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.

Id like some opinions on what unit would perform better.. a unit of 5 Fiends of Slaanesh, or a unit of 9 Seekers of Slaanesh.
the difference is 3 points (150 for the fiends, 153 for the seekers.)

lets look at what each unit has over the other..
-fiends are S5 T4.. seekers are S3 T3
-Seekers are I6, Fiends are I5
-the seeker unit total has 36 attacks (45 on charge) the fiends have 25 (30 on charge)
-the fiend unit has 10 total wounds, and loses 5 (or 6) attacks every 2 wounds, where the seeker unit has 9 total wounds and loses 4 (or 5) attacks every wound.
-oh and the fiends have hit and run
-both move 6, have fleet and assault 12. both rend.

currently i am leaning towards the fiends.. the higher toughness and 2 wound profile really stand out from any other slaaneshi unit and they have hit and run. but what really puts them above the seekers is that it takes two wounds on them to make them lose some attacks. give a herald a mount and soporific musk and she fits in perfectly with the feind unit and hides her lower toughness if the unit gets shot at. unless i am missing something where cavalry IC cant join a beast unit, even though they move exactly the same and are even listed under one section together in the BGB.

anyway, im looking for what you guys think, whether you agree or disagree. but the seeker models are about a hundred times better looking than fiends, so that of course must be factored in.. as you invest more points in the seekers or fiends though, i think the seekers come out ahead, but i feel like 5 fiends vs 9 seekers is pretty much the threshold of where the seekers start to take over.

You're missing that the Fiends have the Aura of Aqui-whatever.

This gives the unit both offensive and defensive grenades.

In 5th edition this means that the unit strikes at initiative when charging into cover, which is HUGE since Seekers are I6 and therefore almost guaranteed to strike first except against all but the fastest enemies.

Aaaand, the defensive grenades means that charging models don't get their charge bonus, which can be a *huge* pain in the tuckus for opponents going after a big unit of Seekers.

So I give the edge to Seekers over Fiends, but I do think that Fiends should still be included in many army builds as they allow you to take another very fast moving unit but as an Elites choice in the army.

I'd say that Seekers, from my experience, are more valuable than fiends.

This is not to disparage the fiends at all, in a decent size squad they can do some sick damage, but you can field more Seekers in a squad than fiends which means more attacks.

For 30 points you get 5 base attacks (6 on charge) that rend with str 5 and toughness 4 for a Fiend.

For 34 points you get 8 base attacks (10 on charge) that rend with str 3 an toughness 3 for 2 Seekers.

The more dice you throw, the more likely to rend. I think Seekers have a higher damage output than Fiends against most targets. Fiends are great, they can survive more swing backs than seekers, but that 1 point difference in initiative means that Seekers swing before most power hitter characters and the like and Fiends will go at the same time.

Fiends are a solid elite choice, I like them quite a bit, but for sheer damage, Seekers win out.

Ill side with the Seekers too, for the above posted reasons. More attacks/point and striking first regardless of cover is worth alot.

Fiends also compete with flamers/crushers in the elite section.

I'll also join the Seekers on this one. They're cavalry, they don't take up an elites choice (which should be saved for your Crushers and Flamers) and they have a squad size of 5-20. You can overwhelm your opponent with the number of attacks and most likely rend on a good few. All in all, Seekers, Seekers, Seekers!

My take is like Tsunami's:

Seekers are the only good Fast Attack choice.

Fiends share a slot with Crushers and Flamers (both quality choices, both arguable vs. the Fiends in terms of being better overall choices)

Ergo, take Seekers first, and only go onto Fiends if you are going all-Slaaneshi or you prefer them to Crushers (reasonable) and Flamers (questionable).

OTT but I'd posit the Tzeentchies have a good FA option as well.

OTT? You mean OT, right? I don't know, Screamers seem pretty crap to me. They're the rare unit that becomes almost entirely useless when facing certain armies and aren't exactly the sex even against their ideal targets.

Thank you Yak (and i think you meant the seekers have the aura not the fiends), i had no idea what the off/def grenades meant for 5th. that definitely is a huge advantage. one thing though, would those defensive grenades negative furious charge? (which will obviously still be a part of 5th seeing as how every ork in the galaxy has it)

my current slaanesh/tzeentch list is running 6 fiends.. and no flamers/seekers.. silly me totally looked over the fact that the flamers were jump troops.. looks like 2 units of 3 or 4 of them would be incredibly nasty. and as im building what i want to be a fast slaanzeentch list, crushers would just get left in the dust.

thanks for the comments guys, and saving me about 120 dollars on fiend models.. already have a bunch of mounted 'nettes from my EC army.

