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.

Lack of fly seems to be Slaanesh's biggest weakness right now. The question is, can they compensate for that with their insane infantry-shredding shenanigans? No need to fly past the screen if the screen is dead.

rhavien wrote:
So we now have a way to loose 8 attacks on a model and we can replace the sword of a KoS to make it straight worse with our relics. Guess slaneesh would be proud cause of the self tormenting...

I'd argue the Soulstealer relic is less of a downgrade and more of a sidegrade. Namely because healing is a strong ability and horde munching is still an option.

That aside, I feel like it xould have been intentional to keep the Heralds on the Epitome from getting upgraded just because of how strong the model is already. Letting us also stack even better attacks onto the thing might have been broken.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 slave.entity wrote:
Lack of fly seems to be Slaanesh's biggest weakness right now. The question is, can they compensate for that with their insane infantry-shredding shenanigans? No need to fly past the screen if the screen is dead.

We can still take Daemon Princes to fly with, but yes, we lack in the ability to just hop overdo screens otherwise.

there are also Furies

 warmaster21 wrote:
there are also Furies

Hate the models, and their stats aren't that good for their points. I suspect they only still exist because GW has a big stock of them in a warehouse somewhere.

And Raptors.

Which synergize well with our Ld de-buffs.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 warmaster21 wrote:
there are also Furies

Hate the models, and their stats aren't that good for their points. I suspect they only still exist because GW has a big stock of them in a warehouse somewhere.

Furies are getting new models in warcry it seems and they look awesome

 Excommunicatus wrote:
And Raptors.

Which synergize well with our Ld de-buffs.

While true, those are allies and not inside of our codex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rydria wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 warmaster21 wrote:
there are also Furies

Hate the models, and their stats aren't that good for their points. I suspect they only still exist because GW has a big stock of them in a warehouse somewhere.

Furies are getting new models in warcry it seems and they look awesome

Maybe they'll fix their stats and rules too, but I won't hold my breath.

 Sersi wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ArmchairArbiter wrote:

 Rydria wrote:

rhavien wrote:
Fellow Slaanesh followers. Is there anything keeping us from giving the Epitome the slothful claws? It's labeled as a Herold of slaneesh and it got ravaging claws that get replaced.

The slothful claw doesn't have the special rules to let you do the 8 bonus attacks so this seems like an awful idea.

I think that’s wrong. It says you can use the 2 herald attendants attacks, “make 8 additional attacks using this weapon profile”

The weapon profile is simply replaced by the slothful claws profile and rules. Ergo it would still function the same.

I feel like that needs a FAQ since it could be intentional that they didn't give the model 8 attacks and giving the tentacles "make two additional attacks with this weapon".

Besides, I feel like the Forbidden Gem is better since you can use it for some key character assassination.

Exactly this, the additional attacks are a part of that weapons profile, just in the same way the bonus attack from chainswords are a part of the weapon profile.

I've found that the forbidden gem is amazing as well. Shutting down a characters ability to fight, or alternatively flee from combat is great.

RAW you can replace the Ravaging Claws with the Slothful Claws but you would loose the 8 bonus attacks, and would not be able to attack with the relic as the Heralds have no attack profile. So, it needs an FAQ that will of-course never get done. So, forbidden Gem it is then.

I think RAI is pretty clear. It's just stuck in the weapons profile for ease of use probably and to separate it from the mirror itsself. Ravaging claws are a standard piece of equipment heralds have, it's listed in the datasheet as the melee weapon along with the coils. The slothful claws just replace the weapon. They probably should have put it in the general rule section - but I think the logic is it pointing to the weapon profile to use... I think they simply wanted to clarify it's specifically for those weapons (and made it nice and printable on the little pamphlet).

Essentially it's just a rule that let's the two heralds on top of it get their normal attacks, just like how every other chariot in the army functions. To assume putting slothful claws on them removes the function of how, essentially, half of our none HQ units function is a little out there. We just haven't run into it as an issue because they have used Piercing Claws instead but the intent is always clear.

