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.

 Brotherjanus wrote:
The biggest issue i see with changing or disregarding the random tables are how the rest of the game is designed. I have found in the past when messing with game rules that unforseen problems pop up. That has always made me leery of messing with anything in this game as i don't know what my change will effect. No matter what, if you change something to benefit yourself (let's face it, that's all that is happening when people want to "fix" a rule they don't like) you end up ruining things for someone else in the group.

I can agree on this for Chaos Boons, Warp Storm Table, etc - changing those only benefits the one player (unless they're both running CSM/DoC). At least with Warlords you both benefit equally.

Im planning on running a slaanesh heavy list with some nurgle splashed in. My 100+ daemonettes and 30+ seekers might actually get to see the tabletop all together for once.

Im curious though about CSM allies. specifically the heldrake. I have come to really like the model but do not own one yet. I have not played against one at all yet either.

Is a solo Heldrake from an allied detachment worth taking or is it one of those where 1 is blah while 3 is OMGOP?

Not sure about HQ for CSM either, any advice?

 keltikhoa wrote:
Im planning on running a slaanesh heavy list with some nurgle splashed in. My 100+ daemonettes and 30+ seekers might actually get to see the tabletop all together for once.

Im curious though about CSM allies. specifically the heldrake. I have come to really like the model but do not own one yet. I have not played against one at all yet either.

Is a solo Heldrake from an allied detachment worth taking or is it one of those where 1 is blah while 3 is OMGOP?

Not sure about HQ for CSM either, any advice?

I think as with any big nasty unit that people fear, you shouldnt send it in alone, make sure it has backup or it will likely be focused and killed. If you take the Chaos birdy maybe fly some DP's with it?

Its hard to say. Your 130 slaanesh models will be in assault on turn 2 or 3. That will limit what your helldrake can toast.

 labmouse42 wrote:
Its hard to say. Your 130 slaanesh models will be in assault on turn 2 or 3. That will limit what your helldrake can toast.

Ahh valid point, and one I cant believe I overlooked lol.

Maybe I will just get one to make look pretty on the shelf then, take up the space my Nettes and Seekers are vacating

 gorgon wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Agreed on hounds, but collar is +2, not 2+.

So usually on a 4+

I went online and ordered a model for Karanak (AoW Cerberus, can't stand the GW derpy one) as soon as I read his entry!

I'm annoyed as I'm using Rackham minis as my regular hounds, so expanding them past 5 is going to be a problem!

Flesh Hounds may not bowl you over at first glance (partly because Seekers look so shiny), but they're sneaky good. Especially with Karanak (Rage), they can throw a ton of S5 wounds on stuff. Seems like there are a number of things like that in the codex...stuff that doesn't jump off the page at first glance but is pretty good in reality.

Lets not forget scouts, which means they will get into combat very quickly, or can even outflank. Should have had acute sense too, but seekers obviously sold less.

After seeing a mostly Slaanesh army go against a GK army and only narrowly lose, I think a Slaanesh/Nurgle mix will be powerful.

Seriously, the GK win was by the narrowest of margins.

Hell, the GK list was tourney proven and the Daemons list was used for the first time.

Obviously more testing needs doing, but at least it's a start against a force that should break us with ease.

I'm going Mono Nurgle though... staying away from Slaanesh.

I have a few questions that someone might be able to shed some light on and I really wish I could ask this of GW.

Furies LD2, why?
Why does most everything Khorne have a 6+ armor save? What purpose does it serve?
Given the choice of demonettes with the lvl 3 loci herald vs bloodletters with a lvl3 loci herald, why would I ever pick bloodletters?
Why would I ever field fateweaver when he has ws 1?
Lesser reward 1, burning blood, why does it say I can't take cover saves if this has solely to do with close combat?
For exalted reward 5, warp tether, for a demon that started on the board, when he comes out of reserve do I have to walk on or can I deep strike it?
In what scenario would I ever use bloodcrushers?

That is all I have for now

 Bodacious2182 wrote:
I have a few questions that someone might be able to shed some light on and I really wish I could ask this of GW.

Furies LD2, why?
Why does most everything Khorne have a 6+ armor save? What purpose does it serve?
Given the choice of demonettes with the lvl 3 loci herald vs bloodletters with a lvl3 loci herald, why would I ever pick bloodletters?
Why would I ever field fateweaver when he has ws 1?
Lesser reward 1, burning blood, why does it say I can't take cover saves if this has solely to do with close combat?
For exalted reward 5, warp tether, for a demon that started on the board, when he comes out of reserve do I have to walk on or can I deep strike it?
In what scenario would I ever use bloodcrushers?

That is all I have for now

I can only answer the Daemonettes vs Bloodletters one, its a question of whether you need rending for TEQ/MCs/Vehicles Av12 or lower. If your not fighting any of these, Bloodletters are the better choice (though with MCs that are T6 withonly a 3+ armor saves, 'Letters are still better), Daemonettes cant get furious charge, so they wounds most things on fours, and their rending is wasted on most infantry units. Bloodletters are S5 on the charge, and wound most infantry on 2+ and MEQ on 3+, and unlike Daemonettes, all of their wounds will deny a save, not just 6s.

