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.

 Lord Sludge wrote:
I agree with the Aussie, you need more boots on the ground.

At least a handful of people have listened to me

You know what makes an army incrementally harder for me, a daemon player, to use my nastys like fiends, flamers and FMC's?

Boots. The more boots, the harder it gets

Kevlar wrote:
Actually the best way to deal with them is a multi-charge. But you would need some cheap throw away units to do that. Get past their overwatch and they die quickly.

Strange that good tactics like these...

...require many boots to accomplish BOOTS. YOU NEEDS THEM. LOTS OF THEM.

Kevlar wrote:

Dezstiny wrote:
I heavily agree samuele999 and with those suggesting gk ss and quisi, if he cant ds next to you, and they deepstrike in a circle, plasma cannon the freakin hell out of them, what that,s 9x 3 plasma cannon wounds, thats one unit of flmaers eeradicated. then the purifiers shooting at the other flamer squad, with the help of the rest of your other units that's 18 of 27 flamers killed, and now he has just 9 left. the problem is that he has 3 squads, 1 squad no problem.

Where do you buy these blessed plasma cannons that always hit, always wound, and always make the enemy fail their save? I could use a squad of those!

you also forgot never get hot.

A lot of these guys have clearly neither played with or against 27 flamers. Please, guys, quit trying to pass bad mathhammer off as good advice.
Plasma cannons suck against them - they are only bunched up for one turn, and it is just too hard to do enough damage - 33% of ALL wounds are ignored. Mass firepower is how you deal with flamers. to kill a squad outright, you will need to put 27-30 wounds on them. (Or 13-15 S8 plus wounds.) That is freaking hard to do, and that deals with one of the three squads.

Do not for get the REST of the daemon army - screamers and FMC's... ...they might not be awesome, but daemons are pretty good again.

Yea, I have had trouble with even one unit of them. I dont run codexes that exactly have the throw away units to spare. Considering it basically costs you two units to try and lock up one unit if you are lucky. One from the flamers killing them, then one from the overwatch.

Multiply this across three units of them and takes hordes to really have that level of attrition.

Also then there is still the other half of his army to deal with.

Also the ones that cant see with their flamers still get 3 shot bolters on top of the flame template

 Inigo Montoya wrote:
..., quit trying to pass bad mathhammer off as good advice. ... you will need to put 27-30 wounds on them. (Or 13-15 S8 plus wounds.) That is freaking hard to do, and that deals with one of the three squads.
.

I love when people knock mathematics and then totally botch the calculations because s8+ means nothing to eternal warrior daemons unless they somehow found FNP

 Inigo Montoya wrote:
A lot of these guys have clearly neither played with or against 27 flamers. Please, guys, quit trying to pass bad mathhammer off as good advice.
Plasma cannons suck against them - they are only bunched up for one turn, and it is just too hard to do enough damage - 33% of ALL wounds are ignored. Mass firepower is how you deal with flamers. to kill a squad outright, you will need to put 27-30 wounds on them. (Or 13-15 S8 plus wounds.) That is freaking hard to do, and that deals with one of the three squads.

Do not for get the REST of the daemon army - screamers and FMC's... ...they might not be awesome, but daemons are pretty good again.

LoL good to see you play against them so much that you know the Entire Daemon Codex Has Eternal Warrior. Most Daemons only have an invul save.

The trick to killing them is truly lots of wounds. That's all, make them roll lots of dice. Be it bolters, flamers, battle cannons. The more wounds you dish out the more will die.

I play against them, not with them. Sorry I don't know their codex. I do know, however, that what I said is exactly true - you kill them with volume of fire. Force as many saves as possible on them to kill them. I also know that you have to put around 30 wounds on a squad to kill it.

I have played against them a lot, I just don't have any S8 shooting so I have little experience with that. I kill them with frfsrf blobs and stormbolters and psycannons.

As a deamon player I would say flamers are broken, no question at 1000 points, less so at 1,999 but at 2,000 they get to double them so..yeah. Broken.

