No, that's not the Reaver's best counterattack.  It's probably the worst.  Reavers suck for shooting infantry and by doing so you voluntarily give up their specialty asset - defense.

Move out of assault range and shoot them.  Causing the opponent to lose an alpha-strike attack ability is a viable means of inhibiting them and a major factor for the Reaver, playing to its strengths.

I'd say the optimum would be for the Reaver to not attack them at all.  Scoot back barely out of CC range, but close enough that summoned daemons could base contact.  Shoot a better target, control the Chosen's movement with ZoC, support other potential assault targets, and serve as a temptation. (It's a big, juicy target, but even with the best CC daemons it's a low percentage assault.)

Heck, if the situation is conducive, the Reaver could even Engage and clip them.  At least that makes use of the Reaver's special defensive abilities.  Nearly certain teleport BMs on an 8-unit formation and void shields to soak FF hits means a decent chance to win.  It might not work but it's still better than sitting and waiting to be overrun.

Usually in a straight power comparison like this, the results are fairly similar and scoring the same number of hits using the 'preferred' or strongest means of attack. But here, we have two formations that are equivalent in DC, where the results are far from equal.

_________________
Neal

I am obviously at fault here, though I thought I had spelled it out clearly enough. I am purely comparing the relative power of the two formations ignoring other factors, positions etc.

I agree that actually both sides have a variety of other options both in attack and defence, including walking away (and have said as much - twice now) - but that is beside the point.

Lets try again - IMHO the additional power of the summoned daemons adds greatly to the power of the formation and is possibly excessive. The way that summoning Daemons can increase the power of the formation, often by several factors, is one of the things that tends to overpower this army list in my subjective opinion.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

If the Chosen-daemon teleport is so good why have most players abandoned it in tourneys?
Both myself and Nathan have found that it just isn't worth the 300+ point gamble.

- you can only rely on going first against IG+Feral orks

- lacking ATSKNF the termies die, whereas with SM when you lose the SR you end up with a couple of broken units hiding with Chaos the only way it isn't completely wiped out in turn1 if you lose SR is if you have purchased an oblit or DP - increasing the gamble.

- garrisonned overwatch - have made it less viable to teleport on turn1

- scouts - nearly all players screen any prime targets with scout screens

It just isn't ptactical to use any more than a minimum size unit of termies to try and pick off an isolated formation.

Gavin -Subjective opinion? It seems like you have reached your opinions before playtesting and are now trying to prove them.

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion

I can understand (I think) what Gavin is trying to show with the chosen and daemons.

As we usually price formations for their optimum use does the cost of pact,champion,Icon,daemons etc. when used by chosen formations fit the abilities they bring to that formation.

If the price of having a pact,champion,Icon,daemons etc. in a retinue is perfectly balanced(not saying it is just using it as an example) does/should the worth/cost of these go up in a Chosen Terminator formation which can utilise them better.

As an example if a players spends 250 points on pacts,champions and Icons for 2 retinues and a further 300 points on daemons (total of 550 points) does the worth of the same choices for 2 chosen terminator formations still hold true or does the abilities of the chosen (especially teleport)increase the worth of them.

Personally from what I have seen at tournaments and in home games the abilities of opponents to counter teleporting and the risk of,
1) not kmowing what your opponent will bring strategy rating wise the BL could face SM,Eldar Ect.
2) is there going to be a target worthy of risking losing a 600+ points formation for,some armies go for high activation counts and may only have a low cost BTS.
3) the chance of a lower strategy rated army winning the roll of and just moving away leaving the high cost formation to chase around for a target and they maybe wasted(que Benny Hill style chase music)
4) players I've seen have learnt/do learn quickly to place Blitz and the BTS well apart when facing these sorts of formations and making it difficult for them to gain both goals in a game.

I think is enough to offset the increased abilities that come with the combonation of Chosen and Daemons(doesn't mean I'm right though).

Gavin is trying to show that the above may not be enough to offset the increase and is trying a few games to see if his thoughts have merit and I think wants others to try and find if it is abusable in games.

If it shows that Gavins fears aren't as bad as he thought he will be the first to admit that but he is only trying to show what he sees a possible problem.

Plus I believe he harbours a secret desire to be a Demon Prince.

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

Steve its not the Chosen - we could do a similar comparison using a Retinue or Forlorn Hope - its the Daemons!

• Adding 4 LD to a retinue doubles the assault dice.
• Adding 4 LD to a Forlorn Hope triples the assault dice
• If you only have a single unit remaining, adding 4 LD increases the number of assault dice by several factors
• If by some fluke you have kept a champ around (perhaps as part of a mauled CSM terminator formation), that individual unit can suddenly spawn 8 points of daemons up to an extreme of 12 points

While other races can muster a big punch (eg upgraded Eldar Guardians), this has been designed into the formation by the player, and the game played accordingly by both sides. With Daemon summoning (which is what the thread is about after all ), any formation with 'pact' can be given an average of 8 extra assault dice (together with a boost both in formation size and reduction in the effect of BMs), and this can be moved around where needed from turn to turn like a limited kind of teleport.

