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.

Mchaagen wrote:
This is probably a question for YMDC, but can they use the fight twice stratagem if the bloodletters charged, and after resolving that combat are now only within 1" an enemy unit they cannot actually fight that turn (i.e. did not declare a charge against)? If yes it would mean they can't actually fight but could pile-in and then consolidate.

I don't think they can because the bloodletter unit cannot fulfill step 3 of the fight phase 'Choose Targets' in addition to steps 4 and 5.

From the rulebook step 3 choose targets, pg182 (emphasis mine):

First, you must pick the target unit, or units, for the attacks. To target an enemy unit, the attacking model must either be within 1" of that unit, or within 1" of another model from its own unit that is itself within 1" of that enemy unit. This represents the unit fighting in two ranks. Models that charged this turn can only target enemy units that they charged in the previous phase.

No YMDC needed, you can and that's widely accepted since a unit that charged can pile in even if he has no enemy around.

Spoletta wrote:

Mchaagen wrote:
This is probably a question for YMDC, but can they use the fight twice stratagem if the bloodletters charged, and after resolving that combat are now only within 1" an enemy unit they cannot actually fight that turn (i.e. did not declare a charge against)? If yes it would mean they can't actually fight but could pile-in and then consolidate.

I don't think they can because the bloodletter unit cannot fulfill step 3 of the fight phase 'Choose Targets' in addition to steps 4 and 5.

From the rulebook step 3 choose targets, pg182 (emphasis mine):

First, you must pick the target unit, or units, for the attacks. To target an enemy unit, the attacking model must either be within 1" of that unit, or within 1" of another model from its own unit that is itself within 1" of that enemy unit. This represents the unit fighting in two ranks. Models that charged this turn can only target enemy units that they charged in the previous phase.

No YMDC needed, you can and that's widely accepted since a unit that charged can pile in even if he has no enemy around.

Yeah, you can't attack since you don't have a valid target, however if you should be able to pile in and consolidate, which is a good six inch move to hopefully tag something else.

 andysonic1 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Mchaagen wrote:
This is probably a question for YMDC, but can they use the fight twice stratagem if the bloodletters charged, and after resolving that combat are now only within 1" an enemy unit they cannot actually fight that turn (i.e. did not declare a charge against)? If yes it would mean they can't actually fight but could pile-in and then consolidate.

I don't think they can because the bloodletter unit cannot fulfill step 3 of the fight phase 'Choose Targets' in addition to steps 4 and 5.

From the rulebook step 3 choose targets, pg182 (emphasis mine):

First, you must pick the target unit, or units, for the attacks. To target an enemy unit, the attacking model must either be within 1" of that unit, or within 1" of another model from its own unit that is itself within 1" of that enemy unit. This represents the unit fighting in two ranks. Models that charged this turn can only target enemy units that they charged in the previous phase.

No YMDC needed, you can and that's widely accepted since a unit that charged can pile in even if he has no enemy around.

Yeah, you can't attack since you don't have a valid target, however if you should be able to pile in and consolidate, which is a good six inch move to hopefully tag something else.

The original quoted section is from step THREE of a Fight Phase unit activation - Choose TARGETS. It does not pertain to step ONE - Choose Unit (that is EITHER within 1”, OR CHARGED THIS TURN) to fight with; nor to step TWO - Pile In; nor to step SIX - Consolidate.

It is not uncommon for a unit to find itself out of 1” in a Fight Phase in the same turn it charged, for instance due to incidental casualties amongst the enemy (or the charging unit itself) between moving the charging models and activating the unit. Khorne melee Stratagems enable up to 6” of extra movement within the basic rules, following the same protocol as a Carnifex that bulldozes the unit it reaches in the Charge Phase and then keeps going to tango with the thing behind it.

My second army is Hive Fleet Behemoth, and let me tell you: burning a bunch of CP, to have your deep striking screen eat most of their screen and envelop the survivors to hide from firepower in continued melee, is TOTALLY WORTH IT.

