HQ choices

[coolyo294]

What is the best HQ choice for a new chaos SPESS MAHREENS army? Because all I have is the battleforce and no HQ.

[Shas'o R'Vre]

Daemon Prince [ /topic]

[the jeske]

2x DP.

[Legatus]

Fluffiest --> Lord or Sorcerer

 

Strongest --> Daemon Prince

[Hellios]

Fluffiest --> Lord or Sorcerer

 

Strongest --> Daemon Prince

 

I'm not sure that a Lord is more fluffy than a daemon prince... only more common... (well in the fluff... maybe not on the table top...)

 

I would suggest a DP with wings.. because A it is pretty easy to use... run towards enemy and nom them... and B they are awesome and it will stand out from your other marines...

[goldenwonder]

I always used to avoid Daemon Princes because they were simply so common and use Lords and Sorcerers.

 

However, the combination of the new Daemon Prince Model and the need for a unit to babysit the character has led me to relent. Under the current Codex, Daemon Princes are the most viable in terms of balancing points with effectiveness in-game.

 

I still use lords and Sorcerers for fluff reasons but there is no denying that Daemon Princes are the best HQ choice. Typically, people tend to use them in pairs for maximum effect. Personally, I only use one, representing the elevation of my Chaos Lord in light of his service to the Dark Gods (in my armies case - Slaanesh - though never with Lash).

 

Don't fall into the trap of only using Lash Princes though - they can be countered by many forces through anti-psyker or transports. I find keeping the Prince cheap works well - I only buy the wings upgrade and use him to either draw fire or support other assault units. Being relatively cheap means I can take more units and it isn't a huge blow when he is inevitably gunned down.

 

My two Penneth worth.

Goldenwonder

[Brother Nihm]

Until such a time as Daemon Weapons (all of them) are worth taking, Lords do not lose Fearless when joining Terminators, and do not have to pay for Terminator Armour, when Chaos Lords come with a 4+ invuln. save as standard and ARE statswise superior to loyalist equivalents (Commanders) in melee, and can be given Eternal Warrior - then this:

 

2x DP.

[--eFTy-->]

Don't forget to add Warptime to your flying prince for added om-nom-nom-ness.

[Argon]

2 Daemon Princes, like everyone else has said.

 

If you wish to stay away from them, then a Lord with a Daemon Weapon or Mark of Khorne and twin Lightning Claws are pretty good choices. Just don't do Khorne's daemon weapon, as the consensus seems to be that it sort of isn't worth taking.

[Ultraboy]

So what marks would you guys recommend for Daemon Princes (If any) ?

[Tchort]

Fluffiest --> Lord or Sorcerer

 

Strongest --> Daemon Prince

 

I'm not sure that a Lord is more fluffy than a daemon prince... only more common... (well in the fluff... maybe not on the table top...)

 

Fluffiest is just a buzzword for weakest.

 

So what marks would you guys recommend for Daemon Princes (If any) ?

 

 

Nurgle for that T6. Access to Warptime. Use vehicles to get 4+ cover.

[Khestra the Unbeheld]

So what marks would you guys recommend for Daemon Princes (If any) ?

 

I'm a big fan of the Slaanesh Prince, especially if I end up going up against annoying things like Eldar, Imperial Assassins, and Space Marine HQs that are usually I5 or above; Nurgle tends to fail me when the T5(6) doesn't come into effect due to whatever is hacking on me being power weapon-y, fist-y, or hammer-y, but making Guardsmen roll 6s to Wound are some pretty tasty tears. Tzeentch is expensive but tends to be my #2 choice just because I like 4++ better than 5++. Khorne is nice and simple if you plan on using your Prince as a roving slaughtermachine.

[Chengar Qordath]

So what marks would you guys recommend for Daemon Princes (If any) ?

Out of all the Marks, I would lean towards Khorne being the weakest; losing access to psychic powers is a big hit, and a single extra attack is not enough to make up for it.

