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.

And dont forget you also get HQ buffs like more reroll sources and warpsmith heals.

I've found in my experience that Flesh Hounds are pretty fun against Knights. They aren't infantry so Knights can't do diddly once locked in with them, and their biker base means that they can easily surround a knight, especially positioned correctly with their high movement.

Another good option is oddly enough, the great axe bloodthirster. Give it the +1 invuln and spend 2 CP to pump it to 3++ save, and you'd be suprised how much fire power they'll load into that thing just to take it down, ignoring all your other threats.

 blackmage wrote:

 vaklor4 wrote:
I've found in my experience that Flesh Hounds are pretty fun against Knights. They aren't infantry so Knights can't do diddly once locked in with them, and their biker base means that they can easily surround a knight, especially positioned correctly with their high movement.

Another good option is oddly enough, the great axe bloodthirster. Give it the +1 invuln and spend 2 CP to pump it to 3++ save, and you'd be suprised how much fire power they'll load into that thing just to take it down, ignoring all your other threats.

yes IF you think to face lot of IK's they are decent choice, just bothering keep BT in AiP and spend two extra cp's and then hope in a 9" charge, keep it on table against IK is hazardous regardless of 3++.I still prefer skullreave dp with legendary fighter warlord trait it cant be targeted and damage output is identical if not better, considering the mortal wounds it can deliver

Oh, you absolutely start it on the table. You want it targeted. A distraction carnifex against an IK army needs to be BIG to draw attention.

 gwarsh41 wrote:

 vaklor4 wrote:
I've found in my experience that Flesh Hounds are pretty fun against Knights. They aren't infantry so Knights can't do diddly once locked in with them, and their biker base means that they can easily surround a knight, especially positioned correctly with their high movement.

Another good option is oddly enough, the great axe bloodthirster. Give it the +1 invuln and spend 2 CP to pump it to 3++ save, and you'd be suprised how much fire power they'll load into that thing just to take it down, ignoring all your other threats.

Flesh hounds are on 50mm round bases these days. Still a pretty great model for board control, decent base size, medium cost, and quick. I really need to try out my bloodthirster again now that we have a codex. The great axe one just looks fun. With my luck I'll end up facing an infantry spam army and never swing the axe!

I use Chaos Hounds for my Flesh Hounds, because they're cheaper, and they look far better. This also unfortunatly means all my bases are biker bases And putting them on 50mm would be ridiculous. I also think putting a 15 point model on a 50mm is in itself ridiculous, even though I know they'd do a better job at tarpitting.

 blackmage wrote:
EVERY FW Gd is overcosted, period, 888pt for the Korne one? seriously? 1500 for Tz one?

Funny enough, the Khorne one got hit the least hard out of the 4. Only got a 188 point increase, which in my mind doens't totally break him in half, like how bird boy got obliterated.

 tokugawa wrote:
Has anyone tested the relic "Skullreaver" against the new Imperial Knights?

It works. It works real well. Although, i've found that a CSM axe prince buffed out the butt with psychic buffs is just as effective. That being said, if you want 100% khorne fluff and forgo all psychics, take it for sure, it's almost a NEED against Titans as a Khorne army.

Azuza001 wrote:
I like taking a small Spearhead Detachment of Tsons, a TSon Deamon Prince and 3 Mutalith Vortex Beasts if you want to stick with the pure (ish) deamons idea. Well, they will look like deamons on the table anyways. Mutaliths can really REALLY make Tzeentch Deamons scary.

That's a nice idea, however 3 mutaliths is a bit much...Because just...Yeah. I don't forsee a lot of people dumping that much cash on 3 mono-build monster units.

 rvd1ofakind wrote:
Sadly Tzeentch will never be anything other than a tiny ingredient. If your one army is in chaos, imperium or aeldarii - you will NEVER have a competitive army in the current game(with the one exception of astra militarum, but soup is still better so that's barelly an exception).