I 100% agree Lindsay.

 lindsay40k wrote:

The original quoted section is from step THREE of a Fight Phase unit activation - Choose TARGETS.

Which is what I stated in my original post..

I must have missed something, but why is the Sloppity Bilepiper MIA? I thought it went up for preorder last weekend, but I can't find it on the GW store or anywhere else. It's the cheapest Herald option in case GW decides to do the right thing and keep the deep-striking stratagem the way it is.

Bilepiper and the rest of nurgle demon are this week pre-order

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-NZ/Sloppity-Bilepiper-Herald-Of-Nurgle-2018

 Luciferian wrote:
I must have missed something, but why is the Sloppity Bilepiper MIA? I thought it went up for preorder last weekend, but I can't find it on the GW store or anywhere else. It's the cheapest Herald option

It's up now.

 Luciferian wrote:
in case GW decides to do the right thing and keep the deep-striking stratagem the way it is.

"Do the right thing"

do...the right...thing....

The Daemons Codex is out now, I think this thread has officially ended. Let us scatter to the rest of Dakka to debate endlessly on if we should be able to deep strike Brass Scorpions and Lords of Skulls alongside Primarchs. Thank you all for coming on this fun rumor and leaks adventure with me. I can't wait to do it all over again when World Eaters Codex is announced.

Until then, it's time to do the right thing. MODS! LOCK DIS THREAD DOWN!

Thanks for the info, and yeah, I said that.

Moving this thread out of N&R given the Codex has been released.

Got the full codex today. It's pretty neat - not as powerful as I'd have hoped, but decent and seemingly in-line with the rest of the codexes on first impressions.

But I'm not sure why they got rid of the Warp Bolter option for Daemon Princes. It was cool to have them shoot again in the index - mostly from a flavor and rules standpoint.

Though I guess I can understand why they got rid of it, as the newest DP kit doesn't have anything resembling a gun [unlike older kits].

They could have just renamed the wargear "eye lasers" or something and given it the same stats. Makes little difference, ultimately, but in many cases (especially with daemons) there doesn't need to be gear to represent an ability. I'll just spend the points on the axe relic and kill as Khorne intended.

So, haven't seen any mention of the faction Tactical Objectives.

How are they? I hate the Death Guard ones and usually pick an HQ from a second detachment to be warlord just because of them. The CSM ones aren't too bad. If these are any good I'll buy the cards, if not.... Skip.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
So, haven't seen any mention of the faction Tactical Objectives.

How are they? I hate the Death Guard ones and usually pick an HQ from a second detachment to be warlord just because of them. The CSM ones aren't too bad. If these are any good I'll buy the cards, if not.... Skip.

They're only really useful if you have an undivided Daemon list since 4/6 are for specific god units.

Herald of Slaanesh, Seeker Chariot, and Exalted Seeker Chariot, gained the "Daemonette" keyword but Seekers and Hellflayer Chariot, did not?

Anyone else notice the herald of slaanesh is the only one that didn't get a fancy new name? Boy they really like making slaanesh players nervous.

SilverAlien wrote:
Anyone else notice the herald of slaanesh is the only one that didn't get a fancy new name? Boy they really like making slaanesh players nervous.

Herald of Slaanesh on Steed, Herald of Slaanesh on Seeker Chariot, and Herald of Slaanesh on Exalted Seeker Chariot are also not in the new codex.

Dropping the chariots is odd too because there are models for both. This is the first time a unit that has been left in an Index that has a model, that I am aware of.

The starting Slaanesh Daemons box uses the chariot as the HQ.

Terminal wrote:
Got the full codex today. It's pretty neat - not as powerful as I'd have hoped, but decent and seemingly in-line with the rest of the codexes on first impressions.

But I'm not sure why they got rid of the Warp Bolter option for Daemon Princes. It was cool to have them shoot again in the index - mostly from a flavor and rules standpoint.

Though I guess I can understand why they got rid of it, as the newest DP kit doesn't have anything resembling a gun [unlike older kits].

