Daemonic Nerfing

[Seahawk]

They're not AP2. They have no AP value whatsoever.

 

They didn't gain any abilities. They lost the opportunity to take Bolt of Tzeentch, lost the 4+ inv save, and depending on your interpretation, lost Fearless and EW.

 

 

6th edition gave Flamers the Wall of Flame, not the new Flamer rules. They already had Jump. They already glanced vehicles on a 4+. It's just that these abilities are far more useful in this edition than before. They got buffed by the main rules, not by the updated daemon rules.

[IK Viper]

they are now 2 wounds though correct? which doubles the number of wounds the squad can absorb, compared against the change in inv. save they again gained from the update, and they are now alot cheaper, I am ok with stuff thats expensive being good, thats how its suppoed to be, but right now a sternguard is 2 points MORE EVPENSIVE than a Flamer that has twice the wounds, and twice the mobility, and a weapon that is better then even the best flamer any non-Apoc battle tank can mount... tell me thats fair

 

A terminator... 40 points base comes with a storm bolter and a PF, 2 LC, or a TH/SS, Wolf Guard can do it cheaper but loose the PF, all of these units are atleast 10 points more expensive and yet have very they can be Flamed down with ease, even if they get the assault against Flamers, statistics say that 4 Flamers will kill 3 terminators on the charge with an OVERWATCH!!! (I am assuming normal terminators or LC, if you bring TH/SS you are killing 1-2) which is alot better but still insane, statistically you loose between 40-120 points just for trying to make a charge...

 

Flamers are underpriced, they were maybe overpriced before, but now are just silly

[Captain Idaho]

Well, technically they don't have any save at all. If you go RAW then you have to follow the Codex over the rule book (last paragraph of pg7 of the rule book), which means Flamers and Screamers and Chariots receive NO SAVE since they don't have on on their profile, and that is required by the Codex to receive an invulnerable save.

 

Without armour saves Screamers and Flamers aren't so scary! ;)

[Iron Sage]

They're not AP2. They have no AP value whatsoever.

 

They didn't gain any abilities. They lost the opportunity to take Bolt of Tzeentch, lost the 4+ inv save, and depending on your interpretation, lost Fearless and EW.

 

 

6th edition gave Flamers the Wall of Flame, not the new Flamer rules. They already had Jump. They already glanced vehicles on a 4+. It's just that these abilities are far more useful in this edition than before. They got buffed by the main rules, not by the updated daemon rules.

 

Sir, thats not logical when you know as well as we that they are now much, much cheaper, lost the +4 but now have 2 wounds. Obviously not a nerf. On every forum which deals with 40K people are speaking about Screamers and FLamers with awe and their opponents are screaming overpowered and calling it a Ward-type powerhouse, and you as wise moderator create this topic whining about a nerf? You`ll have to forrgive me, but I dont understand what, or how you are thinking.

[Iron Sage]

Well, technically they don't have any save at all. If you go RAW then you have to follow the Codex over the rule book (last paragraph of pg7 of the rule book), which means Flamers and Screamers and Chariots receive NO SAVE since they don't have on on their profile, and that is required by the Codex to receive an invulnerable save.

 

Without armour saves Screamers and Flamers aren't so scary! ;)

 

?, they have +5 daemon saves. Are you seriosuly trying to lawyer them to have no saves at all, because that is obviously not the intention of the developers and it defies reason how you can be of this opionion when its clearly bollocks.

[Captain Idaho]

No need to over react or swear. My post covers everything that needed to be said;

If you go RAW

 

Emphasis mine just now. If people are having trouble dealing with them, then they can easily find a solution around it.

 

The point is, players can't take both interpretations of the rules at once, so must choose one or the other. Logically, and we all know this, GW intended for Daemons to take the rules in the rule book, which is why the new stats for Screamers and Flamers are the way they are.

 

If you want the Flamers to have a save then you need to allow them to be instant killed.

[Iron Sage]

No need to over react or swear. My post covers everything that needed to be said;

If you go RAW

 

Emphasis mine just now. If people are having trouble dealing with them, then they can easily find a solution around it.

 

The point is, players can't take both interpretations of the rules at once, so must choose one or the other. Logically, and we all know this, GW intended for Daemons to take the rules in the rule book, which is why the new stats for Screamers and Flamers are the way they are.

 

If you want the Flamers to have a save then you need to allow them to be instant killed.

