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.

You've hit upon a problem for the demon list, lemurking.

Finding a happy medium is indeed quite difficult.

That seems to be the case.

When 5th comes around, I might start dropping 1 DP to add a Grinder with Phlegm. Less accurate but possibly more devastating shooty and better counter assault against hordes than a DP. The list I've been using to some success has a lot of shooting but not enough counter assault to protect the horrors/fateweaver. If it pans well, I may start running 2 Grinders and just 1 Tz DP.

But with all that, still doesn't really solve the "how many horrors is enough horrors". My next experiment will be 2 10-horror squads and 2 5-horror squads and see how it goes.

In the list you posted Stelek, I didn't see any Icons. I tend to run 4, but 100 points is quite a bit of an investment. My last experiment without icons did well, but I was very lucky. Thoughts on the icon-less approach?

I'm thinking that bloodcrushers might be a top unit. They have more offensive capabilities(points comparison) than any other unit in the codex except bloodletters. They are also just about the most durable against most shooting.

40 pts per model, a 5+ Save, and limited range tend to make people look the other way.

On durability.
Compare 2 bloodcrushers(80pts) to 5 plaguebearers(75pts).
Against shooting with AP 4 or worse the bloodcrushers come off only slightly worse than PB's due to iron hide.
Against AP 1 or 2 the BC's lose armour and PB's lose FnP. So again PB's do slightly better.
Its only against AP3 the PB's do much better.

As far as speed goes they are average speed for the list and should be deep striking close anyway.

Your not comparing an Elite choice to a Troop choice are you?

Not the best comparison.

Please make the comparison to one of the Bloodcrushers comrades, for instance, Fiends.

For 10 pts less per model, they have a much wider assault capability which can offset the occassional bad scatter, have rending, and strike before BloodCrushers. Oh, I forgot to mention they have H&R USR and are strength 5. So, what happens most of the time when BloodCrushers assault or get assaulted by Fiends....... they die!

I tried 3 9-man squads with bolt, but I need to test it against a vehicle-heavy force. Hopefully this weekend.

Centurian99 wrote:

The other elite choices (particularly bloodcrushers and flamers), also strike me as exceedingly good.

Indeed. The elites section is a target rich environment. I find both FA and ELITEs to be excellent in this dex.

So far, my best experience with Bloodcrushers has been when I've used them as defensive units. I deepstrike them back or off an Icon close to my largest concentration of forces and use them to protect my shooty elements.

They are not fast enough to really be a great offensive weapon, I'd rather have fiends that are going to get there quick. Crushers are tough, but not tough enough to weather two turns of fire from most armies.

But that has just been my experience.

NotThisTime:

Your not comparing an Elite choice to a Troop choice are you?

Not the best comparison.

Please make the comparison to one of the Bloodcrushers comrades, for instance, Fiends.

The poster is comparing durability only, so it's natural (and useful) for them to choose a unit known for its durability for the comparison.

What would be the point of comparing the durability of BCs with that of Fiends? Obviously the BCs are more durable point-for-point as well as model-for-model.

Ugh the elites in the demonbook are IMO the red herrings of the book.

Care to give reasons for that unsupported assertion?

Elites are red herrings? Being sarcastic again Stelek?

Stelek wrote:Ugh the elites in the demonbook are IMO the red herrings of the book.

Centurian99 wrote:Care to give reasons for that unsupported assertion?

40kenthusiast wrote:Elites are red herrings? Being sarcastic again Stelek?

Edit: And that comment too.

Oh and most of the named GD HQ's are overpriced IMO.

They don't do a whole lot to justify those points is why, for both comments.

Fiends of Slaanesh cost 30 points. If I bring 6 (the max) they cost 180 points.

10 T4 wounds with a 5+ save.

LOTS of attacks.

Do you really want to send in a pair? They won't do enough damage.

If you send in four, odds are you won't have any left when the other guy is done shooting you. One maybe.

If you bring six, you'll probably survive...but what if the other guy instead kills another unit and willingly gives you a unit for you to kill?

He runs in front of you so you can't assault past him, and he fires at a different unit.

Then you kill his unit.

And then you get dead.

So we're back to bringing 'optimal' unit sizes. It's six, frankly. Otherwise people will kill your unit because they fear it so (and rightly so).