Oh and on the subject of Loci, don't take the Lvl 3 Khorne loci, take the level 2 one. Rage is far more useful to them than Hatred, since most of the things you are charging you'll hit on 3s anyway, in which case more actual attacks is preferable.

I'm still struggling with this 6+ armour save thing.

What were they thinking? Were they thinking?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'm still struggling with this 6+ armour save thing.

What were they thinking? Were they thinking?

So you still have SOME kind of save if your ++ gets taken away? Seriously dude, its not that hard to figure out.

Nothing currently can take your ++ away, yet. But realistically the answer is that they have a 6+ save in Fantasy (where you can take your armour and "invulnerable"), so for consistency they have it in 40K as well.

Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
So you still have SOME kind of save if your ++ gets taken away? Seriously dude, its not that hard to figure out.

That fast wooshing noise is the sound of my point sailing over your head at a decent speed.

My concern is why they went from having nice thick brass armour - like Khornate Daemons tend to have - to having Ork armour... and going up in points. They've become Heavy Bolter and Missile Launcher fodder. Hell, a decent volley of Bolter fire will core a unit... and they're 45 points each!!!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
So you still have SOME kind of save if your ++ gets taken away? Seriously dude, its not that hard to figure out.

That fast wooshing noise is the sound of my point sailing over your head at a decent speed.

My concern is why they went from having nice thick brass armour - like Khornate Daemons tend to have - to having Ork armour... and going up in points. They've become Heavy Bolter and Missile Launcher fodder. Hell, a decent volley of Bolter fire will core a unit... and they're 45 points each!!!

If you were only talking about Bloodcrushers you probably should have reiterated that rather than just making a comment 3 pages after anyone had talked about them specifically. But yes, that certainly was an odd decision on their part.

Chrysis wrote:
Nothing currently can take your ++ away, yet. But realistically the answer is that they have a 6+ save in Fantasy (where you can take your armour and "invulnerable"), so for consistency they have it in 40K as well.

Bad Warp storm roll and failed Grimore of True names takes away a normal Daemon's save, its in the codex


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chrysis wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
So you still have SOME kind of save if your ++ gets taken away? Seriously dude, its not that hard to figure out.

That fast wooshing noise is the sound of my point sailing over your head at a decent speed.

My concern is why they went from having nice thick brass armour - like Khornate Daemons tend to have - to having Ork armour... and going up in points. They've become Heavy Bolter and Missile Launcher fodder. Hell, a decent volley of Bolter fire will core a unit... and they're 45 points each!!!

If you were only talking about Bloodcrushers you probably should have reiterated that rather than just making a comment 3 pages after anyone had talked about them specifically. But yes, that certainly was an odd decision on their part.

^ What he said. As for why, because a lot of people bought bloodcrushers last gen, so GW sees no point in keeping them useful. They did the same thing with Nids and the Carnifex

Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:

Chrysis wrote:
Nothing currently can take your ++ away, yet. But realistically the answer is that they have a 6+ save in Fantasy (where you can take your armour and "invulnerable"), so for consistency they have it in 40K as well.

Bad Warp storm roll and failed Grimore of True names takes away a normal Daemon's save, its in the codex

They don't take it away, they make it 1 worse. Or at least the Grimoire does. So they'd be at a 6++ after.

EDIT: Scratch that, misread. Yes, if both happen at the same time they'd lose the save. Didn't remember the existence of that option on the Warp Storm chart.

Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:

Chrysis wrote:
Nothing currently can take your ++ away, yet. But realistically the answer is that they have a 6+ save in Fantasy (where you can take your armour and "invulnerable"), so for consistency they have it in 40K as well.

Bad Warp storm roll and failed Grimore of True names takes away a normal Daemon's save, its in the codex

Doesn't remove it, it makes it worse (5++ to a 6++)

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:

Chrysis wrote:
Nothing currently can take your ++ away, yet. But realistically the answer is that they have a 6+ save in Fantasy (where you can take your armour and "invulnerable"), so for consistency they have it in 40K as well.

Bad Warp storm roll and failed Grimore of True names takes away a normal Daemon's save, its in the codex

Doesn't remove it, it makes it worse (5++ to a 6++)

COMBINED they remove the ++ save entirely.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'm still struggling with this 6+ armour save thing.

What were they thinking? Were they thinking?

There may be upcoming books that are capable of removing or ignoring invulnerable saves, would be my best bet.

 BryllCream wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'm still struggling with this 6+ armour save thing.

What were they thinking? Were they thinking?

There may be upcoming books that are capable of removing or ignoring invulnerable saves, would be my best bet.

Vindicare already does but only from wargear, so Chaos Daemons are exempt

Don't forget that a 5++ within a Nullzone (forcing to reroll successfull invo saves) is worse then a 6+ normal save.
As long as the weapon didn't have an AP ofcorse.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'm still struggling with this 6+ armour save thing.

What were they thinking? Were they thinking?

They are going to gauge the sales of the Bloodcrushers, and if they're weak, they will say it's a "Misprint" and give it back some kind of save.

