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.

I saw the stuff on the US site. I love it how the fluff has been so casually thrown to the wind. Khorne Themed Armies with Blood Thirsters, Khornate Heralds, Blood Letters and... Seekers of Slaanesh.

*sigh*

BYE

Rending is handy for anything T8+ on the letters as well as giving the unit a chance against vehicles.

I haven't gotten the fantasy book yet.. how is that? Will single god armies work better there than 40K?

I'm planning to get some plaguebearers to add as apoc allies for my csm force (using plaguebearer rules not generic summoned demons), but I plan to keep em on square bases for WFB too..

but since you can't ally in WFB now so that means I can't add new demon stuff to my beastmen.. but if I were to to do a demon army in fantasy, I think I'd like it to be all or mostly nurgle. Maybe I can throw in some furies, or have a couple of khorne things mixed in. I also don't like how if I did a nurgle army, it would be all metal :/

swize1 wrote:

yakface wrote:

whitedragon wrote:What are "offensive" and "defensive" grenades?

According to the leaked PDF:

Offensive grenades (frag, plasma, etc) allow attackers to strike at normal initiative when assaulting models in cover (in 5th edition assaulting through cover drops the attacker's Initiative to 1 instead of boosting the defenders Initiative to 10).

Defensive grenades (Photon) denies attacking models the +1A bonus for charging.

I found it odd that the codex includes these wargear items that are essentially unplayable until the 5th edition rules hit.. but included rending as THE upgrade option for the khorne units.. an option that becomes all but pointless in 5th edition on models that already have power weapons.

Or, could this possibly be an indication that rending is not getting nerfed as much as rumoured?

That's kinda what I was getting at by asking about the grenades.

BeefyG wrote:Rending is handy for anything T8+ on the letters as well as giving the unit a chance against vehicles.

Well, that's why I wrote "all but" pointless..

Still seems like a very poor choice for the only upgrade option available to the Khorne units, a very small chance that one model will be able to do a little something against a walker or a C'Tan/Wraithlord. Though I guess it makes somewhat more sense in this army that a khorne unit might get assaulted by one of those given the unpredictable nature of daemon deployment. Unholy might or Death Strike would probably have been much more viable options though.

I guess I'm just annoyed in general.. I like the daemon codex a lot, except for the fact that the choice of squad upgrades are not great across the board. Transfixing gaze doesn't seem nearly as helpful for slaaneshi daemons as unholy might might have been, and I would have prefered daemonic gaze to bolt of tzeentch for tzeentch horrors, while the screamers could have used bolt to enhance their anti-tank roll a little bit instead of the rather useless unholy might one one model.

Ok, I really do like the codex otherwise, so I'm done complaining..

yakface wrote:The GWUK site is often behind the times.

Am I the only one who finds that so deliciously tragic?

BYE

I have a question regard the Soul Grinder entry in the 40K Daemon codex.

Under the statline for the Soul Grinder they have a Strength value of 6. In the detail section of the entry the text indicated they have Dreadnought Close Combat Weapons. I thought DCCW would bump up the strength to 10? This is normally the case with Dreadnoughts and we normall see the Strength in the stats section listed as 6(10) or something similar to that.

Am I missing something here?

I believe the Ork codex did the same thing, just list the model's regular Strength value.

Dreadnought close combat weapons still double their strength up to 10 as long as you have one still though.

I'm glad they stopped doing that. There is little point having a general rule for DCCWs if they're going to explain what it does whenever they give it to a unit.

Simplicity? convenience? keeping disputes to a minimum?

Ever had anyone dispute the idea that a PF user doubles its strength?

Only when arguing its effect on living metal. Whats your point?

My point is that if people have no problems remembering what PFs do without being reminded every time a unit has or can have a PF, the same should be true of DCCW.

Of course by that logic we don't need stats for bolters, heavy bolters, flamers, autocannon, missile launchers, tanks, skimmers, gauss cannon, lasguns, fusion guns, etc. etc. After all, if people have no problems remembering what P fists do, then the same should be the same for them.


Nuts.

Obviously people can't be expected to memorise every stat. They can, however, be expected to remember general special rules listed in the BGB, and if they can't, they can go and check. This is why the Eldar codex can simply tell us that fusion guns have the "Melta" attribute, a Scorpion's Claw acts as a "power fist," and so on. There is no need to tell us that the Exarch with Claw will be S3(6), because we know this from simply going to the rulebook to check what a "power fist" is. Likewise, there's no need to tell people that a Soulgrinder is S6(10) when they can simply look up what a "Dreadnought close combat weapon" is instead.