If they didn't compete for the elite slot, I'd prefer seekers regardless of the missing grenades.

They get less attacks than seekers for added durability, which is an advantage rather than a drawback in my book. Let me explain...

While you might build a 20 strong unit of seekers with like 100 attacks on the charge that could possibly whipe a 20 man terminator squad in one go, you'll be stranded in the next turn and getting shot. So the mass killing power on the seekers exposes them more often to return fire where their fragility comes into its own. Losing 4 (5) attacks with each failed save on a toughness 3 reduces seekers to uselessness real quick. On the other hand (the given example of 5 fiends vs. 9 seekers may be the perfect example for my thesis) a unit of say 5 seekers will statistically drop 6 wounds of enemies on the charge with rend plus a rather dependable bonus with their higher strength (so you hitting power is less random than with a unit of seekers), which is pretty fine to reduce an enemy unit to nigh-null, stay in cc for one more turn and whipe them on theyr's while taking less damage in return due to 2 wounds and toughness 4.

So in essence, while seekers shine in pure killing power, exactly this killing power makes them quite random and (in theory) more often than not a big target right after the first charge, while fiends can be used with a lot consistency and still play a vital role later on in the game as they don't loose killing power as fast as the seekers...

- my 2 cents, Khorneflakes

the way i see it and played - unless you are facing a ton of really tough units, the first strike of 6 fiends OR 9-10 seekers will most likely shred them to pieces, at least killing enough units that they wont strike back and can only pile back in(2inches max ~10). So with that said the fiends and seekers will be out in the open getting shot at for a free turn . The fiends have T4 and 2w so they are basically 12 seekers with T4 compared to 9-10 seekers with t3 when getting shot OR retaliated at - obviously fiends have the edge here. Plus imo seekers depends too much on the rending power with S3 while fiends even without lucky rend can probably wound with S4.

Also it depends on what you charge - I had to pick my fights with fiends and seekers and they usually HELP my DP/GD against a very tough unit and not charge it headon (unless they really got nothing to do....). I definitely pick fiends over seekers since couple time i playtested the seekers get shot to bits if they are left in the open while fiends T4 really helps them.

I honestly can say that shaselai has some good points. But I still side with the seekers. The max size for fiends is 6. That is only 12 wounds and still only a 5+ Sv. The seekers max size is 20 and they move just as fast as fiends, have the same WS and the same Sv. Most basic weaponry will get them on a 4+ no matter their T. The fiends only have a T of 4... It's not that good. If you are looking for something with staying power then just rock out with Bloodcrushers. The Seekers are meant to swoop in and then have the 'Crushers play clean up if the Seekers haven't already. Also, so what if you have to get shot a couple of times. Isn't that what happens to this army. I say the strength is in the numbers.

Also, if the leaked 5th ed close combat rules are true and you must wipe the squad in order to wipe the kill zone, you are going to want maximum damage since any swing backs, Fiends or Seekers, is going to hurt. T4 is definitely better than T3, but for both of them, anybody hitting them is going to hurt them.

So, with that in mind, I'd rather be able to throw out as many attacks as possible.

However, Fiends are still wonderful and they'll get table time.

As for shooting, any Slaanesh target that is in LOS is dead. T3 or T4, most armies are quite capable of dealing with 10 T3 or 5 T4 models through shooting, especially with a 5+ save. In my mind, Seekers and Fiends are both dog meat if they are ever out of combat in the open

With no more consolidating into enemies ever.. I see both seekers and fiend suffer from hard rapidfire retaliation after they kill 1 squad tho.. so you rather get locked in combat with a few models then kill them all.

Kallbrand wrote:With no more consolidating into enemies ever.. I see both seekers and fiend suffer from hard rapidfire retaliation after they kill 1 squad tho.. so you rather get locked in combat with a few models then kill them all.

that rule is really going to suck.. especially against shooty armies - they already are pretty cheesey, now they gain even more edge.... that also means Fiend's Hit and Run ability is more useful

Well, it's not just about maximizing attacks it's about maximizing wounds caused.

I'll do this math just as averages for simplicity

seekers:

45 attacks against a typical WS4 T4 profile:
22.5 hits
3.75 rends, 3.75 regular wounds

Fiends

30 attacks
15 hits
2.5 rends, 7.5 regular wounds.

so if the target has a 3+ save, they're identical - average of 5 unsaved wounds. (3.75+1.25, or 2.5+2.5)
Anything worse than a 3+ save and the fiends are better in terms of killin dudes.