The old daemon prince that has the arm with the built-in style 'gun' is still being sold by GW.
https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Chaos-Space-Marines-Daemon-Prince

The warp bolter was a bit over-cost, but I have taken it a few times to round out points in my lists.

Few to none of their choices for options removal in the 8th edition codices make sense.

Question regarding Slaanesh Heralds: does their AP2 weapon have the same name as the one carried by the ones in the Index? If so, I believe the new profile for it overwrites the Index one and gives it a de facto update. If not... eh, cross your fingers but don’t hold your breath.

 lindsay40k wrote:
Question regarding Slaanesh Heralds: does their AP2 weapon have the same name as the one carried by the ones in the Index? If so, I believe the new profile for it overwrites the Index one and gives it a de facto update. If not... eh, cross your fingers but don’t hold your breath.

It does not. The Herald of Slaanesh and the Masque of Slaanesh in the codex has a different weapon name now. The Herald of Slaanesh now has "Ravaging Claws" and the Masque of Slaanesh has "Serrated Claws". In Index: Chaos, they all had "Piercing Claws".

i am somewhat underwhelmed by Nurgle from what i have read in the codex. seems odd that the other gods have 4 relics and Nurgle has 3, none of which are good.
The great unclean one looks like it is much less durable then a bloodthirster, again thats odd since it really should be the most durable of the greater daemons.
of the Nurgle stratagems only plague banner is any good. The healing one cost one point to many.
I think that the Nurgle locus is the best but i am biased on this.
I like that you can really buff up a unit of plague bearers, i am looking forward to running my swarms.
all in all I am looking forward to playing them but its a good thing that I play AOS or most of the models would just sit on a shelf.

zasz wrote:
i am somewhat underwhelmed by Nurgle from what i have read in the codex. seems odd that the other gods have 4 relics and Nurgle has 3, none of which are good.
The great unclean one looks like it is much less durable then a bloodthirster, again thats odd since it really should be the most durable of the greater daemons.
of the Nurgle stratagems only plague banner is any good. The healing one cost one point to many.
I think that the Nurgle locus is the best but i am biased on this.
I like that you can really buff up a unit of plague bearers, i am looking forward to running my swarms.
all in all I am looking forward to playing them but its a good thing that I play AOS or most of the models would just sit on a shelf.

What makes you say it is less durable than a Bloodthirster? The extra two wounds and Disgustingly Resilient surely make it harder to kill overall?

Caederes wrote:

zasz wrote:
i am somewhat underwhelmed by Nurgle from what i have read in the codex. seems odd that the other gods have 4 relics and Nurgle has 3, none of which are good.
The great unclean one looks like it is much less durable then a bloodthirster, again thats odd since it really should be the most durable of the greater daemons.
of the Nurgle stratagems only plague banner is any good. The healing one cost one point to many.
I think that the Nurgle locus is the best but i am biased on this.
I like that you can really buff up a unit of plague bearers, i am looking forward to running my swarms.
all in all I am looking forward to playing them but its a good thing that I play AOS or most of the models would just sit on a shelf.

What makes you say it is less durable than a Bloodthirster? The extra two wounds and Disgustingly Resilient surely make it harder to kill overall?

The bloodthirster has a 3+ save while the great unclean one has a 6+ and can boost its invul to a 4++. Though I am not sure that it really matters. every time i have seen a bloodthirster used it was either dead or on its last bracket before it got in cc.

zasz wrote:

Caederes wrote:

zasz wrote:
i am somewhat underwhelmed by Nurgle from what i have read in the codex. seems odd that the other gods have 4 relics and Nurgle has 3, none of which are good.
The great unclean one looks like it is much less durable then a bloodthirster, again thats odd since it really should be the most durable of the greater daemons.
of the Nurgle stratagems only plague banner is any good. The healing one cost one point to many.
I think that the Nurgle locus is the best but i am biased on this.
I like that you can really buff up a unit of plague bearers, i am looking forward to running my swarms.
all in all I am looking forward to playing them but its a good thing that I play AOS or most of the models would just sit on a shelf.