What if they decide to let another unit live, and fire at this unit? 10 T4 5+ wounds isn't great for survivability. Even with all of their attacks.

If I bring two chariots, sure I lose alot of attacks--but I want to be able to hit you where I want. They are also more survivable.

Why not bring both, you ask? 180 points for 6 guys with crap saves means you have spent alot of points (400?) and only increased your unit size by 1.

So I opted for more total units (4x Heralds) instead of 2 units people can focus fire on.

Flamers are a joke. They either mishap, or they land and if you can pavane the enemy into perfect position you can blow 'em away.

For 35 points? No thanks. Getting obliterated by enemy rapid fire and assaults because I'm right in the middle of someones army isn't worth throwing away 105-420 points.

They are not better than troops. They make mincemeat of marine saves. So...what? Horrors do that too, in their own way. What happens when you land flamers and annihilate the outer edges of a castle? Oh right, now he can retreat (while killing your flamers) and your non-cav assault troops can't reach anything. So he kills your shooting units, then kills your assault units. How is this good?

Bloodkrushers are amusing. T5, 2 wounds, 3+ save...so they take more firepower. They still die. Think of them as 2x their model count of old school nurgle marines in forest cover. What, you couldn't kill them? REALLY? You know it isn't true. Yes, they were tough. LOL BUT THEY WERE NOT FORTY POINTS EACH!!!! They make me laugh is what they do.

Beasts of Nurgle are just stupid. They have a 5+ 4+. They also die to Ap2 and Ap1 weapons with ease, and only 2 wounds and poison (poison!? lolol) on a S4 model is STILL stupid. 35 points? Why would you take these guys? You bought the 10 spawn set back when apocrap was released? Ok, I understand now. lol

Tegeus-Cromis:

The poster is comparing durability only, so it's natural (and useful) for them to choose a unit known for its durability for the comparison. What would be the point of comparing the durability of BCs with that of Fiends? Obviously the BCs are more durable point-for-point as well as model-for-model.

TG - To quote Patto: "I'm thinking that bloodcrushers might be a top unit. They have more offensive capabilities (points comparison) than any other unit in the codex except bloodletters."

Sounds like he's comparing a bit more than just durability to me. Calling Bloodcrushers a top unit with offensive capabilities is a bit of a stretch! And offensively they do not come close to Fiends. Would you now agree?

NotThisTime

Sounds like he's comparing a bit more than just durability to me. Calling Bloodcrushers a top unit with offensive capabilities is a bit of a stretch! And offensively they do not come close to Fiends. Would you now agree?

Yes they are more dangerous in combat than fiends. WS5 S5 A3 with power weapons. Compare them to the rest of the units in the codex. They get more high strength PW attacks than any unit except bloodletters.

Remember that rending gets nerfed in 5th.


Stelek, don't most of your criticisms of the elite units also apply to all the closecombat units in the codex?
Although I agree on the crapness of beasts of nurgle, bloodcrushers and fiends are more durable than their gods lesser demons.

Most of the elite units feel like buying a different model but getting the same overall effect out of them.

Since troops score and elites can only contest, and alot of people have the lesser demons...why bring elites when the lessers do about the same for you with the added bonus of scoring?

I can't say it will happen, but I hope GW (and the Indy tournament scene) moves away from the simplistic X scoring vs X scoring, and instead of counting them all as 1 or 0...they count the number of scoring versus the number of contesting, and if you pile in 4 vs 3 you can take the objective.

Would certainly make the game more interesting.

Patto:

Yes they are more dangerous in combat than fiends. WS5 S5 A3 with power weapons. Compare them to the rest of the units in the codex. They get more high strength PW attacks than any unit except bloodletters. Remember that rending gets nerfed in 5th.

We will simply agree to disagree Patto. I will gladly take an initiative 5, strength 5, assault 6 model with H&R USR that has a 24 inch threat radius with rending for 10 pts less. Speed and mobility in this game are paramount and that will just simply trump anything BC's can do for me. Strength 5 and those extra attacks offset the mellowing of rending. It really all comes down to how you run your list. To each is own.

Just my 2 cents.

I agree about the beasts of Nurgle, but I think in a unit spam kind of army, a couple small units of fiends could work.

I have not tested it, so I am just spouting off, but there it is.