Good job most deamon players are decent people

 calypso2ts wrote:

 Inigo Montoya wrote:
..., quit trying to pass bad mathhammer off as good advice. ... you will need to put 27-30 wounds on them. (Or 13-15 S8 plus wounds.) That is freaking hard to do, and that deals with one of the three squads.
.

I love when people knock mathematics and then totally botch the calculations because s8+ means nothing to eternal warrior daemons unless they somehow found FNP

They no longer have eternal warrior it was not included in the FAQ. It was rewritten to include an invulnerable save and add ‘fear’
So ST 8 will take them out

B wrote:

 calypso2ts wrote:

 Inigo Montoya wrote:
..., quit trying to pass bad mathhammer off as good advice. ... you will need to put 27-30 wounds on them. (Or 13-15 S8 plus wounds.) That is freaking hard to do, and that deals with one of the three squads.
.

I love when people knock mathematics and then totally botch the calculations because s8+ means nothing to eternal warrior daemons unless they somehow found FNP

They no longer have eternal warrior it was not included in the FAQ. It was rewritten to include an invulnerable save and add ‘fear’
So ST 8 will take them out

It states the get the Daemon rule from the codex as well as Fear and a 5++. I suggest you go and give it another read.

Q: Do models chosen from Codex: Chaos Daemons and / or the White
Dwarf, August 2012, Codex: Chaos Daemons official update have the
Daemon special rule from the Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook, or do they
have the Daemon army special rule from Codex: Chaos Daemons?
(p27)
A: All models from Codex: Chaos Daemons and/or the White
Dwarf, August 2012, Codex: Daemons official update have the
Daemon army special rule listed in Codex: Chaos Daemons
with the addition of the Fear special rule from the Warhammer
40,000 rulebook and a 5+ invulnerable save.

IDK, wait till Daemons get a new codex and probably lose the eternal warrior rule?

All I know is the more shots you have the better the chance. Also flying things they are unable to kill.

Assaulting works too, but be sure to double charge with an expendable unit going first, to use up the overwatch. Once you get into CC they're pretty terrible and tend to just be tied up. More boots on the ground improves all these things, and is a good strategy in general. especially when you keep your dudes nicely spread out.

That's why I run 4 cultist squads and only one or two squads of plague marines...

 Meade wrote:
IDK, wait till Daemons get a new codex and probably lose the eternal warrior rule?

All I know is the more shots you have the better the chance. Also flying things they are unable to kill.

Assaulting works too, but be sure to double charge with an expendable unit going first, to use up the overwatch. Once you get into CC they're pretty terrible and tend to just be tied up. More boots on the ground improves all these things, and is a good strategy in general. especially when you keep your dudes nicely spread out.

That's why I run 4 cultist squads and only one or two squads of plague marines...

Maybe, we'll prolly find out in January (Rumoured)

yes there are ways to play around it. The flamers are just part of it though. Screamers are down right nasty themselves. Than flying Daemon Princes. So much fun stuff in the codex that is really hard to deal with.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:


Maybe, we'll prolly find out in January (Rumoured)

yes there are ways to play around it. The flamers are just part of it though. Screamers are down right nasty themselves. Than flying Daemon Princes. So much fun stuff in the codex that is really hard to deal with.

I think if GW bothered to put the daemon rule into the BRB that way it's likely. Not to mention the CSM also losing EW.

Yeah pretty much. The lists used in Feast of Blades with the comms relay and maxed out screamers and flamers look brutal. The OP should thank his lucky stars that his buddy hasn't discovered that yet. Although I read back in the thread and the same stuff said applies to screamers as well, more bodies, bubble wrapping units, dual charging the flamers, etc. more shots will ground the DP's as well. Those tactics and list builds give you a fighting chance at least.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

B wrote:

 calypso2ts wrote:

 Inigo Montoya wrote:
..., quit trying to pass bad mathhammer off as good advice. ... you will need to put 27-30 wounds on them. (Or 13-15 S8 plus wounds.) That is freaking hard to do, and that deals with one of the three squads.
.