So fiends get:
better toughness/survivability
slightly better killing power against most targets

seekers get:
grenades
higher I

I'd still go with seekers - going first is a big deal, and there are better uses for the elite slots (flamers) and not for the fast attack.

lambadomy wrote:Well, it's not just about maximizing attacks it's about maximizing wounds caused.

I'll do this math just as averages for simplicity

seekers:

45 attacks against a typical WS4 T4 profile:
22.5 hits
3.75 rends, 3.75 regular wounds

Fiends

30 attacks
15 hits
2.5 rends, 7.5 regular wounds.

so if the target has a 3+ save, they're identical - average of 5 unsaved wounds. (3.75+1.25, or 2.5+2.5)
Anything worse than a 3+ save and the fiends are better in terms of killin dudes.

So fiends get:
better toughness/survivability
slightly better killing power against most targets

seekers get:
grenades
higher I

I'd still go with seekers - going first is a big deal, and there are better uses for the elite slots (flamers) and not for the fast attack.

There are 3 slots for Elite and it is probably not good idea to go for all flamers but good for 2 slots so generally either crushers or fiends. I think in general fiends will still be chosen out of elite whether it is better than seekers or not....

maybe so. My plan right now with daemons is to run three squads of three flamers, which is only 315 points, and leaves no room for fiends. So I'm putting together a 10 strong squad of seekers. But I agree if the slot doesn't matter to you it doesn't matter. I still think the fact that seekers will almost always either go first or go at the same time makes them the better choice.

Kallbrand wrote:With no more consolidating into enemies ever..

I don't think this is correct, Kallbrand. This thread discusses the topic: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/212123.page

I believe you can't consolidate into EXISTING combats, but you can consolidate into units that are not in combat.

EpilepticMoose wrote:

Kallbrand wrote:With no more consolidating into enemies ever..

I don't think this is correct, Kallbrand. This thread discusses the topic: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/212123.page

I believe you can't consolidate into EXISTING combats, but you can consolidate into units that are not in combat.

I hope that is true.. because if it isnt it is a slap in the face for people who are playing daemons since the majority of the army are HtH

Actually, this rumour now comes from quite a few diffrent sources making it very likeley to be true sadly.. (check both this forum and the other big ones out there)
at least for the demons who will be rapidfire meat.

Kallbrand wrote:Actually, this rumour now comes from quite a few diffrent sources making it very likeley to be true sadly.. (check both this forum and the other big ones out there)
at least for the demons who will be rapidfire meat.

Maybe i should play Tau now instead of chaos daemons :p.

EpilepticMoose wrote:

Kallbrand wrote:With no more consolidating into enemies ever..

I believe you can't consolidate into EXISTING combats, but you can consolidate into units that are not in combat.

This is correct. Units already engaged cannot be consolidated into. Units that are not already engaged are fair game to be consolidated into.


IMO, the Fiends are the better choice. The key to survivability is in the toughnes of the fiends and the timing of the assault. Everyone can agree that unless you can sweep into a second unit at the end of your combat phase, it is a greater advantage to destroy your opponents troops on THEIR turn. That way you have used the protection of being locked in combat during their shooting and can move and assault where you want on your turn. This is also where hit and run plays best. If you do not wipe out or cause the unit you are in combat with to flee on their turn, simply hit and run. You are free to move and assault where you want on your next turn.

As odd as it sounds, too many attacks causing too many casualties can be a problem. If your Seekers with 45 attacks kill 10 marines dead on your charge, but cannot consolidate into another unit and are thus left in the open, they will be finished off on the marine players next turn of shooting. Now spread these kills over your initial assault phase into your opponents assault phase and you are in a much better position. This is where the higher toughnes and multiple wounds comes in to play. If your Fiends charge in with 30 attacks and kill 5 marines, the 5 attacks back will likely only cause 1 wound. This does not diminish the # of attacks available the next round as you do not have to remove the wounded Fiend. You can now wait for your opponents assault phase, finish off the remaining marines, consolidate d6" and move/assault on your next turn. Rinse and repeat.

But what happens if the Seekers and their 45 attacks do not kill all 10 marines. Say they leave 5 alive to attack back, these marines cause at least 2 if not 3 wounds (due to the T3) and the Seeker unit then loses 4 attacks per wound in the next phase.