I like Stelek's idea of changing up the scoring for Indy tournaments. Remember it's our game.

I think fiends and krushers are both useful. Krushers have the added advantage of durability and resiliency, with T5, a 3+/5+ save, and two wounds each. Fiends get the nerfed rending, but their sheer speed plus hit and run seems to give them some use.

The big difference between the two, at least from my perspective, is that I think you need to take multiple squads of fiends for them to be worthwhile. I think that a single squad of Krushers will do alright (at least it has for me so far).

Flamers, of course, are in another category altogether. Pricy, but in my test games, they make for an extremely useful unit.

Krushers aren't actually durable or resilient, as I pointed out.

Play more games against non-marines. Flamers might kill 10 orks, then they die...not so good.

Multiple units of fiends aren't a bad idea, if you want all those points tied up in said units. They have alot of weaknesses against alot of armies.

Stelek wrote:Krushers aren't actually durable or resilient, as I pointed out.

No, you just actually claimed that they weren't durable or resilient. Maybe in the magical realm of Stelek, what's effectively 20 points per T5, 3+/5+ save (more with cover) isn't resilient. Anything can be killed. By your standards anything that's not a 4th ed holofield/spirit stone falcon isn't resilient. Sure, concentrated fire will wipe them out...but that's true for almost any unit. You've generally got to dedicate plasma-level weaponry in their direction...and if you do that, you're surely not firing that at anything else.

Stelek wrote:
Play more games against non-marines. Flamers might kill 10 orks, then they die...not so good.

You know what they say about assumptions. Except that this time, your assumption doesn't make me look like an ass.

Locally, the only player with a Marine army just had a kid...so we see him about once every two months. Nobody else plays MEQs around me...even the Chaos player switched armies.

Stelek wrote:
Multiple units of fiends aren't a bad idea, if you want all those points tied up in said units. They have alot of weaknesses against alot of armies.

The same could be said for any army.

Stelek wrote:Krushers aren't actually durable or resilient, as I pointed out.

Play more games against non-marines. Flamers might kill 10 orks, then they die...not so good.

Multiple units of fiends aren't a bad idea, if you want all those points tied up in said units. They have alot of weaknesses against alot of armies.

I could see jumptroops with invulnerable flamers, when supported, as a wicked concept against MEQS or hordes. They could be particularly good against multiple packs of recently deployed tacs. But again they would have to be supportive- part of the larger wave coming at an opponent.

I said why they weren't durable or resilient.

You haven't refuted this yet.

So what can I say?

You win by ignoring my facts and restating over and over?

Ok.

actually what you said was:

Bloodkrushers are amusing. T5, 2 wounds, 3+ save...so they take more firepower. They still die. Think of them as 2x their model count of old school nurgle marines in forest cover. What, you couldn't kill them? REALLY? You know it isn't true. Yes, they were tough. LOL BUT THEY WERE NOT FORTY POINTS EACH!!!! They make me laugh is what they do.

True, the plague marines were 19 points. They were tough and on a wound by wound basis that puts the crushers at 20 pts per wound. Considering they can move and get full benefit of their 5+ invul that makes them as much if not more resiliant that the plaguemarines (which you admitted were tough)

Name me one unit that doesn't die to concentrated fire.

Ughh the PM have FNP now though...so it strikes me as a bad argument if you rely on the 5+ invulnerable save to save you when it's really just the straight 3+ save that fails you...and without FNP, you die.

That's what I'm trying to get at.

PM don't die to concentrated fire.

Plague marines do die to concentrated fire.
If they can die they die to concentrated fire.

Also they (the crushers) tend to only have to weather one round of fire before they make combat. Plague marines generally take 2+. And the plague marines drop faster in combat while doing significantly less damage.

Also the crushers win out by miles vs ordinance. Plague marines take more wounds with no saves. And now the plague marines don't get any save vs plasma rounds either.

They win out by miles vs ordnance if you roll 4+ on your run roll. Big models, easy to 'partial' onto a whole lot of 'em. PM don't suffer that problem when spread out correctly.

PM don't die to bolters is my point, which seems lost.

Flamers seem good if you:

Summon them off an icon.

Use Pavane to assist them.

True that.

2nd turn stuff doesn't give a guarantee of use is my issue with that plan.