Tuesday Night Fight! Chaos Daemons vs. White Scars

Hey guys! Petey Pab here with an interesting game. Frankie and I are going to be playing a game at 1650 points in today’s Tuesday Night Fight AND showcasing the new Daemon Decurion style detachment!

We have received emails regarding the time limitations at events and many people suggested/want to play at a lower points cost to allow for more turns in a round in tournaments. Of course there are pros and cons to this change and this isn’t certainly a change to the ITC format (We still need to even see if it wants to be put up to a vote!) However I personally think a lower points value is healthy for the game and I think 1650 is the right value. Why? Well that’s an article for another day. Make sure to tune in to Twitch 7:00P.M. PST to catch the fight: Frontlinegaming_TV


Frankie’s Daemon List:

Daemonic Incursion


  • Hearld Of Slaanesh Exalted Locus of Beguilement, Steed 1
  • Daemonettes of Slaanesh _ 10
  • Daemonettes of Slaanesh _ 10
  • Daemonettes of Slaanesh _ 10
  • Daemonettes of Slaanesh _ 10
  • Daemonettes of Slaanesh _ 10
  • Daemonettes of Slaanesh _ 10

Grand Cavalcade

  • Hearld Of Slaanesh Steed, Lesser Locus of Grace 1
  • Seekers of Slaanesh _ 5
  • Seekers of Slaanesh _ 5
  • Seekers of Slaanesh _ 5
  • Seekers of Slaanesh _ 5
  • Seekers of Slaanesh _ 5
  • Seekers of Slaanesh _ 5

Daemon Lords

  • Fateweaver
  • Lord of Change: Grim


Pablo’s List

“Blue” Scars Battle Company 

  • 125 – Khan
  • 11o – Chaplain; The Hunter’s Eye
  • 75 – Tactical Squad; Razorback (HB), Dozer
  • 75 – Tactical Squad; Razorback (HB), Dozer
  • 75 – Tactical Squad; Razorback (HB), Dozer
  • 75 – Tactical Squad; Razorback (HB), Dozer
  • 75 – Tactical Squad; Razorback (HB), Dozer
  • 105 – Tactical Squad; Rhino, Grav-Cannon
  • 90 – Devastator Squad; Rhino, 2x Multi-Melta
  • 250 – Dev. Centurions; Grav, Omniscope
  • 50 – Attack Bike; Multi-Melta
  • 50 – Attack Bike; Multi-Melta
  • [Anti-Air Defense Force Auxiliary]
  • 150 – 2x Stalkers
  • 70 – Hunter

Allied Detachment: Space Marines, Red Hunters CT

  • 65 – Librarian; Lv. 1, Force Sword
  • 55 – Scout Squad; pistol, ccw
  • 120 – 2x Quad Mortar Rapier (rules here)
  • 35 – Drop Pod

Analysis: It wasn’t too hard to drop down to 1650 points for a battle company. I always felt like I didn’t know what to buy when I finally got my battle company down so the point reduction simplified things a little for me. I do wish I got an inquisitor and a little more melta but Ces la Vie. I built this list without any clue as to what the greatest 40k player in the world so I built a TAAC list that I would likely run in a GT or league.


About Petey Pab

Aspiring 40k analyst, tournament reporter and Ultramarines enthusiast, Petey Pab only seeks to gather more knowledge about the game of 40k and share it with as many people as he can in order to unite both hobbyists and gamers. We are, after all, two sides of the same coin.

45 Responses to “Tuesday Night Fight! Chaos Daemons vs. White Scars”

  1. Requizen February 16, 2016 6:36 pm #

    Very interesting! I was actually thinking of trying to make a mass Seeker list similar to this just today!

    The only issue is… Seekers are made of Paper. Yeah, this makes them extremely fast (12″ move, 12″+d6 Fleet run!), but they evaporate and don’t ignore terrain. It’ll be interesting to see if he can circumvent the squishiness to grab victory.

    • abusepuppy February 16, 2016 10:49 pm #

      I would be super-worried about fielding this, yeah. You’ll get in for charges on turn 2, bar bad deployment, but most armies with any decent number of shots will just tear you to pieces- even basic Bolters do work against Seekers and Daemonettes. Without any one big unit to buff with Grimoire/Invis/etc, you’re gonna see a lot of your guys evaporate, especially when going second.