 

I dont see how I swear. As far as I know, saying bollocks or that something is bollocks is not regarded as swearing or cursing, though I if it is, it must surely be mild enough to be forgivable.

 

I dont understand how you can argue that the Daemon rule in the WD is not the same as the one in the Codex Daemons. Obviously, the WD snippet is an addition to the codex, so follows codex rules? I dont understand how you can manage to rule lawyer them like this. Its an update to the Codex after all. Why are you so desperate to lawyer them to be weaker than they are meant to be? Are you like this against your opponents as well? And this is hardly an insult but a question.

[Captain Idaho]

Unfortunately I'm shamelessly forgiving, even in tournaments, and I've never had the same courtesy repaid to me either. So no, I'm not rules lawyering.

 

I think you haven't fully understood the point. Codex Daemons, which you are saying we should follow, states a model receives an invulnerable save equal to it's profile. This was your point yes? Well then that means Flamers and Screamers receive no save, because they don't have one on their profile.

 

It's not lawyering at all. Why do you think the receive a save if you want to follow the Codex explicitly? I recommend re-reading both the Codex and WD supplement.

 

So going back to your original point on making them weaker; if you follow YOUR interpretation and the RAW, Flamers and Screamers have no save.

 

If you were to politely say to me before a game that you don't feel this is correct, I'd say I agree with the intent of GW, so would allow Flamers and Screamers to follow the rule book definition, of Daemon, thus allowing me to instant kill them. This is actually pretty fair as I could just say (especially in a tournament game) that we play the RAW.

 

Not that I needed to prove my credentials at all.

 

By the way, your choice of words is interpreted by me as a swear word, and I find it rude even if it isn't. It's an insult to use it, because even if not a swear word it is impolite and attached to a sentence commenting on an opinion it IS an insult.

[Iron Sage]

Unfortunately I'm shamelessly forgiving, even in tournaments, and I've never had the same courtesy repaid to me either. So no, I'm not rules lawyering.

 

I think you haven't fully understood the point. Codex Daemons, which you are saying we should follow, states a model receives an invulnerable save equal to it's profile. This was your point yes? Well then that means Flamers and Screamers receive no save, because they don't have one on their profile.

 

It's not lawyering at all. Why do you think the receive a save if you want to follow the Codex explicitly? I recommend re-reading both the Codex and WD supplement.

 

So going back to your original point on making them weaker; if you follow YOUR interpretation and the RAW, Flamers and Screamers have no save.

 

If you were to politely say to me before a game that you don't feel this is correct, I'd say I agree with the intent of GW, so would allow Flamers and Screamers to follow the rule book definition, of Daemon, thus allowing me to instant kill them. This is actually pretty fair as I could just say (especially in a tournament game) that we play the RAW.

 

Not that I needed to prove my credentials at all.

 

By the way, your choice of words is interpreted by me as a swear word, and I find it rude even if it isn't. It's an insult to use it, because even if not a swear word it is impolite and attached to a sentence commenting on an opinion it IS an insult.

 

It was not an insult at all and you are streatching it more than a bit claiming it is and I cant say I understand, at all, the need you feel to take insult for something so utterly insignificant and harmless as "bollocks". I think and hope that your mature enough to understand that when someone says they think something another person said is "bollocks" then that is a word meaning the equalent of the word nonsense. It was, i can give you that, maybe an impolite "form", and if its that important to you, I apologice since it was, as I said not meant as an "insult".

 

As for the rest, I will do as you say and re-read both. You may indeed be correct. The WD snippet is an update to a very few units in the codex though. I fail to see how it can be argued otherwise. Thus they should follow the rules for daemons in the codex they update surely?

 

Edit: I looked for the codex now, but could not find it. But I have a nasty suspicion that your correct about the codex Daemon Special Rule. If thats correct, I apolgice for seeking to argue that point.

[Iron Sage]

Side note: Do you think they will update all the daemon units to follow the Rule books daemon definition? I do, but I confess I find it strange that they did not do so in the most recent FAQ.

[Captain Idaho]

Well saying something is nonesense is fairly impolite on it's own, but the word you mentioned means tesitcles so I think it is delving into the realms of swearing/rude. Anyway, I thank you for acknowledging my position on it and confirming it wasn't your intent to insult, so I'll re-interpret what you said as banter I originally missed. :P

 

Moving on, yes I totally agree GW intended for the extra rules/chariots to fit in with the rest of the Codex, but I believe they forgot to how they worded the invulnerable part in the Codex. As such I wouldn't want to penalise a Daemon player because of this blatant oversight, so I'd say to any opponent that they can choose whether they want to stop using the Codex for Flamers and Screamers and use the rule book instead.

