Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Not got the WD update at hand but I do remember hearing Flamers arent ET any more, is this true? trying to think of the best way to counter them

The best way to counter them is a lot of shots. They will die quickly enough.

All daemons in the chaos daemons book are EW I think.

In the WD update just says they have the demon special rule and in the rule book all that is is 5+invul and fear USR, so no EW?

Correct

I think the Chaos Daemon codex says they are EW's, probably because they have the Daemon Special rule.

I can not recall exactly what gives it to them, but one of my usual opponents uses them and he says they are EW's.

It's an update to the original Daemon Codex so all the army wide special rules will apply. If this wasn't true then they wouldn't deploy via Daemonic Assault.

Codex Chaos Daemons Pg 27 "Daemonic Forces"

The WD update doesn't say which Daemon rule applies.

RAW it would be the rulebook Daemon special rule.

But RAI its probably both.

Not sure what you mean by that Battleranch?

Thinking of either melta's to cancel out flamers or flamers to put lots of wounds on them after they deepstrike (hello 8 combi flamers and 2 HF sternguard unit...)

If he plays with EW Deathreaper, I hope he plays with the higher cost and one wound profile

Not sure about the cost, but he runs them with two wounds.

What I mean is that the White Dwarf booklet was an Official update; it is adding new material to the existing book.
I was merely pointing out ignoring the Eternal Warrior special rule that is added onto the Daemon USR on page 27 would also entail ignoring the Daemonic Assault because it is also an addition to the Daemon USR in the daemon Codex.

Then I dont think it would be fair to use the rules from both the WD update where they were cheaper and two wounds with rules from the codex where they were 1 wound EW and more expensive?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So you would use them as 23pts each 2 wounds EW fearless and 4+ invun?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But i don get what you mean now, its not very clear is it, makes a change Geedub!

it's not fair. Flamers are a grossly powerful unit now and but they are killable in their new form; You just need some luck and a lot of guns to get the job done!

So they, in your eyes, would be 4+ save EW 2 wounds and 23 points each, ouch, template weapons it is then!

no they have a 5+ save. as per the Daemon USR. they had a 4+ in their previous rendition.

We've always played it as they use their new profile, but have the daemon special rule, from the codex, plus fear. Seems the most straight forward approach, as no one could fathom Flamers, screams, all the new daemons stuff not deploying via daemonic assault.

 arinnoor wrote:
We've always played it as they use their new profile, but have the daemon special rule, from the codex, plus fear. Seems the most straight forward approach, as no one could fathom Flamers, screams, all the new daemons stuff not deploying via daemonic assault.

I dont have a WD to see what the new stats and stuff are, but this sounds like a mix and match ?

Two wounds, 5++, EW, Daemonic assault.

Please note they have no invul in the WD update
USR Daemon 5++, They replace a Codex unit, Daemon codex rule EW, 23 pts a model from update

Because they're an addition to the Daemons codex, they follow the army-wide special rules from the Daemons codex. The new profile and entry replaces the old ones.

Not sure why you guys are assigning the new flamers a 5++ save. The Daemon rule in the Daemon codex supercedes the BRB Daemon USR, so according to their new profile they only receive cover saves.

Zen2k wrote:
Not sure why you guys are assigning the new flamers a 5++ save. The Daemon rule in the Daemon codex supercedes the BRB Daemon USR, so according to their new profile they only receive cover saves.

Only when there is a conflict does one trump the other. There is no conflict here.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

Zen2k wrote:
Not sure why you guys are assigning the new flamers a 5++ save. The Daemon rule in the Daemon codex supercedes the BRB Daemon USR, so according to their new profile they only receive cover saves.

Only when there is a conflict does one trump the other. There is no conflict here.

There most certainly is a conflict.

Zen2k wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

Zen2k wrote:
Not sure why you guys are assigning the new flamers a 5++ save. The Daemon rule in the Daemon codex supercedes the BRB Daemon USR, so according to their new profile they only receive cover saves.

Only when there is a conflict does one trump the other. There is no conflict here.

