# Flamers, Small Or large Squads?



## Ork Mad (Sep 17, 2010)

think that this is the right place...

Ok, my question is this:

With Flamers (and to some extent screamers) in 6th edition with the new rule overwatch and their new rules, is it better to have flamers in small units (to deep strike dangerously close to my opponent and have cause mayhem for a turn and then most likely die, but now with 2 wounds each they might survive a bit longer:biggrin or have them in a large squad (so that if there charged they get a lot of kill with overwatch:grin:, however only about 3 will get to use their flamer on the turn they come down on)? 
both have pros and cons, but i would like your opinion as to which is better and why, so would you please help me out?


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

I'm finding flamers a real boost to the Overwatch defence. Particularly the GK Incinerators which have an outside chance of denting a Dreadnaught.


----------



## Ork Mad (Sep 17, 2010)

sorry, might have confused some people: i men't Flamers of Tzeentch


----------



## Iron_Freak220 (Nov 8, 2009)

I think they were effective when you had a suicide squad of 3 flamers come down and toast whatever they dropped close to. I believe 3 flamers came out to about 115 points so that's what I would use for the new ones. I think you can get 5 flamers now for 115 points. Now you've got 10 wounds plus 5 flamer templates. Seems like the best of both worlds: cheap and deadly.


----------



## Fallen (Oct 7, 2008)

Iron_Freak220 said:


> I think you can get 5 flamers now for 115 points. Now you've got 10 wounds plus 5 flamer templates. Seems like the best of both worlds: cheap and deadly.


:goodpost:


----------



## Ork Mad (Sep 17, 2010)

so you all think that having them in squad of 5 even though only 3 get to flame when you come down and they make a much cheaper suicide unit??


----------



## Ravner298 (Jun 3, 2011)

Ork Mad said:


> so you all think that having them in squad of 5 even though only 3 get to flame when you come down and they make a much cheaper suicide unit??


115 points, 3 templates, toughness 4, 5+ save, 10 wounds

69 points, 3 templates, toughness 4, 5+ save, 6 wounds

Damage output is the same....both are VERY easy to remove. You can place them outside of 'suicide' range, but the targets you'd want to be bombing with them will just avoid them at that point.


----------



## Iron_Freak220 (Nov 8, 2009)

I could be wrong, but don't Flamers have a 4++ not a 5++? With eternal warrior and 2 wounds each, they'll be a lot more surviveable than before.


----------



## Ork Mad (Sep 17, 2010)

Iron_Freak220 said:


> I could be wrong, but don't Flamers have a 4++ not a 5++? With eternal warrior and 2 wounds each, they'll be a lot more surviveable than before.


well on their profile they don't have a save, but at my local GW we've been playing that that means that they have both daemon rules: those from the codex and those form the rule book so have a 5++ with eternal warrior and 2 wounds each


----------



## Iron_Freak220 (Nov 8, 2009)

Ork Mad said:


> well on their profile they don't have a save, but at my local GW we've been playing that that means that they have both daemon rules: those from the codex and those form the rule book so have a 5++ with eternal warrior and 2 wounds each


That changes things. It also brings up a rules question. Which Daemon rule are you supposed to use? I would think you would use only the one from the codex, but that would mean that they have no save! :O In that case, keep them as cheap as possible.


----------



## D-A-C (Sep 21, 2010)

Its pretty clear that both Flamers and Screamers have a 5++ Save as they are Daemons, which means they cause Fear and, unless otherwise stated, possess a 5++ Save. And just for clarification, the Exalted Alluress would also have a 5++ Save


----------



## Iron_Freak220 (Nov 8, 2009)

Not if there's no save value in their profile. The Daemon special rule in the BRB is different than Daemons in the codex. The Daemon rule in the codex says if they have a save value then its automatically invulnerable, as well as giving daemons eternal warrior, fearless, daemonic assault, and daemonic rivalry. It was FAQ'd to add Fear.

The BRB Daemon rule gives a 5+ invulnerable and Fear.

Since there's no FAQ update that says to replace the Daemon rule from the codex with the Daemon rule from the BRB, you would have to go withthe codex. In fact the FAQ mentions the Daemon special rule from the codex by telling you to add Fear rather than replace it with the BRB rule. 

Because the Codex Daemon rule does not automatically confer an invulnerable save and the Flamers do not have a save in their profile, until there is an FAQ, they effectively have no save.

If you want to argue that because they're 'Daemons' they get the benefits of both special rules then you need to address a point from the Grey Knights FAQ which lists a bunch of units that are considered 'Daemons.' One of them is a vehicle with the daemonic possession ability ie CSM Defilers, Land Raiders, Vindicators. Are you saying these units get a 5++ because they are considered Daemons? I would say no, because 40k isn't like Magic where if it has a particular name then it has all abilities associated with that name.