  2. iNcontroL February 16, 2016 11:37 pm #

    nice game frankie.. fun seeing the new daemons. nice job pablo!

  3. Nephilm14 February 17, 2016 2:43 am #

    I personally don’t like the idea of dropping down to 1650. I remember when the standard game size was 2000 before it was dropped to 1850 so that games could be played faster. And now games of 1850 take as long as those 2000 point games did. I don’t think a 1650 game will be much faster than a 1850 point game, but it will make armies that have access to lots of free stuff even more powerful than they already are. The white scar list for this battle is every bit as big as one you would see at 1850. It just doesn’t have as many nasty guns, although it still manages to fit grav-centurions and a hunters eye. Battle companies and war convocations are already top tier lists, making the new list size 1650 will make it that much harder for armies that are already struggling against these MSU lists.

    • Razerous February 17, 2016 4:18 am #

      I think games are more complicated now than they were back in years gone by.

      You’ve got a dedicated psychic phase, a plethora of new armies, detachments, formations, buildings etc. And I think the interactions are more complicated as a result.

      Lower games are good – you can still field toys at that point levels, (i.e. unlike 500pt games) but they are quicker and place more value on the remaining models you do bring.

      • Sheit27 February 17, 2016 6:16 am #


        I think games are honestly quite enjoyable around the 1500-1650 point level.

        You will never be able to please everyone – cheese won’t go away, players will just call new things cheese.

        Of course the meta will shift and certain lists will become amazing while some current ones will fade. But who are we to say the current meta is how 40k “should” be played.

        I don’t see any harm in trying it out for a few months and seeing how it plays out.

      • Nephilm14 February 17, 2016 6:33 am #

        I agree that the game is more complicated than it used to be. I just don’t think the amount of time gained would be that substantial. And I still think this would escalate armies like the battle company into even more powerful lists than they already are. For a battle company to drop from 1850 to 1650, they just drop some weapon upgrades, but they keep all of their units. Now the Razorbacks have heavy bolters instead of lascannons and there a few less grav-cannons. Armies like Necrons, Eldar, Daemons and even tau have a lot harder time dropping points with just upgrades and end up losing whole units (besides exarchs, you don’t add anything to warp spider or swooping hawk units). So now the MSU mechanic that was already powerful and doing well finds itself fighting against smaller armies than it had to before.

        • Reecius February 17, 2016 10:48 am #

          I think it must be done for larger tournaments, honestly. You simply don’t have time to play 1850pts any more.

          For local play and RTTs, by all means, go 1850. But the time savings at 1650 or 1500 is fairly significant. It also makes it easier for players to buy/build/paint a tournament army as well, which lowers the barrier to entry for organized play which is nice.

          • Trueknight February 17, 2016 12:51 pm

            Reese that is a fair point, however Policing of intentional slow play will still be needed. That has to be part of the overall solution IMO.

          • Reecius February 17, 2016 3:28 pm

            Sure, but how do you do that? There’s really no objective way to do it without Chess clocks or having a judge at every table.

          • white925 February 17, 2016 6:17 pm

            And what would be the penalty for playing slow?

          • bigpig February 17, 2016 7:38 pm

            Floggings Frankie… floggings….

            Or make them eat $15 hot dogs till they puke!

          • williegoat February 17, 2016 9:15 pm

            “A player that receives two or more Thumbs Down on Sportsmanship will be met with administrative action up to and including ejection from the event with no refund of the ticket cost.”

            I know slow play isn’t included per se in this, but I feel as a community we should hold each other to a standard and if I play against a battle company and only get to turn 2 then I will probably tell a judge about the slow play, and when presented with the option, give my opponent a thumbs down rating. I didn’t experience this at LVO but saw it happen in the team tournament in a couple of games.

            I know the TOs and judging staff don’t have the time or man power to babysit 300+ players all at once but you and your opponent should be able to be adults about it and talk at the table. Like you guys have said in the last signals, there are provisions about going to split time for rounds if you and your opponent feel pressed for time.

            I know the projector situation wasn’t ideal but when presented with a countdown clock, I’ve found games to finish in an appropriate amount of time.

