Lamprey's Bite on the Charge

[Sception]

because they're too expensive for their durability and offensive output to be a bother to, well, anything with their regular attacks, and their lamprey bite doesn't have the strength to be a major threat to heavy armor even with armor bane, and lacks the number of attacks needed to threaten Teqs, so the only things left to them are mildly annoying enemies with flyover attacks until they eat it to stray bolter or las fire, or chasing down rhinos and killa kans in assault, which isn't exactly an awesome specialty for an non-scoring unit to spend their points and slots on?

[Seahawk]

In 4th they had meltabombs and so could attack vehicles.

 

In 5.5 they had tons of AP2 attacks and so could annihilate terminators, and still attack vehicles with many 2D6 pen attacks.

 

In 6th they have neither. Nerf in the junk.

[Godhead]

I am full on griping about all the shooting nerfs to daemons. I agree that flamers were nerfed so hard they won't see a spot in one of my lists until next codex. Horror nerfs have me completely irritated and angry. Screamers are still pretty decent. You kill terminators two ways, quality of attacks (ap 2), or volume of attacks. Previously they got both. The quality of attacks was nerfed, but they still have volume of attacks. I played my 1st game with them yesterday against csm. They are a wonderful bubble wrap for a dp/fmc. They can keep up np. Put a tzeentch herald with them and let the buff bonaza begin. Screamers put out a ton of attacks, give them rerolls, and the volume of attacks is pretty staggering. I let my Dp with a staff change deal out my ap2 attacks. So while I am all about bitching about the nerfs, I don't think screamers get included. They are still super good imo.

[Seahawk]

As I mention in my review thread, if you want number of attacks, Furies do it better for far cheaper.

[Smurfalypse]

In 4th they had meltabombs and so could attack vehicles.

 

In 5.5 they had tons of AP2 attacks and so could annihilate terminators, and still attack vehicles with many 2D6 pen attacks.

 

In 6th they have neither. Nerf in the junk.

 

They have armorbane, thus getting 2d6 armor pen.

 

As I mention in my review thread, if you want number of attacks, Furies do it better for far cheaper.

 

lol I agree, Furies are really really good with a Herald in them (must have because of their leadership). They especially shine with a Slannesh Herald as they get rending and rerolls.

 

They are still not as fast as the Screamers and do not offer quite the threat to vehicles that Screamers do, but for the points differencial I agree that Furies are much much better (see, we can agree on stuff) :P

[Seahawk]

2D6 + 5, woooo! Average glance a walker, 28% to damage a land raider. It either needs to be more attacks or stronger to be viable. 25 points for a single attack stinks unless you're going after regular vehicles, but who uses those anymore. :P

[Lysere]

2d6 +5 would never even glance a land raider, unless it has rending or something else to bump up the S value.

 

Edit: Pardon my math fail there... After three hours of accounting trying to do math is like trying to convince a Black Templar that a Psyker Kitten is not an enemy.

[Gentlemanloser]

??

 

12+5 == 17

[Smurfalypse]

2D6 + 5, woooo! Average glance a walker, 28% to damage a land raider. It either needs to be more attacks or stronger to be viable. 25 points for a single attack stinks unless you're going after regular vehicles, but who uses those anymore.

Seems like a good deal to me, good and balanced (unlike before).

[Seahawk]

Egh, fair point. I thought they weren't spectacular when they were flying meltabombs though, so the current incarnation is utter crap in my eyes. *shrug*

[Iron Sage]

2D6 + 5, woooo! Average glance a walker, 28% to damage a land raider. It either needs to be more attacks or stronger to be viable. 25 points for a single attack stinks unless you're going after regular vehicles, but who uses those anymore.

Seems like a good deal to me, good and balanced (unlike before).

Agreed. To put it like this: I still want to add some to my chaos forces. While my CSM force is large (albeit I dont have all the effective units, in particular the heldrakes absence from my collection is rather glaring), my Daemon host is still growing. I wanted Screamers before the dex, and now when I can chuck in a herald with them for ablative wounds on the herald +great divination range and so on, I dont want them any less. I expected them to be nerfed as they were too good in their previous incarnation, and the result is mostly pleasing to my eyes.

IMO problem is not with the Screamer, but more with the seeming fact that Nurgle is just really strong.

Besides, they are cool models IMO :P

[Marshal Goderic]

Holy duke, they aren't as bad as people seem to think. Thinking that the bite replaces hammer of wrath attacks seems groundless at best, it's very possible as far as the charge issue but to say that a specifically named USR falls under 'normal' when we have the name/special circumstances of the USR calling it out as a special rule/circumstances... my head hurts, this implies we now can selectively ignore rules. I cannot find anything resembling logic in that arguement.