 

Each of the other marks is nice. Nurgle and Tzeentch boost up your durability, either by making most weapons wound you on a 6+ or by boosting up your invulnerable save. Tzeentch also makes you a better psyker if you're willing to buy two powers, which can be nasty at times. Slaanesh's Initiative boost is a touch more situational, but there are times when higher initiative can be a real lifesaver.

[Legatus]

2 Daemon Princes, like everyone else has said.

You'll excuse me while I try not to vomit in my own mouth. :) And this is the crowd that bemoans the lack of fluff in the 4th Edition Codex? Really, I wonder whether the people who complain about the lack of fluffy rules (such as the limitation to a single Lord or Dameon Prince) in the current Codex are the same who are recommending the use of two Daemon Princes. If I ever saw an Eldar player deploy a second Avatar on the table I would seriously reconsider playing him again in the future. And using two Daemon Princes is not much better.

 

 

I'm not sure that a Lord is more fluffy than a daemon prince... only more common...

If 9/10 warbands are led by a Lord, and 1/10 warbands is led by a Daemon Prince, then a Lord is the more fluffy commander. "Rare" = less fluffy. Personally, I started Chaos in 2nd Edition, so I am still somewhat used to the notion that Daemon Princes are super rare. In 2nd Edition they were not available as generic HQs, but only in the form of four distinct Special characters, one for each God. And those special characters were not even available for Chaos Space Marine forces at all, but specifically for the alternative "daemonworld" army list that was also included in the back of the 2nd Edition Codex Chaos. The concept that Chaos Space Marines are led by a Daemon Prince (and a generic one at that) had been introduced in the 3rd Edition Codex Chaos Space Marines.

[Shas'o R'Vre]

You'll excuse me while I try not to vomit in my own mouth. :) And this is the crowd that bemoans the lack of fluff in the 4th Edition Codex? Really, I wonder whether the people who complain about the lack of fluffy rules (such as the limitation to a single Lord or Dameon Prince) in the current Codex are the same who are recommending the use of two Daemon Princes. If I ever saw an Eldar player deploy a second Avatar on the table I would seriously reconsider playing him again in the future. And using two Daemon Princes is not much better.

But in a Codex where your Sorcerors and Lords are worse than Space Marine Captains, but cost more, then 2x DP is the only way you CAN go.

[the jeske]

You'll excuse me while I try not to vomit in my own mouth. dry.gif And this is the crowd that bemoans the lack of fluff in the 4th Edition Codex?

yes dude. because IF I have the option to play a bland army and bland army that doesnt work I pick the first one. a Sorc sucks hard as an HQ doesnt nothing better then a DP , not even that. even if a sorc was weaker [with ID , number of attacks , identical psychic powers] but had a chaos version of hood , one could think about it. But that does not happen. same with the lord , if he was needed to open stuff[like for example DP serve one good be it a big or small one , so if you want a BL list you have to take a lord or if a marked lord was needed to get cult units as troops] people maybe would have used them . But he doesnt . a chaos lord does melee and melee only ... sad part is he isnt good at it [and I dont mean good as he was in in 4th ed. I mean good as other codex hth HQs].

 

The concept that Chaos Space Marines are led by a Daemon Prince (and a generic one at that) had been introduced in the 3rd Edition Codex Chaos Space Marines.

[looks at the str 9 chaos lord with demon weapon 3 lvls of psyker all 4 marks , displacer , prise of khorn , termi armor , combat drugs ...] yeah demon prince class units were totally the child of the JJ 3ed dex.

 

If I ever saw an Eldar player deploy a second Avatar on the table I would seriously reconsider playing him again in the future. And using two Daemon Princes is not much better.

but there was a time when avatar + farseer[aka eldrad 99% of time] was a viable combo. If I could play a DP+ something and it would be viable I would. Only no matter how one looks at it and what build one tries [and there realy arent many] the 2xDP combination is best .

