be able to compensate for this.

[incinerator950]

I can't stand the new look of the plastic models

 

They're atrocious and they completely :cussed up the Demonette models for 12 years to play the game.

[Firedrake28]

The Bloodletters are fine, though I agree that the Daemonettes look freaking awful.

[Lord_Caerolion]

I can't stand the new look of the plastic models

 

They're atrocious and they completely :cussed up the Demonette models for 12 years to play the game.

 

Remembering though that the previous edition of Daemonette models were an aberration from what they're supposed to be. Daemonettes have always been described as ugly, disgusting androgynous beings with crab claws and a single breast, since the Realms of Chaos. They've never been described as feminine and with 6 breasts, no matter how appealing the models may have been. Daemonettes depend on their musk/aura to captivate people, that's what they do. They don't win beauty contests. And no, I don't care what anyone says, tentacles and no noses don't make the previous daemonettes look disturbing. Cool as they may have looked, they just weren't Daemonettes. You can't argue that.

 

It's the same with the Bloodletters. Since Realms of Chaos, they've been spindly serpentine creatures wielding swords. Previous edition of daemons comes along, suddenly they're hulking masses of muscle with cloven hooves, and massive axes... Cool as that may look, it isn't a Bloodletter.

 

Plaguebearers are the only lesser daemons that didn't get massively changed in the previous edition. Now they're going back to the Realms of Chaos in look and feel, and I prefer that. Slaanesh shouldn't be "lol teh boobiez!" Slaanesh should be disturbing, repugnant, and grotesque.

Basically, Daemonettes are a manifestation of Lust. It makes you crazy for something, you can't live without it, you absolutely must have it, but at it's heart, Lust is a terrible, disgusting thing. That is what Daemonettes are. Not some naked beauty queen with tentacles for hair and a crab arm.

[Wolf Lord Fenrir]

People hate us because we are too full of WIN.

[Sersi]

Bah! The daemonettes are far better now as they actually look menacing, and have claws that actually look like claws. Seriously they're fine, slap a good pair of epoxy putty breasts on them and they look great. I have 40 of the Diaz-nettes, and 80 of the plastic ones; and honestly I like the new one more. Ofcourse mine are all reposed and have weapon swaps and such. Oh, and they're cheap!

 

If you want to talk ugly minis look no further than the current plague bearers the Blight models from Hasselfree are far superior.

[Grey Mage]

People in my area hate them because they have a hard time winning with them... but I think its because they arent willing to play the strengths of the list itself- instead they play the strengths they would have in a chaos list.

[Twin .44]

People hate us because we are too full of WIN.

 

so full of win eh? The Daemon army really needs to be run correctly or else it's full of loss. My one sternguard unit Killed a bloodthirster, a squad of daemonettes, and a squad of nurglings, while the bloodletters were tied up in combat with a dreadnought. needless to say that bloodletter squad was the only thing left on the table by the time I was done with that game.

 

but maybe people hate daemon armies because they think they are powergamers bringing in three soulgrinders, two bloodthirsters and a whole wad of bloodletters or something along those lines. I say bring it, I've yet to have an issue with daemons.

[Inquisitor Kravin]

Here's why I hate Daemons (the army, not the players). I've only played them twice, each time at 1500 points.

 

Game 1 - Over twenty Bloodcrushers in 1500pts. The desired half of the army showed up and pretty much everything landed on target and it was wipeout by turn 3 since my balanced army (some shooty, some close combat, some transport etc.) simply couldn't compete. The opponent decided where to deepstrike - right next to me - and then just went, Assault!, I win. No maneuver, no ebb and flow, no tactics, just - SPLAT!

 

Game 2 - Fateweaver - entire army had re-rollable invulnerable saves - a whole round of shooting with 3 hammerheads with railguns and a bunch of rapid firing fire warriors killed absolutely :P all! I did one wound on Fateweaver. Luckily I'd heard about his special rule of Ld test if wounded and reminded my opponent of this rule he'd forgotten. He rolled 10 and assured me that this was a pass. It seems unsportsmanlike to check someone else's codex so I accepted and only found out later that he was Ld9 and should have left the battle on turn 1.