The only real full armies in the game right now are:
Astra Militarum
Necrons - suck unless 2+ vaults and because knights
Orks - suck because no codex
T'AU - meh because soups can cover T'AU weaknesses with strengths
Tyranids - suck because knights

This kind of post is a great example of blowing things out of proportion. There is plenty of things that can still place highly in tournaments, and the meta is ever changing. Orks have won plenty from Boy spam, so do they suck because the rest of the army is lacking, or good because they can win handedly off of one troop choice?

 rvd1ofakind wrote:
Blowing things out of proportion? There was ONE ork list in the BAO, there was ONE non-3 vault necron list in the ETC. These armies are doing really bad. The meta only really changes after FAQs or codexes.

Have you seen the Nova invitational lists? It's a joke. Half the players are bringing the same list.

There was more than one I assure you, and I think you're putting a little too much faith into top 10. I'll grant you that a hefty weight of getting a chance at winning a tournament is bringing the best list possible, but the game is random dice based format, with players of varying skill. Just because something shows up greatly for a month doesn't make it the be all end all. It's the hot new thing. The reason half these lists win is because the meta is built around something else and they break in from the side, or their codex gets released and is suprisingly powerful. (Or you play Orks and spam a single troop choice.)

I find that Daemons are not incredibly amazing by themselves, no. But they can turn CSM, Death Guard and T-Sons into tournament contenders when added into a list, which is at least an up in my book. They're a support army, even if I don't like it.

T-sons Daemon Princes are by far the most powerful, but Khorne has the best relics. A skullreaver DP is one of the most points efficient anti-heavy units in the game, while T-sons DPs are just incredibly well rounded and strong.

Which is better, Kairos or LoC?

Rule of 3 my dude, only 3 Renegade Commanders.

Ive found Bloodletters to be hilariously effective on overwatch. I bring a max 30 with instrument and the banner stratagem so their charge out of deepstrike becomes 3d6+1. This allows them to all but ignore most flamers, and in one game allowed me to wipe out a 10 man squad of flamer rubric marines.

Another good option is footslogging flesh hounds. Theyre super fast and are not big threats on board aside from being able to DTW. 75 points nets you 5 bodies and 10 wounds , with relatively laege base sizes (for entangling lots of models!)

 blackmage wrote:
a whole bunch of bl can seriously damage an Ik with bit of luck they can remove it from table, they are maybe the best answer demons have against those big guys.

Well, a Skullreaver DP is actually a way better answer. It has the damage output to ruin a knight in one turn, while you need to get lucky to bring them down with letters.

 blackmage wrote:
Dp cant charge alone it's squishy, you risk a lot in overwatch against a castellan for example.

It probably won't die to overwatch, unless you're incredibly unlucky. It doesn't even need to survive past one charge. It will handedly bring down a Castellan in one assault, and by then it's already pulled more than it's weight. Heck, charge a regular ol' Dominus and you still get double to triple its cost in return.

 lindsay40k wrote:
Is the single turn Knight kill using Frenetic Bloodlust?

With the Skullreaver DP? Nope.

Who said your extra attack has to be talon? An extra attack can be made with any weapon, he just has two weapons to choose from.

*edit* My mistake, you DO need frenetic bloodlust. You can 100-0 an armiger with ease, but you need to fight twice to obliterate the big boys (on average at least. Its 16 wounds average, so it isnt hard to get lucky.)

It is, yes. On average you will only get one d3 mortal wounds, which on average is 2 damage.

Nnnno, the wording is if you have two you can make 3 additional. Your 1 talon with axe/sword grants you nothing except another profile.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mrhappyface wrote:

 vaklor4 wrote:
Who said your extra attack has to be talon? An extra attack can be made with any weapon, he just has two weapons to choose from.

*edit* My mistake, you DO need frenetic bloodlust. You can 100-0 an armiger with ease, but you need to fight twice to obliterate the big boys (on average at least. Its 16 wounds average, so it isnt hard to get lucky.)

Your Maths is a bit off there: the Skullreaver does around 20W to an Imperial Knight with 6 attacks and does around 24W with 7 attacks. My guess is you forgot that the Skullreaver lets you re-roll all to wound rolls against Titanic models.

Ah, my bad! Yeah I forgot. Either way, not a guarenteed KO, but very possible with lucky damage rolls.

I'd go with Skullmaster. I actually find the bigger base to be a larger hassle. Harder to hide behind things, and in general I prefer the stats and powers of the Jugger-Herald more.

weaver9 wrote:
Bloodthrone appears to have higher toughness, wounds and a minor ability to recover wounds.