 

 

If 9/10 warbands are led by a Lord, and 1/10 warbands is led by a Daemon Prince, then a Lord is the more fluffy commander.

9/10 warbands are probably one good too , what doesnt stop people from playing BL lists most of the time. If its legal in a dex it is fluffy [now one can not like the fluff that is something different] . Its a simple thing a lord sucks . But people who dont know how to play or who dont want to optimize lists , had this idea a long time ago that they will just call it fluffy and that was suppose to be somehow better then the stuff that works .

[Legatus]

If its legal in a dex it is fluffy

That is just ridiculous. Having two Chapter Masters is fluffy? Or two Avatars? Or using Grey Knights and Inquisitors in a Dark Angels army? Or a Slaanesh Daemon Prince leading an army of Khorne Berserkers and Plague Marines? There is fluff and there are army lists, and the two are not allways perfectly matched. Only because an army list permits a certain combination does not mean it will be fluffy. That's why people ask whether something is fluffy. Otherwise they would just be asking whether it was "legal". It may be legal, but at the same time completely unfluffy. Like all of the instances I listed above.

[Piousservant]

2 Daemon Princes, like everyone else has said.

You'll excuse me while I try not to vomit in my own mouth. :ermm: And this is the crowd that bemoans the lack of fluff in the 4th Edition Codex? Really, I wonder whether the people who complain about the lack of fluffy rules (such as the limitation to a single Lord or Dameon Prince) in the current Codex are the same who are recommending the use of two Daemon Princes. If I ever saw an Eldar player deploy a second Avatar on the table I would seriously reconsider playing him again in the future. And using two Daemon Princes is not much better.

 

100% agree. I know GW has moved away from 0-1 limits but if anything should be, Daemon Princes are it.

 

Personally I take the 2 x DP lists as an indication of how unfluffy the current codex is.

[Hellios]

I'm not sure that a Lord is more fluffy than a daemon prince... only more common...

If 9/10 warbands are led by a Lord, and 1/10 warbands is led by a Daemon Prince, then a Lord is the more fluffy commander. "Rare" = less fluffy.

 

That isn't true just because a chaos player takes some oblits or raptors (both of which are pretty rare) they don't suddenly become unfluffy... it is when some one takes 9 oblits and 60 raptors and 2 DPs when they might become unfluffy although if you are actually making a list to represent a raptor or oblit cult then I guess it isn't unfluffy... Taking World Eaters in an EC army is unfluffy... taking an excessive amount of a rare unit in an army for no reason is unfluffy... but taking something that is rare is not unfluffy...

 

FYI I have an Eldar army which is full of guardians (not that rated in the current dex)... because I play Ulthwé... and my 1kson army hasn't got a DP leading it... so it isn't like I feel I need to defend myself when it comes to fluff as my army is fluffy... yay for APOC games when I can run 4 avatars!

[the jeske]

Having two Chapter Masters is fluffy?

yes.because its legal.

Or two Avatars?

no. because its not legal.

 

Or using Grey Knights and Inquisitors in a Dark Angels army?

yes . because its legal. IF csm are a happy family now . then DA can be a happy family with the Inq . Doesnt matter if I like it or not. If it wouldnt be fluffy it wouldnt be in the dex.

 

Or a Slaanesh Daemon Prince leading an army of Khorne Berserkers and Plague Marines?

That is totally fluffy Black legion.

 

That's why people ask whether something is fluffy.

no they ask , because in some places in the world where fluff heads have theupper hand over gamers , they dont play people who play lame ass armies they desing for their opponents.

Otherwise they would just be asking whether it was "legal".

I think you missed the topic about "is it legal to use a grinder in stead of a defiler" like one topic under this one [at least while am writing this].

[Shas'o R'Vre]

Having two Chapter Masters is fluffy?

yes.because its legal.