Not necessarily. Only certain codexes have dreadnoughts. Its not an issue that pops up that often. I don't want to have to thumb around to try to find it if I don't have to. (edited for being overly harsh) If it causes you no harm, why are you interested one way or another?

Codices which use DCCWs:

Orks
SMs and derivatives
CSMs
Daemons
WHs
DHs
DE

Codices which don't use DCCWs:

Eldar (but they did in 3rd ed)
IG
Tau
Necrons
Nids

Am I missing any?

Really, it is your business to know what a DCCW is, just as it is your business to know what a smoke launcher is (or care enough to check the rulebook if you don't) or what "jump infantry" are.

Sure this one instance doesn't do me or anyone else any harm. If GW were to apply your principle consistently, however, it would add a large amount of clutter. That's why I'm glad they've decided to move in the other direction and rationalise things somewhat in recent codices. The DCCW thing is just one example of this.

Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

whitedragon wrote:What are "offensive" and "defensive" grenades?

I don't know, but I find the idea of a grenade that defends offensive!

Awesome starship trooper quote. Daemons are cool - the difference is nice.

As to the weakness of the daemon version of lash - it is weaker because they don't need a psychic test and it can't be stopped with a hood. It just counts as a "regular" shooting attack. The slaanesh herald can use it 3 times on different units - trust me when I say it isn't "nerfed".

Also, in 5th, the run rule really helps lash not be too brutal (still good mind you, but not "all that")

tegeus-Cromis wrote:Codices which use DCCWs:

Orks
SMs and derivatives
CSMs
Daemons
WHs
DHs
DE

Codices which don't use DCCWs:

Eldar (but they did in 3rd ed)
IG
Tau
Necrons
Nids

Am I missing any?

Really, it is your business to know what a DCCW is, just as it is your business to know what a smoke launcher is (or care enough to check the rulebook if you don't) or what "jump infantry" are.

Sure this one instance doesn't do me or anyone else any harm. If GW were to apply your principle consistently, however, it would add a large amount of clutter. That's why I'm glad they've decided to move in the other direction and rationalise things somewhat in recent codices. The DCCW thing is just one example of this.

Again why? It hasn't been a rpbolem in the past, why would it be a problem now? In actuality it annoys the when I have to go thumbing through back to the USR. I pay a godawful amount of money for these things and the least that can be done is have it complete. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Well no, we don't really have to, because I don't think we are exactly clawing each other's eyes out now, right? I'm sure there is room to explore this further. What I'd like to know is whether you think things like smoke launchers, frag grenades, power fists and the Hit & Run USR ought to be repeated in full wherever they occur. If not, why not, and why is your answer different when it comes to DCCWs?

My only problem are glaring silly things like the Herald of Nurgle having the option of +1S.... Something absolutely useless with plague swords and noxious touch available.

In 5th edition, if your S is higher than the target's T poisoned weapons allow you to use normal wounding rules and re-roll any failed to-wound rolls.

I find the codex way to random to be an effective army. And it's full of John Blanche puke art. As in John Blanche puked on paper and said "Look! A daemonette!".

And there are way, way to many Special Characters in that book. Why take a herald of slaanesh when the masque is better than anything you can build and not very expensive. And epideimius costs like a chaos lord with a power sword - but he's worth way more than that to a Nurgle army.

yeah, some of the artworks looks like 2nd edition to me, but the ugly thing is, it isn't....

Noisy_Marine wrote:I find the codex way to random to be an effective army. And it's full of John Blanche puke art. As in John Blanche puked on paper and said "Look! A daemonette!".

And there are way, way to many Special Characters in that book. Why take a herald of slaanesh when the masque is better than anything you can build and not very expensive. And epideimius costs like a chaos lord with a power sword - but he's worth way more than that to a Nurgle army.

The Masque isn't an IC?

And I think epideimius is being somewhat overrated.

I can't wait to get it myself. The only thing I like better than John Blanche Puke Art is Art That John Blanche Toiled Over For Months.

I enjoyed the fluff in the new Daemon 'dex, especially the sections about Nurgle and the descriptions of the realms of the chaos gods (the maze of Tzeench is awesome).

I found Nurgle to be a much more interesting god after reading his fluff...