People screamed like mad when I suggested that SMs might be allowed to swap transport options before the game (which I still think would be appropriate given the background ) but do not seem to see the parallel here where during the game Daemons can be attached and detached from formations almost at will, providing a local force multiplier that can have a significant impact.

When combined with the additional resilience provided by the base formation sizes and the high activation capabilities of the army as a whole, this additional "punch" can get to be a big advantage and IMO is excessive in certain circumstances.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

TRC and dptdexys, thanks for the observations, our replies crossed (and no I don't harbour those kind of desires )

What I have been attempting to show is that there are several concepts in the BL list which IMO are an admirable attempt to provide that extra colour that distinguishes one list from another. However, it is still my contention that combining several of these concepts together tends to act as a force magnifier that, in the right circumstances, tends to overpower the list.

In this case, daemons have had a significant role in recent games reported on this board (both offensively and defensively). Combined with the resilience of Chosen (or Obliterators / DP for that matter) and I believe that there may be a problem.

As dptdexys says, it will really only become evident over time, which is why I have been trying some 'odd' looking armies to test the theories.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Would buying demons for a particular formation remove all those problems? Now its a fixed size as it were, just some of its invisible!

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

It would be indeed simpler that way - making daemon summoning a formation upgrade rather than a separate choice in the army list. Call it "daemonic pact" and set a number of daemons to come with (maybe a greater one), and you're done. The real price of a boosted formation by daemonic reinforcements will be at least fully included in the cost of the formation, which is neater for victory conditions.

If I remember correctly it wasn't that long ago that a lot of players couldn't see the worth in using Daemons.

I think it was PG who at the time said give it time for players to get used to using them and come up with strategies and counters before we drop points etc.

Have we now got to a stage where players are getting more than the points value out of daemons through good tactical use and re-use of them.

Should we be thinking of upping the cost if proved that way or wait to see if others eventually come up with counters(if the ones known aren't enough) to any percieved problems as was the case when daemons were originally thought overpriced.

Personally I don't have a problem facing the BL as they are now but we must remember even a slight alteration in one part of the list can have a big impact in games(I'm thinking will a couple of small alterations have as big an impact to this list as the spirit stone alteration has on the Eldar one).

Tis quite true, were always too complex for my simple mind. I stuck to WE hordes with terminator support! But looks like I'll need a new trick now

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

I'm with you here dptdexys. If I am right, then we may not need to juggle with unit and formation costs but rather inhibit or prevent particular combinations of upgrades (or even just the adoption of a slight down grade to the initiative).

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

That exact same effect happens for many formations.  A fire support platoon doubles the firepower of an IG company and when it's damaged it often multiplies it by 3-4x for a 40% increase in cost.  A pact and 4 daemons is about a 40% increase in cost for a Retinue.  Doubling the assault dice is not a big deal for that point cost.  In fact, it's pretty sad compared to the increase in firepower, FF and assault that comes from a Fire Support platoon.

Maybe the daemons' other advantages more than offset that, but it's definitely not the raw increase in assault ability that is the root of the problem.  That's pretty much ridiculous compared to what the chaos player pays for it.

_________________
Neal

Now that things have calmed down a bit.

I would like to say that I agree with much of PG's comments in this thread. I would be disappointed to see the current rules modified beyond minor changes and then I don't see the need.

I don't see the need to make changes either from playing with or against BL.

If any change was to be made I would like to see weaker (but not generic) daemons and more of them.

_________________
_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk - home of the UK Epic tournament scene
NetEA NetERC Xenos Lists Chair
NetEA Ork + Feral Ork + Speed Freak Champion

Typically, I wade in to this discussion long after it has died down; probably with nothing to add, but hey, it's feedback, right?  

Anyhoo, whilst I cannot comment upon the Daemon Summoning rules in either this or their previous iteration (having not yet had the opportunity to use Daemons in a game of Epic), I wanted to comment upon the change to generic daemons.

Basically, I'm someone who loves their fluff; when I do an army, I like to take all the themed options, like if I'm going to have Noise Marines in my CSM army, I want Daemonettes and a Keeper of Secrets to complete the feel!  So, on one hand, I am disappointed that with these changes I can't have a Khornate CSM army that feels Khornate, with Bloodletters, a 'Thirster, etc.

BUT (but, but!) I am in favour of the change.  Epic benefits from the kind of streamlining that 40k seems to be pursuing to some extent, and I must admit that I am surprised the 40k army list went down the generic daemons route before the Epic one did.

It does seem to make things simpler for everyone, especially from the point of view that if a Chaos player only has resources to only buy one of the Epic Chaos Horde sets, they can still get 10 units of random, generic daemons.

Also, from the point of view of my own armies, this means I can give my Epic Legion of Taurus army (based on the 40k army I am currently building) the same Daemons (they are aligned with a non-major Chaos power-based entity).

However, I would still prefer it if the variety of daemons are kept for the L&tD army list, and for each of the Choas-aligned Traitor Legions (e.g. World Eaters) - if only for the reason that my basing over a dozen each of Berzerkers, Daemonettes, Flesh Hounds, etc etc has been a bit of a waste of time!  

I also disagree with the suggestion by a couple of people to drop daemonic beasts - as I said, I'll be rather narked if, after spending lots of time basing and painting 8 units of Flesh Hounds I can no longer use them!