I get everyone's point on this... just seems silly to me when the intent is clear. Suppose FAQ is needed at this point. I think this is going to be another one of those "We are confused this was a question" deals. Same issue with people trying to lawyer that Syll'Esske can't use their second attack if they are in base to base contact as it requires the model to move. (Think that's been FAQed at least) ...again, the intent is clear but people are ridiculous with their toy soldiers and trying to gain any advantage, spirit of the game be damned.

If intent was clear we wouldn't be having this discussion though.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
If intent was clear we wouldn't be having this discussion though.

I suppose. Thankfully my regular wargaming community agrees with me after some discussion so I will be playing it as still getting the 8 attacks with the slothful claws until we get clarification.

A good compromise would perhaps be gaining 4 attacks with the relic and 4 as normal representing one of the heralds using the special claws.

If the RAW doesn't seem to work then best way to play is how is the way that makes most sense, I assume only one of the heralds gets the relic so only one attacks with it.

ArmchairArbiter wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
If intent was clear we wouldn't be having this discussion though.

I suppose. Thankfully my regular wargaming community agrees with me after some discussion so I will be playing it as still getting the 8 attacks with the slothful claws until we get clarification.

Well, the other issue with your RAI interpretation is that there are two Heralds who technically only have 4 attacks each; and they obviously can't both take the same relic. It's cool you gaming group lets you play it that way. As I doubt we'll get clarification and if we do it won't be allowed unless they add an attack profile for the Heralds.

Honestly I have to say that I was a bit surprised and then very annoyed when I found that the Infernal Enrapturess is a Herald but not a Psyker. She's this close to being a straight upgrade over a Herald, but instead she feels like a side grade. Her lack of the Locus of Slaanesh is equally odd as a 1 in 6 shot at getting back a model is not a good replacement for buffing Strength for nearby models.

It's almost like they're two different unit options, both meant to provide a different (but still useful) benefit to the army rather than something that is just unequivocally better than another option.

I think she is a mixed bag. She's messing with enemy psykers and has some shooting. But to be honest, a single S8 shot won't change the tide of the battle much. If you are fighting an army that hasn't psykers at all, her perils on doubles is wasted from the start. She also has only 2 attacks and this is what really annoys me. Also I think we are punished, because of slaneesh holy number is 6. GW seems to be thinking that it would be ultra cool if any abilities trigger on 6s when slaneesh is involved.
I really love the model and I've one in my list right now, but I would prefer a little boost or a slight point reduction. Would be cool if she had two songs to play.

Would be cool if she didn't cost the same money as fifteen Daemonettes.

When I saw the model I planned on running two but I've since cut that back to one because she just falls short of being a real strong support HQ.

As it stands she'a just "okay".

I'm a bit out of the loop due to the amount of fun I've been having with Blood Bowl, but what does a decent Nurgle-centric army look like these days? A whole bunch of Plaguebearers/Daemon Princes/Nurglings I assume, but is there anything else? Worth taking the Gnarlmaws and Drones, or just use the battallion on Bloodletters etc instead?

Death guard vehicle/daemon engine allies work well.
Pure nurgle daemons has problems with being too slow and being unable to clear chaff efficiently.
Plaguebearers are the core of the current meta daemon soup lists in quantities of 30, 60, or 90.
Poxbringers are essential for casting miasma.
Nurgle daemon princes and nurglings are good but they are optional and interchangeable with competitive units from other factions.
Drones are not bad but generally outclassed by plaguebearers.
Gnarlmaws are too expensive for what they do unless you're running a silly number of plaguebearers.
Bloodletters are good and are somewhat interchangeable with pink horrors and tzaangors in terms of chaff-clearing ability, though there are definitely meaningful tradeoffs between those three units.

It doesn't make sense to compare bloodletters to drones/gnarlmaws because they do completely different things.

Cool, thanks for the rundown. What I mean is, given that I can only use 3 detachments, is it worth giving one up for a fortification network, or am I better off using that detachment for something killier?