[Gentlemanloser]

It's becuase GW is terrible at defining things, and actually sticking to those definitions.

 

What's normal?  Just the Attacks given by your A statistic?  Those including bonuses (Charge, extra weapon, random unit buff, etc).

 

Is Hammer of Wrath a 'normal' attack for a JI unit?  Do JI 'normally' get to use HoW?

[Nehekhare]

read the text of Hammer of wrath: "it makes one additional attack" at I10. 

 

the question is not a diffuse, generalistic "what is normal", but: "why should this specific attack NOT be normal?"

 

because it is a USR? so by that logic when screamers also have the hatred USR, all of their attacks are not normal, so they have full lamprey attacks against nurgle? or are they unable to "substitute" their normal attacks then because they have none?

 

if you have a sound logical explanation, please provide.

 

until then I'll stick to call "normal" those attacks that are defined by brb p. 24: the number of attacks a model usually gets (i.e. profile + charge + 2 weapons + boni)

 

 

btw my guess: it was intended to work like the meltabombs they had before, but Kelly failed to word the rule properly.

[Godhead]

How lacks the ap value of the weapons you wield.....therefore not the same....so one couldn't say that it's normal.

[Gentlemanloser]

So 'normally', a Jump Infantry unit can't use the HoW attack?

 

What special circumstances allow HoW to be used, that differ from 'normal'?

[Nehekhare]

good point!

 

but then again, the how is at the models unmodified strength and AP -, just like any weapon modifes S and AP. so why are any weapon attacks considered normal?

[Marshal Goderic]

We agree that GW can't define their hindquarters with a dictionary and anatomy book in hand. Either both of the arguments are valid or neither are based on that logic. Your qualifier for normal can be used both ways thus contradicting your own argument but to follow that logic further down the slope; I'm never going to use or need less than a 3 on my BS of 4 to shoot flyers since 'shooting' at things is normal and I 'normally' only need a 3 to hit. I'm completely going to ignore the skyfire USR or anthing related to it while my opponents wail in anguish. Everyone's gonna be jealous I thought of that first at my FLGS
 

edited for clarity & editing problems

[Gentlemanloser]

Nope, I don't follow that in the slightest...

 

Shooting at a flyer isn't the same as shooting at ground units.  Shooting at a flier has it's own set of rules, namely 'hard to hit'.  The inability to be shot by Templates (or Blasts), and needing to be hit on a 6 by anything without 'Skyfire'.

 

That's 'normal' for shooting at a flyer.

[Marshal Goderic]

Good thing you didn't follow, it's an extension of the slippery slope of the previous fallacial argument that is in a state of ambiguity due to a chronic inability to soundly define common terms. Irritating that

[Nehekhare]

it only becomes slippery if we are to assume that "normal" means "not a universal special rule", of which there is yet citation needed. so we are not (reductio ad absurdum).

 

In fact, what generally could be considered normal isn't really the question here. keep to the specific wording of the rule:

 

as it stands, there is no better definition of "all of their normal close combat attacks" than p.24. (number of attacks), which includes other bonus attacks from special rules like the additional attack how provides. not slippery at all.

[*Furyou Miko]

Jump Infantry do not normally gain Hammer of Wrath, no.

 

Jump Infantry only gain Hammer of Wrath if they did not use their Jump Pack in the movement phase.

 

Hammer of Wrath is conditional, therefore not normal.

[Gentlemanloser]

Is it 'normal' for a JI unit to use thier Jump Pack in the Movement Phase?  Is it not 'normal' for them to not use it?

 

Ah, I love the definition and usage of normal in 40k...

 

All assault is conditional.  Don't make your randon charge length roll, you don't assault.  Assaulting is conditional on you randomly rolling enough to enablew your charge.

[Nehekhare]

Hammer of Wrath is conditional, therefore not normal.

please provide rules citiation for that, otherwise it is just personal opinion.

[*Furyou Miko]

conditional [kənˈdɪʃən^əl]

adj

1. depending on other factors; not certain

2. (Linguistics / Grammar) Grammar (of a clause, conjunction, form of a verb, or whole sentence) expressing a condition on which something else is contingent: ``If he comes'' is a conditional clause in the sentence ``If he comes I shall go''

 

normal [ˈnɔːm^əl]

adj

1. usual; regular; common; typical the normal way of doing it the normal level

2. constituting a standard if we take this as normal

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003