 

Therefore my experience is that Daemons are an army that is for the tactically inept powergamer. However, before you all lynch me - my answer to any gripe from any player about any army is that you should play as them before you whinge about them. I'm actually in this forum because I'm tempted to add daemons to my list of armies to collect (after I've finished my apocalypse size Death Guard and Imperial Guard armies - so in about five years time probably!).

[OwlandMoonGuy]

And you say that you don’t have issues with daemon players after these games? I sure would. Those daemon players anyway.

 

Game 1: Your opponent deep struck close to you, luckily didn’t scatter into your units and then assaulted you in the same turn? Odd that since daemons can’t assault the turn they arrive from deep strike. You should have and one turn to have at them. (Not that 20+ crushers wouldn’t be a handful come turn 2.)

 

Game2: The entire army was able to deep strike in such a way as to have a member of every unit within 6” of Fateweaver? That’s the only way they all could have benefitted from his Oracle of Eternity rule. You already caught the leadership cheat as well.

 

Not seeing the fault of the army here. Nor even an issue with power gamers per se. If your opponents are petty enough to cheat at a game with little plastic army men then they have bigger personal issues than, “power gamesmanship” IMHO.

 

-OMG

[Grey Mage]

Here's why I hate Daemons (the army, not the players). I've only played them twice, each time at 1500 points.

 

Game 1 - Over twenty Bloodcrushers in 1500pts. The desired half of the army showed up and pretty much everything landed on target and it was wipeout by turn 3 since my balanced army (some shooty, some close combat, some transport etc.) simply couldn't compete. The opponent decided where to deepstrike - right next to me - and then just went, Assault!, I win. No maneuver, no ebb and flow, no tactics, just - SPLAT!

 

Game 2 - Fateweaver - entire army had re-rollable invulnerable saves - a whole round of shooting with 3 hammerheads with railguns and a bunch of rapid firing fire warriors killed absolutely ^_^ all! I did one wound on Fateweaver. Luckily I'd heard about his special rule of Ld test if wounded and reminded my opponent of this rule he'd forgotten. He rolled 10 and assured me that this was a pass. It seems unsportsmanlike to check someone else's codex so I accepted and only found out later that he was Ld9 and should have left the battle on turn 1.

 

Therefore my experience is that Daemons are an army that is for the tactically inept powergamer. However, before you all lynch me - my answer to any gripe from any player about any army is that you should play as them before you whinge about them. I'm actually in this forum because I'm tempted to add daemons to my list of armies to collect (after I've finished my apocalypse size Death Guard and Imperial Guard armies - so in about five years time probably!).

1) Daemons cant assault out of deep strike...

2) If you meant that they DS, then waited a turn and assaulted.... how did you approach it? That unit should only be able to get 1 or 2 units in combat with it each... so mass fire, down one of the units and then prepare to wipe out the other one when it comes out of assault- or charge in with a couple of dreadnaughts to give them a taste of death.

2) Hammerheads arent designed to fight daemons, and arent very point efficient against monstrous creatures in general.

2) Your second loss was because of a misunderstanding or a cheat- that doesnt reflect badly on the army but instead poorly on the player.

[Inquisitor Kravin]

Okay. Thanks for the feedback, some good points. I was rather wilting in the heat yesterday (anyone in the UK right now will know that by our standards it's currently hot enough to make a Tallarn faint). On reading back my post and your comments I'm going to clarify my view and some details of the events.

 

Some people seem to dislike all daemon players (a bit like the common Ultramarines hate). I'm not automatically going to think that you're a cheese spawning powergamer because you're a daemons player. I don't even have an issue with those daemon players - I'd take them on again now that I've bought and read the codex - forewarned is fore-armed. I think that the biggest loser in any cheat situation is the cheater as they have to play with cheating every game, not once in a while like the rest of us.