I love when people knock mathematics and then totally botch the calculations because s8+ means nothing to eternal warrior daemons unless they somehow found FNP

They no longer have eternal warrior it was not included in the FAQ. It was rewritten to include an invulnerable save and add ‘fear’
So ST 8 will take them out

It states the get the Daemon rule from the codex as well as Fear and a 5++. I suggest you go and give it another read.

Q: Do models chosen from Codex: Chaos Daemons and / or the White
Dwarf, August 2012, Codex: Chaos Daemons official update have the
Daemon special rule from the Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook, or do they
have the Daemon army special rule from Codex: Chaos Daemons?
(p27)
A: All models from Codex: Chaos Daemons and/or the White
Dwarf, August 2012, Codex: Daemons official update have the
Daemon army special rule listed in Codex: Chaos Daemons
with the addition of the Fear special rule from the Warhammer
40,000 rulebook and a 5+ invulnerable save.

I did go look it up and I have to say you are completely right version 1.2 kind of cleared that up. As I was looking i at the breath of chaos it only says armor and cover so I guess invulnerable saves can be taken?

Correct.

Then as for the blood angles, storm shields would be a defense but what I was thinking was the death cult assassin. you get 3 for 120 they act independently so 1 can charge soak up over-watch then then the rest or even another squad.

B wrote:
Then as for the blood angles, storm shields would be a defense but what I was thinking was the death cult assassin. you get 3 for 120 they act independently so 1 can charge soak up over-watch then then the rest or even another squad.

Thought DCA was a Inquisitor Warband thingy in Codex:GK

Depends on which way your group is using Overwatch. Theres an old debate about if you can or cannot overwatch the second + squad if you don't on the first, etc

I have a gamer at the FLGS who runs this 3x9 flamer list and it is tough to beat, only a handful of options. They have been eating my GK for breakfast, saving a LOT more than 33% (even in the last game where he used my dice, he forgot his). Especially with that Fateweaver and the re-rolls. In our last game I blasted away with my IG FRFSRF and did 10 wounds. He saved 9. Then swooped in and blasted 25 models (2 of his units flamed 3 of mine).

What sucked was that only about 7 models were under the templates, each getting hit 3 or 4 times...
The ruling that makes them really broken is that now models in a unit not under a template can be killed. IMHO *that* is the rule that is broken.

 hdbbstephen wrote:
The ruling that makes them really broken is that now models in a unit not under a template can be killed. IMHO *that* is the rule that is broken.

It was the same in 5th edition.
And maybe 4th - don't remember.

B wrote:
Then as for the blood angles, storm shields would be a defense but what I was thinking was the death cult assassin. you get 3 for 120 they act independently so 1 can charge soak up over-watch then then the rest or even another squad.

For BA's, take sang priests as well, we get FNP against breath of chaos. I am planning on running 20 termies against a demon list soon, 15 TH SS (as thats all I have) 5 LC's, then 3 tac squads and DC squad, combat squad the termies into three squads of 5 two with sang priests in termie armour and a HQ in there as well, soak up the overwatch then charge in with the DC as well, that will take care of the flamers and MC's, 24 bolters plus special and heavy weapons to take the rest of his army out, well thats the plan at least!

rigeld2 wrote:

 hdbbstephen wrote:
The ruling that makes them really broken is that now models in a unit not under a template can be killed. IMHO that is the rule that is broken.

It was the same in 5th edition.
And maybe 4th - don't remember.

LOL, I jumped back in straight from 3rd Ed, back then you could only allocate wounds to models under the template. And Flamers were 40 pts, with a Daemonic Aura 4+ save, 2W, with a "shoot flame" attack up to 6" range that did d6 S3 hits to one target. FoCs were different then, too, with 25% of your CSM list able to be allocated to Daemons - which would have limited you to 12 in a 2k pt game.