I even think this has happened in official GW fluff, has it not?

 

But yeah, If fluff playing matters, take a Lord or Sorceror. But Lords and Sorcerers SUCK on the Tabletop (Lords suffer from poor statlines and upgrades, and Sorcerors suffer from bad powers and lack of Psychic Hoods)

[chaplain belisarius]

i normally take a daemon prince (wings, doombolt) as my overall commander and a lord or sorceror as his second in command (normally a lord with daemon weapon for fun).

 

I totally agree that DP should be 0-1 but i also think oblits should be 0-1 too...:D

[Legatus]

That isn't true just because a chaos player takes some oblits or raptors (both of which are pretty rare) they don't suddenly become unfluffy... it is when some one takes 9 oblits and 60 raptors and 2 DPs when they might become unfluffy although if you are actually making a list to represent a raptor or oblit cult then I guess it isn't unfluffy... Taking World Eaters in an EC army is unfluffy... taking an excessive amount of a rare unit in an army for no reason is unfluffy... but taking something that is rare is not unfluffy...

But is it less fluffy? My original assertion was that a Lord is a fluffier choice than a Daemon Prince. (I am starting getting sick of the word "fluffy" :D Perhaps we can find a better term.)

 

 

Having two Chapter Masters is fluffy?

yes.because its legal.

I believe that's what is commonly called a "non sequitur".

 

If it wouldnt be fluffy it wouldnt be in the dex.

And that, I believe, is commonly called "flat out wrong". Not only can I keep pointing out example after example where a particular army list choice or unit option is not really adhering to lore at all, I can even remember instances from earlier Codices where it had been retroactively changed in an FaQ because the way it had been released in the army list was deemed not fluffy by the GW designers. That happened with the 3rd Edition Kodex Orks, for example, where Warbosses were not limited. But in a later White Dwarf and the 2004 Chapter Approved that entry was errata'ed to be a 0-1 limited choice.

Listen, if you do not give a damn about fluff that is your own choice. Some are in the hobby for the painting and modelling aspect, some like the background, and some just like to beat others in a game. Either works as your motivation for partaking in the hobby. But don't come and claim that "everything that's possible in an army list per definition is fluffy", because that is just ridiculous.

[Hellios]

That isn't true just because a chaos player takes some oblits or raptors (both of which are pretty rare) they don't suddenly become unfluffy... it is when some one takes 9 oblits and 60 raptors and 2 DPs when they might become unfluffy although if you are actually making a list to represent a raptor or oblit cult then I guess it isn't unfluffy... Taking World Eaters in an EC army is unfluffy... taking an excessive amount of a rare unit in an army for no reason is unfluffy... but taking something that is rare is not unfluffy...

But is it less fluffy? My original assertion was that a Lord is a fluffier choice than a Daemon Prince. (I am starting getting sick of the word "fluffy" ;) Perhaps we can find a better term.)

 

 

How about realistic... I will admit a warband with a lord (or even the lesser minion of a lord) at its head is more realistic (In terms of background lore) as to what you are more likely to find at the head of a warband of chaos warriors. I really liked the 3.5 ed HQ which while I admit might of had a few to many options blurred the line between the two but I would be happy for a more viable lord in any format... I guess GW makes more money is people buy big DPs :P

[Shas'o R'Vre]

Some are in the hobby for the painting and modelling aspect, some like the background, and some just like to beat others in a game. Either works as your motivation for partaking in the hobby. But don't come and claim that "everything that's possible in an army list per definition is fluffy", because that is just ridiculous.

I don't think that Jeske is saying that "everything that's possible in an army list per definition is fluffy". The point he (and others are making) is that with our outdated (and in some cases, downright poor) Codex, taking anything other than Daemon Princes as your HQ choices is rather bad, for aforementioned reasons.

 

I totally agree that DP should be 0-1 but i also think oblits should be 0-1 too...:P

Exept for IW's (Yay for us!)