 Vomikron Noxis wrote:
Cool, thanks for the rundown. What I mean is, given that I can only use 3 detachments, is it worth giving one up for a fortification network, or am I better off using that detachment for something killier?

Having played with a Gnarlmaw...

Not worth it. 4+ Armor is nice, for T1, but not a big deal.
Advance and Charge is great-if there's something in range. There usually isn't, for Plaguebearers. Even with a Scrivener (who I would HEARTILY recommend!) and Instrument, they move 5+2+1+d6 inches before charging 2d6+1. That's 11.5" on average-you have better than even odds of not even being able to ATTEMPT the charge into the enemy DZ.

Nurglings are great, though. Fantastic at tying stuff up, and either they shoot small arms at them (making them last for a LONG time) or they shoot big guns, and then the big guns aren't targeting anything more important.

Disagree that Nurglings are interchangeable, amongst all chaos they’re pretty much a uniquely capable pregame screening/objective grabbing unit.

Gnarlmaw isn’t brilliant in a pure Daemons list but when you add Obliterators and Plagueburst Crawlers to Nurgle soup it’s a game-changer. 0+ saves? Fall back and shoot with plaguespitters?

Fringe benefits include Blight-haulers advancing to try to get their multi-meltas within half range, Defilers double-advancing via Warptime and then making a T1 charge (taking a cheeky shot with their guns on the way - twin heavy flamer might be interesting here), and lucky Plague Drones pulling a T1 charge (budget a couple of re-rolls if you want to make this work), and the rerolls enabling a Master of Possession to cast Incursion and drop a GUO 9” from the enemy on T1.

The Warptime & Advance trick can be pretty interesting with Possessed, as well. Strong potential for enveloping the enemy, and a 1+ save if you lose first turn. DG can bring a Blightbringer for solid advances and some nasty spells. Alternatively, CSM Possessed can benefit from some interesting Dark Apostle prayers and specialist detachment Stratagems.

Nurglings are often MVPs in every list I use that runs them, but there are plenty of list archetypes that don't need them.

I suppose interchangeable isn't exactly the right word, but I don't consider them a core competitive unit like plaguebearers or the different flavors of daemon princes. For example, DG bloat drones can roughly fill the same role in providing you with board control as well as an annoying front line screening unit. There are of course tradeoffs but the point is you can get away with not running Nurglings in a competitive daemons-focused list.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Vomikron Noxis wrote:
Cool, thanks for the rundown. What I mean is, given that I can only use 3 detachments, is it worth giving one up for a fortification network, or am I better off using that detachment for something killier?

Having played with a Gnarlmaw...

Not worth it. 4+ Armor is nice, for T1, but not a big deal.
Advance and Charge is great-if there's something in range. There usually isn't, for Plaguebearers. Even with a Scrivener (who I would HEARTILY recommend!) and Instrument, they move 5+2+1+d6 inches before charging 2d6+1. That's 11.5" on average-you have better than even odds of not even being able to ATTEMPT the charge into the enemy DZ.

Nurglings are great, though. Fantastic at tying stuff up, and either they shoot small arms at them (making them last for a LONG time) or they shoot big guns, and then the big guns aren't targeting anything more important.

I have to disagree re the Gnarlmaw. I think its mandatory if you're running 60+ plaguebearers in a mono-codex list. With a scrivener, you might not be in range for T1 charges (or you might be), but you are definitely there for T2, and the ability to fall forward and charge further on T3/4/5. If you start needing detachments for other codexes (Thousand Sons) then maybe don't take one, but even CSM (Obliterator) or Death Guard (plagueburst crawlers) allies benefit greatly from it.
My typical games running 90-120 plaguebearers, I daisy-chain back to the Gnarlmaw (only 1 model needs to be in range to gain advance/fall back + charge) and have strings of plaguebearers over the entire board grabbing objectives and tying the enemy in combat. The tree is MVP and my opponents curse its name.

Trasvi wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Vomikron Noxis wrote:
Cool, thanks for the rundown. What I mean is, given that I can only use 3 detachments, is it worth giving one up for a fortification network, or am I better off using that detachment for something killier?