The grenades are nice, but I think the Hit and Run will be much more useful on the table. Combine that with a higher toughness and strength (don't forget that all those hits that don't rend in 5th will need 3s from the Fiends to wound T4 as opposed to 5s for the Seekers againts the same MEQ) and I think the Fiends are the better choice.

The biggest negative that the Fiends have is that they compete for a spot on the FOC with Flamers.

Zero_Cool wrote:

EpilepticMoose wrote:

Kallbrand wrote:With no more consolidating into enemies ever..

I believe you can't consolidate into EXISTING combats, but you can consolidate into units that are not in combat.

This is correct. Units already engaged cannot be consolidated into. Units that are not already engaged are fair game to be consolidated into.

i do not think that is correct zero. i think you are still basing your assessment on the last set of updates plus the pdf. there have been numerous confirmations from GW employees who actually own a real life print copy of the rulebook that say they altered the rule even further to include all units.

the ruling as i understand it, confirmed by sources claiming to own copies of the 'real' print edition is...

You may not use your consolidate move to contact any enemies. full stop...

This really means very little to top tier competitive play. Any opponent with any aptitude for 40k knows how to space his units out to not get consolidated into. It is likely that every consolidation move that locked you in combat against a skilled opponent was available by his design.

What this rule does is make crappy players a tiny bit better at 40k. It also goes a very long way to streamlining the game rules. It cleans up so many specific junk rules. It's welcome by me.

Shep wrote:

Zero_Cool wrote:

EpilepticMoose wrote:

Kallbrand wrote:With no more consolidating into enemies ever..

I believe you can't consolidate into EXISTING combats, but you can consolidate into units that are not in combat.

This is correct. Units already engaged cannot be consolidated into. Units that are not already engaged are fair game to be consolidated into.

i do not think that is correct zero. i think you are still basing your assessment on the last set of updates plus the pdf. there have been numerous confirmations from GW employees who actually own a real life print copy of the rulebook that say they altered the rule even further to include all units.

the ruling as i understand it, confirmed by sources claiming to own copies of the 'real' print edition is...

You may not use your consolidate move to contact any enemies. full stop...

This really means very little to top tier competitive play. Any opponent with any aptitude for 40k knows how to space his units out to not get consolidated into. It is likely that every consolidation move that locked you in combat against a skilled opponent was available by his design.

What this rule does is make crappy players a tiny bit better at 40k. It also goes a very long way to streamlining the game rules. It cleans up so many specific junk rules. It's welcome by me.

then hth units gets screwed regardless if they get into consolidated combat by design,luck whatever. Doesn't this ruin hth armies like daemons?

shaselai wrote:Doesn't this ruin hth armies like daemons?

No.

If the rule as i quoted it is the correct one... very little will change.

Do not play a demon army if you are basing your ability to win on consolidating into fresh enemy. I have played 13 full sized games so far with demons. I've won more than i've lost. and I have consolidated into fresh enemy exactly 0 times.

Bad players are the only people that are going to be surprised and caught off guard by a 6" consolidate. Everyone else knows that rule and plays accordingly. If you are a good player, then you don't need a tool that can only be used to beat players that are ignorant of the rules.

if you are a bad player, then play a shooty army I guess.

Shep wrote:

shaselai wrote:Doesn't this ruin hth armies like daemons?

No.

If the rule as i quoted it is the correct one... very little will change.

Do not play a demon army if you are basing your ability to win on consolidating into fresh enemy. I have played 13 full sized games so far with demons. I've won more than i've lost. and I have consolidated into fresh enemy exactly 0 times.

Bad players are the only people that are going to be surprised and caught off guard by a 6" consolidate. Everyone else knows that rule and plays accordingly. If you are a good player, then you don't need a tool that can only be used to beat players that are ignorant of the rules.

if you are a bad player, then play a shooty army I guess.

Hmm I think i might have had my warhammer fantasy cap on thinking about consolidating. I guess it matters a lot less in 40k than in fantasy.. Do troops matter a lot in 40k? From the couple of armies i am trying to create the troop section doesn't seem to be heavily used at all and that worries me...

Shep, if that is the rule (no consolidating into units), then my statements regarding Hit and Run and assault timing are even more accurate. Hit and Run becomes very powerful as you can simply choose to pull away from combat at the end of your opponents turn and move/assault on your own turn as you wish. This is also dependant on having models to pull away from combat with and the higher toughness of the Fiends helps with that.

Fiends still get my vote.

I also like the idea of attaching a Herald on a mount to the unit of Fiends.. This allows the Fiends unit - indeed, the most durable slaaneshi squad - to carry an Icon.