I am learning a whole new game of 40k here...

The thing with taking thunderhammer terminators to deal with the flamers is screamers. Yes, if he is stacking flamers, it is safe to assume he has a couple of squads of terminator-eating jetbikes as well.

 Inigo Montoya wrote:
The thing with taking thunderhammer terminators to deal with the flamers is screamers. Yes, if he is stacking flamers, it is safe to assume he has a couple of squads of terminator-eating jetbikes as well.

Yes I do...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I have lots of screamers also...

I had the fun of dealing with a deamon list with my graud. It was a 2000 pt game so I had 2 quad guns as well as lots of troopes I ran a mass list of Platoons with ml and gl or autocannon gl , and on 50 man blobwith comisar lord with 5 flamers, he drop and tourch my 30man, 3 ml 3 gl. to a man with the 9 man flamers next turn 1st rank 2nd rank took out one squad buy them self and the flamers hit 4 more from the scremmers. mass fire will ruin thier day all day. next time I am going to split the heavy equiped squads and leave the blob as a target.

I don't get this multiple hits thing, page 16 is hardly relevant, as the way it is written is completely unintelligble.

'As long as a model is in range of the enemy when To Hit rolls were made, he is considered to be in range for the duration of the Shooting attack even if the removal of casualties means that the closest model is out of range.'

Right, the reason for my comment, firstly Template weapons dont use To Hit Rolls which means that the entire rule doesn't apply to them. Secondly the rule uses the word "model" and then the word "he". Grammar would therfore infer that the rule only applies to models and not units. Which makes the rule completely useless. (Had the second part read the unit is considered to be in range then all bets are off...)

As near as I can see/infer, template weapons only hit those models actually covered by the template.

Cheers

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:
Right, the reason for my comment, firstly Template weapons dont use To Hit Rolls which means that the entire rule doesn't apply to them. Secondly the rule uses the word "model" and then the word "he". Grammar would therfore infer that the rule only applies to models and not units. Which makes the rule completely useless. (Had the second part read the unit is considered to be in range then all bets are off...)

As near as I can see/infer, template weapons only hit those models actually covered by the template.

I concur, this needs an FAQ. We took a vote, and I put it to "You make da call" and all say that everybody dies.

Actually, Template weapon placement takes place of rolling to hit. So it can be equivocated to it.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Actually, Template weapon placement takes place of rolling to hit. So it can be equivocated to it.

That was the consensus. Since I have jumped from third ed to sixth, it's a little hard to swallow.

 AndrewC wrote:


As near as I can see/infer, template weapons only hit those models actually covered by the template.

Yes you calculate hits based on the models touched by the template. Then you roll to wound against majority toughness. Then you allocate wounds and make saves using the various wound allocation techniques. Even though you only "hit" those models, you can allocate wounds to any model in the unit that you have Line Of Sight to. Whether or not those models were covered by the template, or even in range of the template does not matter. Just as long as they aren't completely hidden by Line of Sight blocking terrain, or intervening models.

Kevlar wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:


As near as I can see/infer, template weapons only hit those models actually covered by the template.

Yes you calculate hits based on the models touched by the template. Then you roll to wound against majority toughness. Then you allocate wounds and make saves using the various wound allocation techniques. Even though you only "hit" those models, you can allocate wounds to any model in the unit that you have Line Of Sight to. Whether or not those models were covered by the template, or even in range of the template does not matter. Just as long as they aren't completely hidden by Line of Sight blocking terrain, or intervening models.

But thats the point of my observation, the rule that allows you to do so only allows you to 'roll' the hits for those shots where you have rolled to hit. Templates don't roll to hit, which the rule on P16 specifically calls out for. It's a very badly written rule.

Can I ask someone to point out the thread on YMDC where this was polled, because I can't find it. TY.

Oh found it, three people responding is hardly an overwhelming consensus.

Cheers

Andrew