Having played with a Gnarlmaw...

Not worth it. 4+ Armor is nice, for T1, but not a big deal.
Advance and Charge is great-if there's something in range. There usually isn't, for Plaguebearers. Even with a Scrivener (who I would HEARTILY recommend!) and Instrument, they move 5+2+1+d6 inches before charging 2d6+1. That's 11.5" on average-you have better than even odds of not even being able to ATTEMPT the charge into the enemy DZ.

Nurglings are great, though. Fantastic at tying stuff up, and either they shoot small arms at them (making them last for a LONG time) or they shoot big guns, and then the big guns aren't targeting anything more important.

I have to disagree re the Gnarlmaw. I think its mandatory if you're running 60+ plaguebearers in a mono-codex list. With a scrivener, you might not be in range for T1 charges (or you might be), but you are definitely there for T2, and the ability to fall forward and charge further on T3/4/5. If you start needing detachments for other codexes (Thousand Sons) then maybe don't take one, but even CSM (Obliterator) or Death Guard (plagueburst crawlers) allies benefit greatly from it.
My typical games running 90-120 plaguebearers, I daisy-chain back to the Gnarlmaw (only 1 model needs to be in range to gain advance/fall back + charge) and have strings of plaguebearers over the entire board grabbing objectives and tying the enemy in combat. The tree is MVP and my opponents curse its name.

See this was my thinking as well actually. I've got three Gnarlmaws so I might give it a shot. What does the rest of your list look like?

 Vomikron Noxis wrote:
I have to disagree re the Gnarlmaw. I think its mandatory if you're running 60+ plaguebearers in a mono-codex list. With a scrivener, you might not be in range for T1 charges (or you might be), but you are definitely there for T2, and the ability to fall forward and charge further on T3/4/5. If you start needing detachments for other codexes (Thousand Sons) then maybe don't take one, but even CSM (Obliterator) or Death Guard (plagueburst crawlers) allies benefit greatly from it.
My typical games running 90-120 plaguebearers, I daisy-chain back to the Gnarlmaw (only 1 model needs to be in range to gain advance/fall back + charge) and have strings of plaguebearers over the entire board grabbing objectives and tying the enemy in combat. The tree is MVP and my opponents curse its name.

See this was my thinking as well actually. I've got three Gnarlmaws so I might give it a shot. What does the rest of your list look like?

Trasvi wrote:

I wouldn't go 3 Gnarlmaws - With the updated points cost 1 is enough and doesn't take too much away from the list.

The list is basically:
---This part is the core of the list
Gnarlmaw
Poxbringer
3x 30 Plaguebearers
Khorne Prince (Skullreaver)
Sloppity Bilepiper
Spoilpox
30 Bloodletters
--- the half below you can swap out to suit your needs
Nurgle Prince
Nurgle Prince
30 Plaguebearers
10 Brimstones


Its... not a list to make friends with. But I've had some very good competitive success with it. With the changeable part you can go different supporting characters, more bloodletters, even more plaguebearers, or pink horrors with a herald.

Ouch, looks pretty brutal! How do you organise it? The whole Force Organisation chart is a bit confusing to me these days as I haven't yet touched 8th Edition at all, so any pointers would be much appreciated!

Trasvi wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Vomikron Noxis wrote:
Cool, thanks for the rundown. What I mean is, given that I can only use 3 detachments, is it worth giving one up for a fortification network, or am I better off using that detachment for something killier?

Having played with a Gnarlmaw...

Not worth it. 4+ Armor is nice, for T1, but not a big deal.
Advance and Charge is great-if there's something in range. There usually isn't, for Plaguebearers. Even with a Scrivener (who I would HEARTILY recommend!) and Instrument, they move 5+2+1+d6 inches before charging 2d6+1. That's 11.5" on average-you have better than even odds of not even being able to ATTEMPT the charge into the enemy DZ.