And in a chariot, you have a 5+ save!!!

The Bloodletter has no armour, so its not really surprising.

However, the model still doesn't feel quite right. 30-35pts, T5 and normal movement + hammer of wrath would probably better reflect it, and stop it competing directly against all the other fast cavalry options in the book.

The odds of planets aligning such that a bloodletter loses its 5++ are so miniscule as to be not worth considering. And then you remember 90% of the weapons ignore the puny 6+ save and begin to question the competence of the authors.

Furies LD2, why?

So that they can take full advantage of the instability mechanic, where full advantage = fool around. The moment they don't wipe out their foes, they're dead meat. Kelly though it hysterical, I guess.

Why does most everything Khorne have a 6+ armor save? What purpose does it serve?

Explained above. Be thankful it doesn't say "Undead" instead.

Given the choice of demonettes with the lvl 3 loci herald vs bloodletters with a lvl3 loci herald, why would I ever pick bloodletters?

Because you like Khorne. Or you're up against multiple marine armies, against which 'letters are somewhat better, though can't do much against their vehicles or 2+. Plus 'letters paint faster than 'nettes, so you can buy more boxes sooner.

Why would I ever field fateweaver when he has ws 1?

Because the designers though it funny to have an MC that shrinks from close combat. So better keep it out of it. Oh, and it's fluffily cinematic.

Lesser reward 1, burning blood, why does it say I can't take cover saves if this has solely to do with close combat?

Because it's a codex made with the 7th edition in mind.

For exalted reward 5, warp tether, for a demon that started on the board, when he comes out of reserve do I have to walk on or can I deep strike it?

Wait for it to be FAQ'd on Saturday, along with point costs.

In what scenario would I ever use bloodcrushers?

You've already been duped by GW to buy the models and don't have the money to buy extra models to hit the points allowance.

Bloodcrushers being crap sucks I have 9 plastic ones and the metal herald. I am glad they came out with a new codex, I should be able to get decent money for my army if I decide to sell. At least I had 3 soul grinders already.

Lol good answers! I think I will run a simulation of demonettes vs bloodletters. I hypothesize for the points cost and the availability ability to always re-roll potentially rending hits is better against MeQ, especially in susbsequent combat. If bloodletters had 2 base attacks or came built in with rage and the ability to purchase a re-rollor something that might be different.

This is why you need the herald with greater loci running with your letters to give them rage. Another fun idea I read in an article is to run the army similar to the way you did with daemonic assault. Reserve half your army, deploy all your fast, ie seekers with icon/instruments, run upfield, 2nd turn roll reserve and hope to drop the other half your army in the enemy deployment zone with Skarbarand, assault and profit.

I know I keep going on about this, but I am just totally mistified by this decision.



I want everyone to cast their minds back to 2001. In 2001 GW released the 3rd Ed Tyranid Codex (can you believe we've had 3 Tyranid Codices in 12 years?). On page 8 of that book we saw the rules for the Venom Cannon; a fearsome weapon that anyone who played Tyranids in 2nd Ed knew was the staple of our heavy-weapon barrage. We didn't do much shooting, us Tyranid players, but we made that silly mutli-barrage template thingy count!

Anyway, on that page it had the following fluff:

"A target struck by the venom cannon is either killed by the impact of by corrosive fragments from the poison crystals when they shatter. Even vehicle armour can be penetrated by the crystals, leading poisoned crew members and shattered equipment, although the lack of explosive impact reduces lethality."

Two lines later it says the following:

"Note: A venom cannon can only achieve glancing hits against vehicles”

So much for penetrating vehicle armour, as the fluff tells us.

Now I laughed at this, but it was a singular instance of fluff directly contradicting rules within a paragraph. I didn't think we'd get something so blatantly silly ever again.



I just got the Daemon Codex, and it appears that even in 2001 I was speaking too soon.

Codex: Daemons (6th Edition), page 30:

"Small arms fire patters harmlessly from its hide, only serving to enrage the daemonic beast further. Only the heaviest weapons have a chance of piercing its armoured skin and by the time such weapons are brought to bear, it is usually too late."

No, you're wrong; this isn't the entry for the Soul Grinder. It's the entry for the Bloodcrusher, the unit that just went from having a 3+ save to having a 6+ save. I'm sorry, but this has to be a mistake. This does not compute.

I wonder when people will realize that the whole reason something becoming extremely popular is because it is decidedly unbalanced, and any attempts to correct that imbalance will result in the unit being less popular.

Or its a great conspiracy theory by the company that produces plastic toy soldiers to force you to buy more of their product...something like that

Bloodcrushers being crap sucks I have 9 plastic ones and the metal herald. I am glad they came out with a new codex, I should be able to get decent money for my army if I decide to sell. At least I had 3 soul grinders already.

Calvary is one of the best unit types in the game now. Comparing them to similarly priced unit, like a Term, they are slightly less resilient to some things (bolters) and more resilient to other things (Plasma). The only weapon profile they really suffer against compared to Terms is S8 AP3 or worse. Most of the lamenting about the Bloodcrushers completely ignores what they gained and focuses only on what they lost, typical, but certainly not very useful.