            Just my 2 cents for what it is worth..

    • tag8833 February 17, 2016 8:58 am #

      We could always get rid of the free stuff. Gladius, and to a much lesser extent War Convocations are the biggest offenders for games that can’t get done on time.

      Gladius actually has an easier time winning games that don’t finish, so there is no incentive for them to try to finish.

      My point of view is that dropping the points of games is a great idea, but so is getting rid of formations with free points. These two things go together. I know lots of people don’t like them, which is why I think we should have separate formats.

      Big Format: 2500 points. 3 Hour+ Games. No Ban List. No Detachment Limit. Basically 6th Edition Apoc.
      Small Format: 1500 points. Limited Super Heavies, Limited Formations, Limited Detachments.

      That way everyone has a format they can play in that better suites their preferences than the current format does.

      • bigpig February 17, 2016 5:59 pm #

        The top 8 from LVO who went to finals. Eldar on Eldar for the championship… Eldar won

        Steven Sisk (6057) – White Scars Battle Co
        Alex Harrison (5561) – Eldar with an Inquisitor
        Alan Bajramovic (5560) – Daemons
        Sean Nayden (5555) – Eldar + Aspect Host + Corpsethief
        Alexander Fennell (5555) – Necrons
        Brad Chester (5552) – Eldar
        Jonathan Camacho (5059) – Necrons (with an Obelisk and Monolith….)
        Aaron Aleong (5054) – Thunderwolf

        Tell me again how Battle Company is owning the field by making all these games go long..

        You have to keep your opponent moving and keep an eye on the time yourself. constanty update your opponent and get them moving faster

        • Coblen February 17, 2016 6:14 pm #

          He never said that they are owning the field. All he said was that they where the biggest offenders for games that cannot finish, and that there is little incentive for them to play faster.

          • tag8833 February 17, 2016 6:21 pm

            Exactly. They aren’t too good. Just Too Slow to play.

          • bigpig February 17, 2016 7:37 pm

            “Gladius actually has an easier time winning games that don’t finish, so there is no incentive for them to try to finish.” doesn’t sound like “too slow to play” to me. Also, easier time winning games that don’t finish sounds like this is going on and they are winning.

            I get that people can game the system by trying to intentionally slow play. Those opponents need to be called out on it. I played a batco opponent at a local tournament with my batco in November. he was PAINFULLY slow, but he is a slow player. The results at the LVO don’t seem to support that it is happening and having any success though. One battle company (at the hands of someone who has made it to many finals) is not evidence that battle companies are slow playing and winning, or are too slow to play and, as a result of their advantage, winning. Games are slow. You guys seem to singling out batco but that isn’t the issue. The evidence presented doesn’t suggest that is the problem

          • tag8833 February 17, 2016 10:41 pm

            Its too Slow to play, and they don’t have the incentives to play faster.

            Demon Summoning is also pretty slow to play, but at least they generally have the incentives to play fast, because their army does well later in games rather than Battle company which does well Early. (Note: I’d limit warp dice if I had my way)

            I play at lots of events. Most of the Events are little RTTs with 2:30 Rounds. I have never made it to turn 5 playing a Battle Company opponent. I’ve only failed to complete one game against Demon Summoning. Could be the Battle Co players I face aren’t representative.

            Steve Sisk is a Top Tier player, and I guess he only made turn 5 once at LVO. You (BigPig) are a Top Tier player, and when you played on the Stream at LVO, you only finished turn 4. It isn’t because you weren’t trying, or were slow playing.

            Here is a post that explains the problem Battle Company Players face in completing their games:

            I run an Ork MSU list, and have face similar challenges. My Ork MSU lists typically have 17-18 units. That is smaller than Battle Company, but I wouldn’t want to increase that number any.

            I’m sympathetic to your point of view. I love playing against Battle Company any time I can in casual play. It is always a fun game. When I face it at tourneys, it is always a frustrating affair, with me saying things like “Just Pick One”. “We’ve got to pick up the Pace”. “Roll them all at once” in a desperate effort to make the bottom of turn 4, where I stand a chance. If we keep it in without any adjustments, I think we should stick to 1850, and expand the rounds to 3 Hours Maybe even 3:15.