The Daemon rule in the Daemon codex is different from the Daemon rule in the BRB. Unfortunately in this case it takes precedent over the Daemon rule from the BRB.


----------



## D-A-C (Sep 21, 2010)

Iron_Freak220 said:


> Not if there's no save value in their profile. The Daemon special rule in the BRB is different than Daemons in the codex. The Daemon rule in the codex says if they have a save value then its automatically invulnerable, as well as giving daemons eternal warrior, fearless, daemonic assault, and daemonic rivalry. It was FAQ'd to add Fear.
> 
> The BRB Daemon rule gives a 5+ invulnerable and Fear.
> 
> ...


Your not using the rules correctly.

There is a rule called Daemon in rulebook which conveys various rules (5++, Fear) and a rule called Daemon in the codex which conveys various rules (Eternal Warrior, Fearless etc).

Neither contradicts the other so they work simultaneously with each other. Codex only takes precedence over rulebook when there is a contradiction between two rulings. Here their is no contradictions, instead, both rules simply overlap with one and other.

As for your example of Grey Knights, I don't play them, but, on Soul Grinders, why they wouldn't get use of the 5++ is because it is a vehicle and you cannot take Invulnerable Saves on vehicles because you don't _Wound _vehicles. The exception to this are things like flickerfields other items which are clearly listed and described in each individual codex.

So unless Grey Knights have something specifically listed on their vehicles that allows them to use ++ Saves, then they cannot benefit from the Invulnerable Save conferred by the Daemon rule.

The Grey Knights issue, I'm not sure of, I will admit that, but that's only because I only play Chaos Daemons. On the Flamers/Screamer/Alluress issue its clear that they all get a 5++ Save. There is no issue here except perhaps a little sloppy writing on GW's part.


EDIT

Also, in a Soul Grinders profile it states exactly what is meant by the Daemon rule - they deepstrike onto the battlefield and they ignore Shaken and Stunned results. This when then amended in the FAQ so that they caused Fear as well. So this is all an example of codex _trumping_ rulebook, as the rulebook says one thing, the codex another, and hence codex takes precedence and so Soul Grinders do not get a 5++ Save. Like I said there is no conflict between the rulebook and the codex, instead they overlap neatly so that Screamers, Flamers and Exalted Alluresses all get 5++ Saves.


----------



## Iron_Freak220 (Nov 8, 2009)

So you're saying because a unit entry in the Chaos Daemon codex has the Daemon Special rule you get to use the effects of both the codex and the BRB?

What about when psychic hoods were added to the new rulebook? If you played Space Marines would you have combined the effects of both entries? Would you have replaced the codex entry with the BRB's? Or would you have continued to use the codex entry until the FAQ came out?

My guess is you would have continued to use the codex entry until specified otherwise. Most people I know were planning to do just that. Fortunately they released the FAQ shortly after they released the 6th ed rulebook to replace the psychic hood entry in the codex with the new one.

They have not done this with the Daemon special rule. I understand what you're saying but you can't assume that you get the effects of both rules just because they have the same name.


----------



## Ravner298 (Jun 3, 2011)

To argue that no daemons in codex CD get to use the DAEMON rule from the brb is pretty ridiculous, actually. They left the save off of their profile on purpose, because of the daemon rule automatically giving them a 5++. They aren't mutually exclusive rules.


----------



## D-A-C (Sep 21, 2010)

Iron_Freak220 said:


> So you're saying because a unit entry in the Chaos Daemon codex has the Daemon Special rule you get to use the effects of both the codex and the BRB?
> 
> They have not done this with the Daemon special rule. I understand what you're saying but you can't assume that you get the effects of both rules just because they have the same name.


There really isn't an issue here IronFreak, all Chaos Daemons have a rule called Daemon, this has internal codex rules and a Universal Special Rule. They get both. When there is a contradiction between rules, the codex takes precedence.

Anything listed as a Daemon has access to the Daemon Universal Special Rule unless their codex contradicts and or amends it, as was the case with the Soul Grinder scenario I discussed above.

Its very clear that that's what the writers of the Update were working towards. If they failed to make it entirely clear that should be no suprise given GW's history, but we can clearly see how the rule is intended to be played out.

Two Units in the codex with no Save, really?


----------



## Iron_Freak220 (Nov 8, 2009)

I'll concede. I suspect you're right. They probably left the save empty so that you would use the Daemon special rule in the BRB. You have to admit, though, that there has never been a situation where one special rule has two different effects. There is also no written rule that says to combine the effects, so we're kinda going on faith here.

But it does seem a little strange that they'd give two daemon units no save, especially Tzeentch ones, and thats ultimately the point that leads me to believe you're correct in their intentions. A simple FAQ clarification would be nice though.


----------