 

The problem with the army in my view is that they've come up with some really interesting ideas and then just sort of dumped them in a big heap so you can have, for example, an army built around a Bloodthirster special character giving bonuses to Slaanesh units - ?! I realise it was a difficult balance and making armies purely mono-god might have been too limiting but couldn't they have done something along the lines of the old WFB Chaos army book that contained three separate lists for Warriors, Beasts and Daemons but allowed you to mix them using retinues which are like mini armies. E.g. each Herald or Greater Daemon allows you to take one Elite, three Troops, one FA and one HS choice of their god. That way you can mix gods but you don't end up with armies that consist of say, a Bloodthirster leading a bunch of Flamers of Tzeentch, Plaguebearers and Seekers of Slaanesh - what's the story there? A warp tornado swept across the realm of chaos and vomited up a bunch of random daemons who instead of falling on each other in an orgy of slaughter due to their eternal hatred of one another instead decided that it'd be cool to hang out together? In the realm of chaos anything could happen but that just smacks of game effectiveness first, think of an excuse afterwards. There's nothing in the rules against this but it's not my personal taste for approaching armies.

 

Another thing I have an objection to is the two Heralds for one HQ slot, apparently justified by the fact that the Heralds are junior to Greater Daemons. Well, in a Tau army each Shas'O commands a number of Shas'El but they still use one HQ slot each to take just one example that could be applied across almost any other army. I don't accept an argument on the basis of their stats either - a Herald is easily at least as powerful as a Shas'El or Senior Officer and depending on their equipment probably an Autarch or Big Mek.

 

I also think that two greater daemons feels wrong. Nids are limited to one winged hive tyrant, why no similar restriction on Daemons? Is a greater daemon and two heralds not enough?

 

That's my general views.

 

Now onto the specific games I mentioned:

Game 1: Opponent Deep Struck and then ran. The spread of his units meant that many of my things couldn't move out of range of a turn 2 charge. Anything of mine that could re-deploy did. The rest poured maximum firepower into the enemy but with negligible effect. Turn 2 - pretty much everything arrives from reserve, more of the same, turn 3 the two winged daemon princes with wings catch and kill the stragglers. Splat. I like to feel that I've lost a game because I deserved to - I moved this unit to the wrong place, I directed this fire on the wrong enemy - that way I can learn and improve. In this game I came away thinking that even with the benefit of hindsight I couldn't see anything that would have done more than prolong the inevitable by perhaps one turn.

 

Game 2: Entire army arrived so that every unit had at least one model within 6" of Fateweaver allowing them the re-roll. Tzeentch daemons delivered a pretty nasty shooting phase. Again I redeployed where possible to avoid close combat and then poured fire into them. Thanks to Fateweaver I did absolutely nothing. Turn 2 - pretty much everything else arrived by Deep Strike cutting off my few remaining avenues of retreat and then the abundance of wings and fleet meant that most things got slaughtered in close combat - you don't need to be khorne when fighting against Tau and I've found that large numbers of Rending attacks on rear armour is about as horrific as you'd expect.

 

2) Hammerheads arent designed to fight daemons, and arent very point efficient against monstrous creatures in general.

 

Agreed but Tau HS isn't great in that regard - Sky Ray is less use than a Hammerhead and Broadsides and Sniper Teams would just get overrun in no time against daemons because they have far too little mobility. If I was playing a game specifically against Daemons then I'd keep the Hammerheads with Multi-trackers but give them Flechette Launchers and swap the rail guns for ion cannons giving me a total of 9 S7 AP3 shots and the ability to move 12" and fire. However, this was in a three round tournament at a venue 30 miles from home against a largely unknown player group. I needed an allcomers list and given the predominance of Guard and Orks the Hammerhead was a no-brainer with its superb points efficiency against Mech and Horde lists. I'm pleased to say that over the 3 games the 495 points worth of Hammerheads killed or drove off the table about 1280points worth of stuff despite never getting to fight orks or guard even though about half of the armies there were Ork or Guard so they still justified their place in my eyes.