  4. C-Stock February 17, 2016 9:24 am #

    1650 would be a welcome change. At my FLGS tournaments most matches don’t get five turns in which sucks. And lists like battle company are one reason why.

    I would also favor limits on lists with free points.

  5. zyekian February 17, 2016 9:38 am #

    Most 40k matches I play are 1850 at 2 hours and I’d say only about one-third get to turn five. And I often see players getting only to turn 3. The game has gotten so expansive with free point armies, giant psychic phases, summoning, and just general codex complexity that it’s too much to ask average players to get five turns in, let alone 6-7 as the rules prescribe. The pros get them in (usually) but not usually average players. And the fact that a game can’t finish regularly dictates who wins the match.

    I keep seeing 3-4 turn Battle company lists dumping obsec all over the objectives and their opponent not having the physical game time to counter them, even though their list is good enough to do it effectively.

    IMO something needs to be done.

  6. Nightman February 17, 2016 9:55 am #

    Good game, fun to see the new daemons in action!

  7. Horton February 17, 2016 11:58 am #

    Before I comment on the size games should be, how long were the rounds at LVO? It is pretty standard for 1850 tournaments around here to have round lengths of 2:30-2:45.

    • Vercingatorix February 17, 2016 12:12 pm #

      They were 2:45

  8. brodrick February 17, 2016 1:07 pm #

    I think reducing list size doesn’t solve anything. There is no reason you can’t finish a game in 2.5 or 3 hours at 1850 pts. I have never had problems getting through whole games at a tourney. I truly think there should be penalties to each player if you don’t get through turn 5.

    Do people really intentially slow-play or is it lack of knowledge of their list and game play?

    • Reecius February 17, 2016 3:24 pm #

      Playing at a really big tournament is actually quite a bit different than playing locally or at an RTT. You lose a lot of time just getting around the hall, finding pairings, etc. Time is a big issue. Lowering points does make for shorter games though, for the simple reason you are dealing with less models.

      • westrider February 18, 2016 12:22 am #

        The lower model count simplifies the in-between round stuff, too. It’s quicker to get your dudes back on your display board, you don’t need as large of a display board so it’s easier to find a place for it, Army Lists are a bit simpler and quicker to go over.

      • krootman February 18, 2016 10:02 am #

        you know where you lose a ton of time, people walking up to the table to have a conversation with you lol.

  9. Daemonrider888 February 17, 2016 2:18 pm #

    It would be nice to know how many games didn’t have enough time to finish at the LVO. I finished all 6 in the championship and 2 of the 3 in the team event. Slow players are going to play slow and dropping 200 point realty won’t do much for those players.

  10. Elwrath February 17, 2016 2:20 pm #

    I’ll preface my comment with: I am a battle company player. Now that, that is out of the way I have to say that while I don’t mind a points drop to try and increase number of turns, I’d like to know if it actually affected table table game play? Did Steve sisk not get 5 game turns in per game? If it didn’t effect the integrity of the high end tables then this is mostly from the point of view of enjoyment for the middle to low end tables.

    From my point of view in the last game I did slow play (because I was tired), and it cost me the game, not the other way around.

    As to getting rid of ‘free’ points: I’m all for that as long as you’re fair across the board with it. No war con, no summoning, no gladius(s), no new space wolf stuff, no free ork stompa. Also I’d like restrictions on allies and more restrictions on LoW. going back to, two detachments rather than three will simplify the game too, and allow for less silliness aka ‘super friends.’ Less lords of war will balance kicking msu units lists in the butt. straight to one LoW model, no multiple knight detachments, and no upgrades to LoW from other forgeworld books unless that’s one of your detachment choices.

    I have no problem with playing 5th ed. 40k in 7th. I’m still not completely sold on formations, allies, and what have you. I’ll go back to one codex.