Nurglings are great, though. Fantastic at tying stuff up, and either they shoot small arms at them (making them last for a LONG time) or they shoot big guns, and then the big guns aren't targeting anything more important.

I have to disagree re the Gnarlmaw. I think its mandatory if you're running 60+ plaguebearers in a mono-codex list. With a scrivener, you might not be in range for T1 charges (or you might be), but you are definitely there for T2, and the ability to fall forward and charge further on T3/4/5. If you start needing detachments for other codexes (Thousand Sons) then maybe don't take one, but even CSM (Obliterator) or Death Guard (plagueburst crawlers) allies benefit greatly from it.
My typical games running 90-120 plaguebearers, I daisy-chain back to the Gnarlmaw (only 1 model needs to be in range to gain advance/fall back + charge) and have strings of plaguebearers over the entire board grabbing objectives and tying the enemy in combat. The tree is MVP and my opponents curse its name.

For a T1 charge, assuming your opponent is on the edge of their DZ, you need to cross 24".

You move 9" (5"+2" from Scrivener+1" from Advance Instrument+1" from Charge Instrument) base, so you need 15" on 3d6. That's not even a 10% chance base.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Trasvi wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Vomikron Noxis wrote:
Cool, thanks for the rundown. What I mean is, given that I can only use 3 detachments, is it worth giving one up for a fortification network, or am I better off using that detachment for something killier?

Having played with a Gnarlmaw...

Not worth it. 4+ Armor is nice, for T1, but not a big deal.
Advance and Charge is great-if there's something in range. There usually isn't, for Plaguebearers. Even with a Scrivener (who I would HEARTILY recommend!) and Instrument, they move 5+2+1+d6 inches before charging 2d6+1. That's 11.5" on average-you have better than even odds of not even being able to ATTEMPT the charge into the enemy DZ.

Nurglings are great, though. Fantastic at tying stuff up, and either they shoot small arms at them (making them last for a LONG time) or they shoot big guns, and then the big guns aren't targeting anything more important.

I have to disagree re the Gnarlmaw. I think its mandatory if you're running 60+ plaguebearers in a mono-codex list. With a scrivener, you might not be in range for T1 charges (or you might be), but you are definitely there for T2, and the ability to fall forward and charge further on T3/4/5. If you start needing detachments for other codexes (Thousand Sons) then maybe don't take one, but even CSM (Obliterator) or Death Guard (plagueburst crawlers) allies benefit greatly from it.
My typical games running 90-120 plaguebearers, I daisy-chain back to the Gnarlmaw (only 1 model needs to be in range to gain advance/fall back + charge) and have strings of plaguebearers over the entire board grabbing objectives and tying the enemy in combat. The tree is MVP and my opponents curse its name.

For a T1 charge, assuming your opponent is on the edge of their DZ, you need to cross 24".

You move 9" (5"+2" from Scrivener+1" from Advance Instrument+1" from Charge Instrument) base, so you need 15" on 3d6. That's not even a 10% chance base.

I'm aware that it is not likely to make a first turn charge against something 24" away. But using the tree means guaranteed T2 charge whereas without the tree its a maybe T3. And that's not counting that you can then fall back and charge deeper in to their lines on subsequent turns.
The way to use plaguebearers is to take board control and tie up (but not necessarily kill) threats. The more things I can boop or tri-point in combat means less incoming damage. If plaguebearers can be charging to eat overwatch at the same time as bloodletters I'm much more likely for the Khorne to survive and get my real damage in. And the faster they are the better they can escort the daemon princes...

Plus... even though a 24" charge is unlikely, across 4 units and with rerolls, that 10% is still a hell of a lot better than 0%. Plus half the deployment types have you closer than 24" - that gives you a 74% chance of making an 18" charge on the 'pointy' deployments. Or the enemy might have scouts, or you might have bottom of first and they think they're safe at 18"...

All I can say is that from extensive tournament experience, if I'm taking more than one unit of Nurgle daemons, the tree is an auto-include for me.

Another benefit on the tree is, if there’s a front line objective, you can effectively give it a permanent booby-trap that won’t backfire.