Any particular reason people suggest the skullmaster?

Because all that means jack diddly when you're hiding a character behind infantry, the skullmaster is faster by 2" (which is a lot), and the Skullmaster actually has a 4+ save, while you have to rely on the 5++ daemonic invuln for the throne.

 mrhappyface wrote:

 vaklor4 wrote:

weaver9 wrote:
Bloodthrone appears to have higher toughness, wounds and a minor ability to recover wounds.

Any particular reason people suggest the skullmaster?

Because all that means jack diddly when you're hiding a character behind infantry, the skullmaster is faster by 2" (which is a lot), and the Skullmaster actually has a 4+ save, while you have to rely on the 5++ daemonic invuln for the throne.

On the other hand, the increased wounds and toughness means your opponent will be unlikely to be able to jump a unit/model so that they are closest to your Herald and insta-kill it.

In my past experiences with both units (I play a LOT of Khorne ) The Blood Throne's absolutely massive base make it far easier to get into contact with it in melee, while the skullmaster is far easier to snug into other units, or even just up against terrain. Also, trust me the Blood Throne still goes down like the berlin wall against any actual competent melee units. It's only got 7 wounds, 7 toughness and a 5++ invuln, which seems nice until you face off against something like a power fist Berzerker captain, who can handedly 100-0 a Bloodthrone, without even fighting twice.

The Khorne one is pretty nice, but ive found very little use for it. In almost every situation ive found that just footslogging my bloodthirsters/skarbrand to be more effective, and all bloodletters/bloodcrushers can get a 3d6 charge for 1 CP.

Tzeentch one is even less useful, it's complicated, hard to keep track of, and just a pain to manage for such a small effect.

I play those two gods, so ill often find myself just mixing them into one detachment. Sometimes ill only want 2 bloodletter squads, so ill take a Brimstones MSU for bubblewrap.

I'd have to agree, until they fix the issue with daemon prince power, you should just drop the LoC and bring more DPs.

Azuza001 wrote:
Ok. But i dont have 30 pink horrors, 20 max on that one. I kinda figured on the loc, but i loved the idea of 2++ saves on it.

Don't get me wrong, the LoC with a 2++ is pretty hilarious, but the damage output and the ability to hide behind chaff that the prince has makes it far better for its points. It can deal roughly the same damage and avoid heavy fire altogether, for half the cost.

 ZergSmasher wrote:
Anybody having any luck with a Bloodthirster at all? I feel like maybe taking one with the Armor of Scorn would work as long as it's not the only big threat, but I'm just having a hard time justifying 340 points for it. It's a shame, as I've got a Bloodthirster of Insensate Rage sitting on my shelf that I had loads of fun painting, and he hasn't hit a table yet in 8th edition.

In my experience, I either bring Skarbrand instead, or just treat it as an anti-tank model. Its 10 morale share is pretty useless most of the time, but its raw melee stats are absolutely worth it. It's also a really decent fire magnet, able to get to 3++ invuln save quite easily with the relic + stratagem. Run him up the board instead of deepstriking to preserve CP (you are already spending 2-4 just to protect him) and watch him mulch just about any tank in the game in one turn, and soak up ridiculous amounts of damage for the rest of your army.

In my opinion, titanic would just make them weaker. There is plenty of stuff that targets titanic keyworded units, and only 2 of the 4 would even really benefit from having it.

So has anyone found literally any use for Bloodcrushers besides mandatory brigade slots? I've tried mathhammering them against bloodletters in pretty much every toughness/wounds/save ratio, and the Letters are always either comparable or better, and the Bloodletters have the benefit of being troops and being harder to kill.

barboggo wrote:
I love how Bloodletters and Skullreaver DPs have become some of the most points efficient units against Knights. Finally Khorne daemons getting some recognition. Too bad Bloodthirsters are still awful. I would buy one in a heartbeat if I knew that it wouldn't just sit on my shelf 100% of the time.

I tend to use Bloodthirsters as a distraction more often than not. I'll take the one with the great axe and charge it up the board, and 99% of the time they'll ignore any backline artillery I have in favor of the giant point sink.