    Finally an alternative to lowering points: cut out or severely limiting the psychic phase. Many of you commented on how long that takes, why not get rid of it? It takes up a bunch of time before hand, and then during the game as you have to play a many game within a game. Frankly this would help more in game balance than getting rid of free points. Invisibility anyone? Imagine a game without that icon of balance 😛

    • Elwrath February 17, 2016 2:24 pm #

      mini game not many game

  11. Nephilm14 February 17, 2016 2:29 pm #

    The common thread in this conversation seems to be the battle company. When it first came out, there was some controversy as to whether it would be allowed since it was technically a duplicate detachment of the demi company and duplicate detachments weren’t allowed at that time. If the game were to drop to 1650 points, then perhaps it should also go back to not allowing duplicate detachments. That would allow for smarter list building and would solve the issue that is abused by the battle company. And that would be more balanced than just trying to go through all the formations and exclude some of them. It would also allow for gamers to know what could be played with when a new codex comes out instead of having to wait for a ruling on the new formations.

    • Reecius February 17, 2016 3:26 pm #

      It’s not just battle company, honestly. The psychic phase takes a long time, summoning units takes a long time, melee takes a long time, etc. The game has gone down in points and up in free stuff, making for more and more bloated games with an extra phase, longer pre-game phase, etc. The game is just bigger than it was.

    • bigpig February 17, 2016 5:55 pm #

      I play my Battle Company plenty fast. What about all the games that don’t finish that don’t involve Battle Company? In all my games, I took the same amount of time as opponents playing War convocation, Tau, Eldar, Chaos, and Necron. It is not the formation’s fault so “throwing it out” and saying “there’s the problem” is not effective. It also is not fair to punish those players who have no problem managing the large number of small units quickly. I encourage you to look at my last game on the twitch feed from day 2. If you look at the time per turn, mine was about the same as my Chaos opponent and I actually took a fraction of the time he did to set up.

      Now, some players may not be able to play MSU quickly. MSU is more the issue than battle company. Summoned demons, Orks, Tau Piranha wing, etc all take just as long because you are moving around lots of models. The game favors MSU now so more players are taking it. gone are the days of gun lines or a couple big tanks where it was all about rolling shooting dice and breezing through turns. Maneuver is so much more important now, and that all takes time.

      I’m sorry you don’t like Battle Company but don’t scapegoat it. Players are the issue.

  12. Horton February 17, 2016 3:03 pm #

    I have played a horde daemon summoning list before and finished all my games in 2.5 hours. I think 2:45 is perfectly fine round length. I would rather see a penalty for not finishing games rather than a decrease in points value for tournaments. Personally, I miss playing bigger games and wish there were more events at the 2000-2500 points value that would really let people have some options with what the new detachment types can do now.

    • Reecius February 17, 2016 3:27 pm #

      I think there’s room for bigger games for sure, but most people do not finish their games at the larger points value. A format with 4 hour rounds, 2 rounds a day could be super fun but it would be very difficult to determine a winner without battle points and such.

  13. krootman February 17, 2016 7:29 pm #

    Im really interested to see how changing the game size to 1650 or 1500 goes. I think I am going to push for 1650 first around here and see how that goes time wise.

    This years lvo was the first time I dropped from a gt early (2-2 then dropped) because I didnt feel like playing another 7 hrs of 40k when I wasn’t playing for anything. (and ironically this yrs lvo was one of my top 3 vegas trips). Ten hour days can be a real grind, but logistically how can you have a round go longer then 2:45 -3 hours, there simply is not enough time in a day.

    At this yrs nova, I played in the invitational, the open, and got 2 practice games in since it was the first time I used my army. I ended up playing roughly 3 games per day @3 hrs each FOUR days in a row, thats 44 hours (including breaks) of 40k in 4 days!!!! I was pretty burnt out after that.

    Sometimes I get pre gt gidders thinking about how gruling the typical gt day can be..it shouldn’t feel like a job to get 3 competitive games of 40k in a single day. On top of that i like the socializing aspect of a gt as much as playing and I really hate being too tired to go out after the final round in a day.

    I know my experience doesn’t mimic everyone, but a game of 40k shouldnt take 3 hours to most likely not reach a natural conclusion.

    • Reecius February 17, 2016 8:16 pm #

      We’ve been play testing 1650 here, it’s pretty awesome, I must say. The games feel MUCH faster. I agree with everything you’ve said about the grueling days at larger point values.

    • westrider February 18, 2016 12:29 am #

      I’m in a similar place. I almost always miss out on much of the social aspect of 40K events, because I’m so wiped by the Games that I just crash by the end of the day.