 

Just means they start on the table, have Fear and a 5+ invulnerable save, but can be instant killed as normal. Beats losing their save completely.

[Iron Sage]

Well saying something is nonesense is fairly impolite on it's own, but the word you mentioned means tesitcles so I think it is delving into the realms of swearing/rude. Anyway, I thank you for acknowledging my position on it and confirming it wasn't your intent to insult, so I'll re-interpret what you said as banter I originally missed. :P

 

Moving on, yes I totally agree GW intended for the extra rules/chariots to fit in with the rest of the Codex, but I believe they forgot to how they worded the invulnerable part in the Codex. As such I wouldn't want to penalise a Daemon player because of this blatant oversight, so I'd say to any opponent that they can choose whether they want to stop using the Codex for Flamers and Screamers and use the rule book instead.

 

Just means they start on the table, have Fear and a 5+ invulnerable save, but can be instant killed as normal. Beats losing their save completely.

 

Thank you for doing that. And yes, I know that the word itself originally means testicles, though I also know that it is used in English daily speech to mean the same as nonsense, or at least this was the case when I lived in Australia a few years back.

 

Hmm, it seems as you said, to be an oversight. I find it peculiar that they did not alter this in thequite recent FAQ. FAQs are after all meant to clarify :S

[Captain Idaho]

Yeah, definitely something I want to see in the next FAQ. It's a confusing situation.

[Blood Shadow]

In a way i think you may both be right in your idea's but maybe not seeing this update as it is meant to be due to GW not being clear on the subject. As Iron Sage says the WD piece is an update to the codex and should follow the same rules. The codex says on pg 27, DAEMON: this special rule applies to every model in this army and includes the following four special rules, fearless, invulnerable, daemonic assault and daemonic rivalry. The daemon rule in the rulebook gives them a 5+ save, the codex includes the other four rules, so would daemons not have it all? the 5+ save is given to them by the fact they're daemons so they dont need it on their profiles so long as the daemon rule is listed. i really cant see that GW would rob a few units of those other special rules and leave them with just a 5+ and fear while the rest of the army plays like normal (though i've seen them do some strange things so i might be wrong).

So what do you think of my interpretation? could i be right or have i been hanging around Tzeentch too long and lost my marbles?

[Black_Crusader]

In a way i think you may both be right in your idea's but maybe not seeing this update as it is meant to be due to GW not being clear on the subject. As Iron Sage says the WD piece is an update to the codex and should follow the same rules. The codex says on pg 27, DAEMON: this special rule applies to every model in this army and includes the following four special rules, fearless, invulnerable, daemonic assault and daemonic rivalry. The daemon rule in the rulebook gives them a 5+ save, the codex includes the other four rules, so would daemons not have it all? the 5+ save is given to them by the fact they're daemons so they dont need it on their profiles so long as the daemon rule is listed. i really cant see that GW would rob a few units of those other special rules and leave them with just a 5+ and fear while the rest of the army plays like normal (though i've seen them do some strange things so i might be wrong).

So what do you think of my interpretation? could i be right or have i been hanging around Tzeentch too long and lost my marbles?

 

I agree completly with what you just said Blood Shadow, couldn't have said it better myself. In my area we always use all the rules for all Daemons both new and old and no one ever questioned it.

[TheDevourer]

I fully agree with Blood Shadow too.

 

Never even thought of questioning it...

 

And don't think it has to be questioned.

 

It's been played in my area that way, and I haven't been to a single tournament playing it differently either Oo

[Venemox]

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 think that pretty much sums it up? Daemons have Fearless, Invulnerable (EW and all saves listed are Invulnerable saves), Daemonic Incursion, Daemonic Rivalry, Fear, and a 5+ Invulnerable save.

 

Discalimer: I've only seen the one FAQ question, so I don't know how the 5+ Invo save and the Invulnerable rule mesh, or if that is addressed elsewhere in the FAQ.

 

EDUIT: I only saw the one FAQ question becaue, upon further review, it was the only change.

[Seahawk]

Nope, that seals the deal, new daemons get a 5+ inv now. FINALLY GW. <_<

[Hannibal.Lictor]

Soul Grinder now has a 5++. oh hells ya.