 

I can see that on paper the daemons have weaknesses - although invulnerable most saves are only 5+ making them vulnerable to massed small arms fire, they are generally on a par with marines for army size due to points costs, the unreliability of their arrival, risks of deep strike and scatter - I just haven't seen them happen in game. I've seen an army that allows you to plonk obscenely good close combat units where you want and then just roll buckets of dice for the win.

[Captain Malachi]

Sounds like you've just been very unfortunate with your opponents scatter and reserve rolls. And I mean very unfortunate. Adds are that 2/3 of the army will scatter each game, and then you'll get a unit or two a turn after that. Unless he has weigted dice, if you played him again and he dropped in the same way he'd probably lose about half his army to mishaps.

 

On the point of heralds and greater daemons, it's pretty simple really. We get two heralds as we don't have squad leaders, meaning all of our units are even more specialised than eldar, the heralds give us a chance to let our units do something else. Of course this is what the designers intended, but most people just use chariot heralds anyway so it doesn't matter, but I still don't see how four of them are overpowered, they aren't that good. You said that we should only get one greater daemon because 'nids only get one winged hive tyrant. Erm....what? They also get another non-winged hive tyrant and can take three more MCs than we can in total. Just saying.

[greatcrusade08]

i have a feeling that it would be mainly MEQ players that hated daemons, since they are pretty suited to kill MEQ with power weapons on letters and a couple of MC's, face off against 100 guardsmen and those 5+ saves are gunna be tested ALOT!.

 

When i played a khorne force with my scout army (i played 2 games), the guy was inexperienced but still, first game i won with NO casulties, second game i won losing my captain and scout bikers only.

Still i liked the theme behind khorne daemons so much that im now sworn to collect my own army ;)

Not a bad day for the forces of chaos in the end then, didnt beat me conventionally but turned me to the dark side none the less :D

 

GC08

[Inquisitor Kravin]

Interesting point Captain Malachi. Because daemon squads have individuals with upgrades (I shan't forget the Blue Horror conga line where one end was within 1/2inch of Fateweaver and the guy on the other end was about 1 inch inside range to use Doombolt to obliterate my Hammerhead) I kind of think of the squads as having upgrade characters. With the demise of armouries most armies now only have two models with access to wargear beyond the mundane weapon option stuff. Since Daemons get Daemon Princes in Heavy Support that have access to a lot of customisable options I think that they are better off than most armies in that respect.

 

My concern with Greater Daemons is that we see a return to Herohammer of old where everything depends on a couple of models. I think that the Hive Tyrants being limited to one with wings is good for game balance. I'd entirely support the same restriction on Daemon Princes in Chaos Marines and other similar limitations to keep the little guys mattering. Whilst you can't directly compare different armies I unintentionally introduced the comparison of Nids and Daemons so I will say that I would fight Nidzilla in preference to Daemons any day. To me 1 flying and 7 foot slogging monstrous creatures are nothing compared to 5 deep-striking flying monstrous creatures. With the nids I can wear them down with shooting, out maneuvre and try to use sacrificial squads to split them up so that my close combat specialists can gang up on and kill them one at a time whilst my opponent tries to get them in position despite their low speed and make sure that they remain mutually supportive. That's an interesting game. I enjoy fighting a friend's army that includes not just Fexes and Tyrants but Forgeworld nasties whose names escape me. The unbalancing bit of daemons seems to be the combination of raw power and deepstrike.