      1500 or 1650 may require tightening up army construction restrictions a little, because yeah, there is less room to fit in counters for every extreme build out there, but I’d definitely like to see it at more Tournaments.

      There’s a store around here that does 1250 sometimes, and they’re a lot of fun, much faster and less draining. That’s too lightweight for real competition, but I think there’s a happy medium to be found.

      • krootman February 18, 2016 9:50 am #

        So the thing is no matter what points costs you do, there will be tiers of armies just like they are now. So the competitive aspect stays intact, a meta will form (might not be that much different, might be radically different). Its just the lower points you go the less toys you get to fit.

        From talking to people 1500 has this negative limiting stigmata that for some reason 1650 doesn’t have. Its like the 99$ vs a dollar thing.

        I also refuse to miss out on the social aspect of games often to the point where im so tired the final day of a gt, I make a dumb mistake and knock myself out of the running lol. When I party I tend to party hard lol (im sure some of the pics from lvo are somewhere on the internet)

  14. Sheit27 February 18, 2016 7:43 am #

    I don’t see how 1650 makes battle company better.

    sure they still have numbers, but they can’t punch back nearly as hard either.

    losing all their special weapons makes them a lot worse against imperial knights, riptides, flyrants, stormsurge, wraithknight, dreadknight, AV14 etc etc.

    I’d a lot sooner face all the heavy bolters with 2+ 5+ FNP than grav spam etc.

    if anything the “take two of any formation” might be what needs looked at,

    things like double riptide wing where you can take 6 burst tides for 1080 points and effectively shoot 12 burst tides in one turn are a lot scarier to me than a bunch of razorbacks.

  15. Venkarel February 18, 2016 9:12 am #

    I agree games are not going to completion. I am not the fastest player in the world, Real Life keeps me away from the tables so I do not get more than a game a month plus tournaments, but I can usual do five rounds in 2:30 minutes. This year at LVO two of my games were rushed, one ended on turn five with a 7 minute turn time each. The other ended on turn four with me in a dominating position against battle company but loss because even turn four was rushed and I was in just kill everything mode (I know, I know, play the mission).

    I do caution an immediate 200 point drop. I would push for a slow play tracking system with just a simple how many turns did you complete question on the mission form. A round 3 completion is worth 2 penalty points and a round 4 is 1 penalty point. If a player gets 3 points there next round is a loss (if it happens last round then dont know maybe add a -3 penatly to there win loss record). You can do research retroactively for LVO by asking on the forthcoming questionnaire, for each game how many rounds did you complete and a check the box if the game ended in a concession.

    We could also start experimenting with point drops (along with tracking) to see where the sweet spot is, maybe drop to 1750, the 1650.

  16. Bellerah February 18, 2016 1:21 pm #

    Bring on the Chess clocks.

  17. Freeman February 18, 2016 1:34 pm #

    We played 1650 in the major UKGT for years and it worked ok but to be honest another 200pts doesn’t make much difference.

    The speed of play has got to be the issue. Obviously it’s only anecdotal but play was way slower at the LVO than I’m used to seeing in England. Pretty much all singles events in Europe are 1850 and its pretty rare for games to not finish. The most common system is to simply have an additional box to tick if your game came to a natural conclusion. Players with 3 or more failures to finish are in theory disqualified. Not kicked out mind just they count as losing there games, it’s not seen as a criticism of you opponent either it’s just an none subjective recording of fact. I don’t think anyone’s ever been punished for it though but it hard to say whether this means it is working or simply not needed.

    The other thing we have is breaks between rounds of 15 minutes.

    Simply starting earlier is a thing too. We have 2.45 rounds with at least 15 minute breaks between rounds. 9:30-1900 is a standard three game day. I appreciated the later start in Vegas but to be honest I think most people were there pretty early.

    My big concern would be that dropping a premier event to a lower points cost may reduce the prestige. Nobody wants the LVO to be perceived as less ‘proper’ than nova, adepticon, etc.

    Honestly though 1500pts would have to be the absolute limit. Any smaller than that and I think it would start to really damage attendance.

  18. Dbiesto February 18, 2016 2:25 pm #

    I think 1500-1650 might be the sweet spot. If the time limit is the same, even slowers players could complete most games. Average game is 1:30-2:30 never reached a 3 hour game so far.

Leave a Reply