There most certainly is a conflict.

Show me where

I would categorize two special rules with the same name a conflict.

There's one daemon special rule that includes four other special rules: fearless, invulnerability, daemonic assault and daemonic rivarly and a daemon special rule that provides a 5++ and fear and nothing else.

Zen2k wrote:
I would categorize two special rules with the same name a conflict.

There's one daemon special rule that includes four other special rules: fearless, invulnerability, daemonic assault and daemonic rivarly and a daemon special rule that provides a 5++ and fear and nothing else.

There's not really a conflict though as they work quite well with one another.

A conflict would be:

Codex All lightning claws ignore armor saves
BGB Lightning claws are AP-3

There's precedent with the Space Marine codex with the ATSKNF rule. Two instances of the rule with the same name. In the SM FAQ it states to ignore the codex rule and instead refer to the BRB USR. There's no such overrule in the Chaos Daemon FAQ, so one would refer to the codex entry.

You don't just use a little of both. It's one or the other.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

Zen2k wrote:
I would categorize two special rules with the same name a conflict.

There's one daemon special rule that includes four other special rules: fearless, invulnerability, daemonic assault and daemonic rivarly and a daemon special rule that provides a 5++ and fear and nothing else.

There's not really a conflict though as they work quite well with one another.

A conflict would be:

Codex All lightning claws ignore armor saves
BGB Lightning claws are AP-3

Zen2k wrote:
There's precedent with the Space Marine codex with the ATSKNF rule. Two instances of the rule with the same name. In the SM FAQ it states to ignore the codex rule and instead refer to the BRB USR. There's no such overrule in the Chaos Daemon FAQ, so one would refer to the codex entry.

You don't just use a little of both. It's one or the other.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

Zen2k wrote:
I would categorize two special rules with the same name a conflict.

There's one daemon special rule that includes four other special rules: fearless, invulnerability, daemonic assault and daemonic rivarly and a daemon special rule that provides a 5++ and fear and nothing else.

There's not really a conflict though as they work quite well with one another.

A conflict would be:

Codex All lightning claws ignore armor saves
BGB Lightning claws are AP-3

An faq told me to do something directly so that sets a precedence?

Not really, still no clash not seeing something stopping me from taking both

Beings their Daemons from the codex they get XXX, than there's a nifty USR Daemon that gives them BBB none of which conflicts with XXX therefore giving XXXBBB

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Two special rules with the same name is a conflict. And if the two rules stacked, as your logic would imply, why is the fear special rule amended in the Daemon FAQ? One would assume it would be included in your XXXBBB. Your logic doesn't pass the common sense test.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

Zen2k wrote:
There's precedent with the Space Marine codex with the ATSKNF rule. Two instances of the rule with the same name. In the SM FAQ it states to ignore the codex rule and instead refer to the BRB USR. There's no such overrule in the Chaos Daemon FAQ, so one would refer to the codex entry.

You don't just use a little of both. It's one or the other.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

Zen2k wrote:
I would categorize two special rules with the same name a conflict.

There's one daemon special rule that includes four other special rules: fearless, invulnerability, daemonic assault and daemonic rivarly and a daemon special rule that provides a 5++ and fear and nothing else.

There's not really a conflict though as they work quite well with one another.

A conflict would be:

Codex All lightning claws ignore armor saves
BGB Lightning claws are AP-3

An faq told me to do something directly so that sets a precedence?

Not really, still no clash not seeing something stopping me from taking both

Beings their Daemons from the codex they get XXX, than there's a nifty USR Daemon that gives them BBB none of which conflicts with XXX therefore giving XXXBBB

The only important question to ask here is
Are the two Daemon rules the same rule?
Are they the same, no they are not.
They share a name but are otherwise completely different.

Therefore given allowance on pg32 BGB "the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative."

But they have the same name, so the rule from the Codex takes precednece - page 7, from memory

nosferatu1001 wrote:
But they have the same name, so the rule from the Codex takes precednece - page 7, from memory

well sure, but they're different