 

Maybe the issue is that Daemons are so different to the way other armies work that it's difficult to counter them with an all comers list. My friend ran into the same Fateweaver list as me and suffered phase-out with his Necrons for the first time ever! I'd be interested to play a campaign against Daemons in which there was theme and my forces could be built with the anticipation of facing Daemons. That said even armies in their element struggle - my friend's space wolf army got massacred last time I saw them play. Admittedly losing a Wolf Lord in Terminator armour and his Wolfguard assault termie bodyguards in close combat to a squad of seven plaguebearers was a little unfortunate (the wolves even had the advantage of charging, unfortunately no amount of thunder hammers and lighting claws or terminator armour will help you when about 90% of your dice rolls come up 1 or 2!).

 

Maybe that's it. Maybe the reason people dislike daemons is that the players seem to be blessed by Tzeentch. I've never seen such jammy players as daemon players: 8 5+ saves, there we are, no casualties; 3 "Hits" and 2 scatters of 3" on Deep Strike; Fleet - 6" - oh look they're 1/2" inside assault range! :D If you're not having probability defying rolls then someone is stealing your luck - join Tzeentch today. ;)

 

Daemons have piqued my interest now so I'm certainly going to be hanging round this sub-forum more.

[Black Talon]

People seem to hate my daemons because I have refined them to a very Hammer and anvil type strategy.

 

First wave sees nurgle units, ussually a couple of Plaguebearer units, a DP and a Herald drop in at the heaviest defended point or the point with the biggest guns. A few Tzeentch units drop to zones where their firepower allows them to cripple units which will screw up my next arrivals.

 

Most people in my area have assault armies so slam into a wall of rotting Nurgle awesomeness. T5 and FnP really screw up stuff like Khorne Berserkers.

 

Thats the Anvil. Khorne is the Hammer, nuff said there :D

 

But back on topic, I field (for gamesmanship(and the fact people wouldn't play me if i had 2)) a Bloodthirster, a Tzeentch Herald and a Nurgle Herald. 1 of my DP's is winged and goes tank hunting, the other is nurgle and acts as the central anchor for my anvil.

 

So i try to maintain a fluffy reason for all my units being in the army. Except slaanesh, I hate slaanesh's philosiphy of war, not evil enough to be chaos.

[the jeske]

demon dex because of its mechanics is a very 50/50 list . if you build a list the way it should be and gets the wave he wants , a lot of lists cant do much [the tier 2 and lower ones]. a lot of western people dont like playing tier 1 armies [you guys call them cheezy and broken] + a lot of armies who were good got a lot weaker [nids , eldar , tau] , a lot of good list have very bad match ups against demons [sm vulkan builds or pedro lists , sob or GK ] . only orks and IG generate enough attacks/shots to down the first wave fast enough . considering that its natural that people dont like demons . demons also dont have a counter match up [a generic one , not a tailored list] that is widelly played , it wins and loses more or less one the first wave roll .

personally I dont like them , because they have the stupid happy chaos familly fluff and they are too random. I like to win or lose games because of my skills as a gamer and not because I roll good on what units come in which wave.

[Son of Corax]

I think the reason that people hate deamons is the same reason that people hate orks. They go against the status quo so drastically that many players simply can't cope. After fighting almost all MEQ armies, something that operates even slightly differently is a shock. Plasma means almost nothing and the bolter suddenly reigns supreme. Many players, however, either refuse to or fail to acknowledge this and fight the army the same way the would fight marines and the result is almost always loss. There is a deamon player at my local store who consistently tables marine armies, and yet when i pull out my marines and only my marines (no devs, tanks, etc.) he can't deal with the mass of troops and i stand a much better chance. When i adopt new tactics to meet a new threat, i can win. So many people, though, are stuck in their ways. Deamons are not unbeatable, far from it. But they require a different approach than killing ultramarines. Same with ork, eldar, chaos, or any other "broken" army.

[Gentlemanloser]

Yeah, our standard Marine player did that. Dropped just about everythign for as many Marine bodies as he could field (and sniper scouts for MC killing).

 

He Combat Squadded, to give the Daemons less to wipe out in one go at CC.

 

Worked for a game.

 

Then the Daemon player got wise, and made a few changes himself.