What makes you say it is less durable than a Bloodthirster? The extra two wounds and Disgustingly Resilient surely make it harder to kill overall?

The bloodthirster has a 3+ save while the great unclean one has a 6+ and can boost its invul to a 4++. Though I am not sure that it really matters. every time i have seen a bloodthirster used it was either dead or on its last bracket before it got in cc.

I'm pretty sure a 5+/5++ and the extra two wounds still help the Great Unclean One win out, especially once mortal wounds and high AP weapons (i.e. what will be pointed at Greater Daemons) come into play. The Bloodthirster's superior armour save doesn't help against the vast majority of weapons that people will want to shoot at a Greater Daemon. Don't forget that the Great Unclean One can regenerate wounds and be at -1 to-hit, and can even get a 4+ armour save or a 19th wound via Warlord Traits.

I'm still a bit upset they did equalize the Khorne DP with something that's equivalent to losing level 2 psyker.

Hang on. That Stratagem to get an extra Summoning dice costs TWO Command Points, AND it AUTOMATICALLY inflicts D3 Wounds before you even roll?

With the elevated chance of doubles, that’s preposterously risky if you’re not a Word Bearer or Death Guard. And even then, you’re spending 3CP on a roll that could go wrong, when you could spend 2CP to just Deep Strike whatever unit you’ve got in mind, without having to first get a Character into position, nor have to tether it to said half-dead Mortal to benefit from the buffs?

One thing I don’t like about the codex is Greater Daemons still aren’t good picks compared to a Daemon Prince. Keeper of Secrets is weaker in combat than a Daemon Prince. For the point cost of a Bloodthirster you can take 2 Daemon Princes instead. Daemon Prince’s aura ability is also more useful than the leadership bump, Daemon Prince can’t be sniped by range attacks, and other than the Bloodthirster their saves are better at 3+/5++.

Even if the Greater Daemon stateliness were bumped up it really wouldn’t matter. There is so much anti-tank deathstar stuff going on Greater Daemons will be dead or bracketed before, they reach combat. Daemons armies don’t have a lot of other juicy targets to attract anti-tank attacks. They need a mechanic to partially negate multi damage wounds, like reduce damage by ½ , minimum of 1 damage. Or a better invulnerable save than 5++ as better armor won’t matter much because of anti-tank weapons.

The Lord of Change does get that with the Impossible Robe and the Warlord Trait to reduce Damage by 1 (which screws over plasma spam). But yeah, generally speaking Greater Daemons need some points drops to better reflect their competitive worth next to Daemon Princes.

 lindsay40k wrote:
Hang on. That Stratagem to get an extra Summoning dice costs TWO Command Points, AND it AUTOMATICALLY inflicts D3 Wounds before you even roll?

With the elevated chance of doubles, that’s preposterously risky if you’re not a Word Bearer or Death Guard. And even then, you’re spending 3CP on a roll that could go wrong, when you could spend 2CP to just Deep Strike whatever unit you’ve got in mind, without having to first get a Character into position, nor have to tether it to said half-dead Mortal to benefit from the buffs?

I guess it does give you the summoner the re-roll 1 aura as well. I can see it being... semi useful if you summon a huge blob with high amounts of attacks like 30 pinks or daemonettes (if anyone uses those). At least if you're banking on needing that +1 STR aura already from a herald.

SilverAlien wrote:
Anyone else notice the herald of slaanesh is the only one that didn't get a fancy new name? Boy they really like making slaanesh players nervous.

Well it makes sense to keep Slaanesh nerfed down if there is an internal debate about whether to squat the line eventually. Several units removed (though no MODELS as the models can represent other units), and the psychic powers being 3 mediocre and 3 garbage (strategems, traits and artefacts seem to be largely OK, though).

Aside from that, I was quite disappointed that we did not get back all the interesting wargear options from the last codex. I guess they are sticking with the policy of only allowing wargear if there is a suitably shaped bit of plastic on the model sprue to uniquely represent it...