I have been playing Daemons almost exclusively since around the beginning of 10th, and have put in some good reps with Belakor, and now without. I like him, but I don't love him. I personally find it is firstly a decision made for you by terrain format, and secondly what kind of list you're running. On heavier terrain boards, it is possible to hide your monsters and larger units enough, without him, to where you won't likely get alpha-struck by most armies, and can actually start enough on the table to threaten some kind of first turn damage output. On lighter boards, and especially on something like player placed terrain, you pretty much just need him, full-stop, otherwise you have to cower in fear from any shooting, and lose a ton of board position by virtue of trying to deploy defensively. Secondly, if you are running an extremely varied god-keyword list, you probably need him because otherwise shadow is very hard to use to allow you to get those sweet 6" deep strike charges. When you start to dedicate more and more to certain chaos gods, you don't need him as much, since the GDs can just simply do what he does better, in regards to shadow. I switched to no longer using him, because I mostly run Khorne (they're the most fun) and the BT and Skarbrand not only drop-pod your units, but also buff them at the same time.
I agree, I have been playing Daemons for about half a year and noticed that Be'Lakor is an auto take on player placed setups. But most of the new GW Layouts are great for daemons.
It's true that units on the table can *use* abilities, but auras and other range-restricted effects still have to be in range to work There is no part of the battlefield within 6" of Belakor while he's not on the battlefield
IMO Fateweaver got decked too hard by the Indirect nerfs - his gun was already underpowered for his cost and now it's just worthless Deceit is cool but you're paying 300 for a Callidus and that's just bad
@@TacticalTortoise Yeah, I tried him at an RTT and I felt that he is mostly a vect aura, the gun is meh, even when fired directly. At that point I´d rather take the LoC with the everstave to actually kill things
The 6.0001" deep strike (with possible charge) and the 3.0001" deep strike (no charge) abilities that Daemons have access to with the current detachment are conditionally used instead of the standard 9" exclusion zone, but not any additional abilities like the 12" denial omni-scramblers on SM Infiltrators, and things like that. Those bigger denial bubble abilities are disproportionally powerful into Daemons.
Do a vid on the scariest weapon in the game. Could be a few categories (scary as in scary, highest damage, best effect, etc)
I have been playing Daemons almost exclusively since around the beginning of 10th, and have put in some good reps with Belakor, and now without. I like him, but I don't love him. I personally find it is firstly a decision made for you by terrain format, and secondly what kind of list you're running.
On heavier terrain boards, it is possible to hide your monsters and larger units enough, without him, to where you won't likely get alpha-struck by most armies, and can actually start enough on the table to threaten some kind of first turn damage output. On lighter boards, and especially on something like player placed terrain, you pretty much just need him, full-stop, otherwise you have to cower in fear from any shooting, and lose a ton of board position by virtue of trying to deploy defensively.
Secondly, if you are running an extremely varied god-keyword list, you probably need him because otherwise shadow is very hard to use to allow you to get those sweet 6" deep strike charges. When you start to dedicate more and more to certain chaos gods, you don't need him as much, since the GDs can just simply do what he does better, in regards to shadow. I switched to no longer using him, because I mostly run Khorne (they're the most fun) and the BT and Skarbrand not only drop-pod your units, but also buff them at the same time.
I agree, I have been playing Daemons for about half a year and noticed that Be'Lakor is an auto take on player placed setups. But most of the new GW Layouts are great for daemons.
Commenting for inky's vocals and the data sheet deep dives
=
Hey trevvy, I thought a dataslate had stated that units not on the table can use their abilities? So couldn't belakor use his 6 inches?
It's true that units on the table can *use* abilities, but auras and other range-restricted effects still have to be in range to work
There is no part of the battlefield within 6" of Belakor while he's not on the battlefield
@TacticalTortoise thanks. so a marine captain could reduce the cp of rapid ingress to come on from strategic reserve couldn't he?
Id like to see fateweaver with vect. That sounds gresr as an ally.
IMO Fateweaver got decked too hard by the Indirect nerfs - his gun was already underpowered for his cost and now it's just worthless
Deceit is cool but you're paying 300 for a Callidus and that's just bad
@@TacticalTortoise Yeah, I tried him at an RTT and I felt that he is mostly a vect aura, the gun is meh, even when fired directly. At that point I´d rather take the LoC with the everstave to actually kill things
Does that Shadow of Chaos bubble cancel out distance restrictions from Deep Striking near enemies?
Nope; setup denial bubbles beat everything
The 6.0001" deep strike (with possible charge) and the 3.0001" deep strike (no charge) abilities that Daemons have access to with the current detachment are conditionally used instead of the standard 9" exclusion zone, but not any additional abilities like the 12" denial omni-scramblers on SM Infiltrators, and things like that. Those bigger denial bubble abilities are disproportionally powerful into Daemons.
Nope.
Haven’t seen the video. He’s never worth it still run him.
Edit.
Watched the video. He’s never worth it still run him.
Thanks for the comment! You should give the video a watch tho :)
Add a comment...