 

Marines got Flamered to death, and eaten by 'Crushers, 'Letters and the Taker. Deamon Princes of Nurgle flew around munching everything they came across.

 

The Dameon army is too strong versus MEQ armies. Too much of its attacks ignore Armour Saves, which nulifies one of the largest bonuses of playing a MEQ army.

[Grey Mage]

So since it kills MEQs good its unbalanced? Thats the same crap that makes people call Eldar cheesey.

 

Sorry, but when your paying 16pts for a bloodletter, and 3/4 of the squad dies before you hit a tactical squad even then it only makes sense that the remaining 5 should be able to wipe a squad that was half their size and half their points to begin with.

[Gentlemanloser]

So since it kills MEQs good its unbalanced?

 

MEQ forum, and I play MEQ lists. Wouldn't be able to comment on how the Daemon army performs versus GEQ armies.

 

'Letters are possibly the best Troop option in the game. They, coupled with the other nasty units in the army make it near impossible to face with a MEQ list.

 

Unless of course the Dameon Player lucks out and gets the wrong half, with bad DS scatter. Or you tailor your list specifically. Like taking Mystics or the broken Sanctuary.

[OwlandMoonGuy]

It’s easy to see that the meta-game in 40K has expanded greatly over the last few codices. So instead of certain armies being considered cheesy, pretty well all armies will ultimately become cheesy in their own way. Personally I expect this to continue. Then we can just complain about GW not updating our favorite army fast enough for our liking (cuz you just always have to complain about something).

 

Call it codex creep if you like but personally I like the new challenge of creating lists that can really take on, “all comers” no matter what army I’m playing.

 

-OMG

[minigun762]

It’s easy to see that the meta-game in 40K has expanded greatly over the last few codices. So instead of certain armies being considered cheesy, pretty well all armies will ultimately become cheesy in their own way. Personally I expect this to continue. Then we can just complain about GW not updating our favorite army fast enough for our liking (cuz you just always have to complain about something).

 

Call it codex creep if you like but personally I like the new challenge of creating lists that can really take on, “all comers” no matter what army I’m playing.

 

-OMG

 

I'm going to have to agree with OMG. Every new codex and army that comes out gets the usually crap about it being broken, overpowered and generally cheesy.

I remember people saying that about CSMs when they first looked at Thousand Sons and a standard issue Vindicator.

The game changes, and it forces you to adapt. Horde armies are on the rise, so you see people leaving the Plasma at home (which was king last edition) and taking the humble Flamer.

 

Daemons play differently then most armies, but once you understand their advantages and disadvantages, you can start working to beat them. Knowledge is the key here. This is always true but especially so with Daemon who play by their own rules.

 

A prime example is the inability to assault after deepstrike. You ask most anyone and they will say that deepstriking an assault unit(like TH/SS Terminators) is horrible, because people will just walk away from them. The same kind of logic holds true with Bloodletters. Mobile firepower combined with Rhino walls and Dreadnoughts is the perfect counter to Bloodletters. Or barring that, you use anti-Ork tactics and assault them first.

Hell the LRC and LRR are invincible bunkers made to slaughter this kind of infantry.

[greatcrusade08]

Alot of guys gripe about how hard the Khorne units can be, on this front id have to agree with grey mage, they are so easily killed by shooting and are so expensive they need power weapons to counter this fact.

Personally i beleive the strongest daemons are slaanesh (especially fiends), with really high initiative, huge amounts of attacks with rending, and the combined high movement and pavane they are crazy tough to beat.

 

GC08

[Gentlemanloser]

they are so easily killed by shooting and are so expensive they need power weapons to counter this fact.

 

'Letters are around the same cost of a Marine, have a worse save and no shooting attack, but absolutly own CC.

 

'Crushers cost the same as a Terminator, have a slightly worse armour save, but have two wounds and a better tougnhess. No shooting, but again own CC.

 

Not really so expensive at all. And 'Crushers are easily durable enough to wheter more shooting than thier TDA counterparts.