Beyond the fact some of that list is already redundant with existing options in the deathguard codex. I.e. you want unique dg flavour terminators... and blightlords and death shroud? Why would you ever not take the supplement army that has nigh on 100% core with added options and more units on top.
To make it worse I don't really understand why you think having death guard chaos marines is even a feasible concept. They're plague marines, that's the point of them.
How many of the equivalent units can not be sorted with a couple of rules options and name option
REALLY Hopes some idiot will not go into a stupid whiny rant that doing this would be the same as Making Guardsmen and Titans the same - like idiots usually do.....
You have to differentiate a profile for a mutilator to cover all god specific legions and the renegades etc.
If you give it meaningful rules for being in deathguard (+1 t & dr), it will need to cost more points, it also has a different stat line.
Then repeat this for Ec, WE and Tsons and rules that fit if it isn't in one of those legions.
Or, you write its DG points and profile, separately... in a DG codex.
Look at it this way. They didn't just say "use tacticals" to represent grey hunters and they don't even have a different stat line. Why is it then rational to give units with different stat lines all printed in 1 entry with 5/6 different base costs with 4-5 different wargear lists based on a supplement you may or may not have?
Well GW has clearly shown they don't think all Death Guard have a FNP equivalent. So there's no point in having a separate codex.
All Death Guard units should have Disgustingly Resilient, and I bet they'll get it in the new codex. Everything not having it is just a relic of the poor design of early 8th edition codexes.
Based on the choices made with the two new codices, you're going to be SUPER mistaken.
Beyond the fact some of that list is already redundant with existing options in the deathguard codex. I.e. you want unique dg flavour terminators... and blightlords and death shroud? Why would you ever not take the supplement army that has nigh on 100% core with added options and more units on top.
To make it worse I don't really understand why you think having death guard chaos marines is even a feasible concept. They're plague marines, that's the point of them.
How many of the equivalent units can not be sorted with a couple of rules options and name option
REALLY Hopes some idiot will not go into a stupid whiny rant that doing this would be the same as Making Guardsmen and Titans the same - like idiots usually do.....
You have to differentiate a profile for a mutilator to cover all god specific legions and the renegades etc.
If you give it meaningful rules for being in deathguard (+1 t & dr), it will need to cost more points, it also has a different stat line.
Then repeat this for Ec, WE and Tsons and rules that fit if it isn't in one of those legions.
Or, you write its DG points and profile, separately... in a DG codex.
Look at it this way. They didn't just say "use tacticals" to represent grey hunters and they don't even have a different stat line. Why is it then rational to give units with different stat lines all printed in 1 entry with 5/6 different base costs with 4-5 different wargear lists based on a supplement you may or may not have?
Well GW has clearly shown they don't think all Death Guard have a FNP equivalent. So there's no point in having a separate codex.
All Death Guard units should have Disgustingly Resilient, and I bet they'll get it in the new codex. Everything not having it is just a relic of the poor design of early 8th edition codexes.
Based on the choices made with the two new codices, you're going to be SUPER mistaken.
Sorry, don't all loyalist units get their chapter trait, doctrines, Angels of Death, etc? Are you referring to the CORE rule?
Beyond the fact some of that list is already redundant with existing options in the deathguard codex. I.e. you want unique dg flavour terminators... and blightlords and death shroud? Why would you ever not take the supplement army that has nigh on 100% core with added options and more units on top.
To make it worse I don't really understand why you think having death guard chaos marines is even a feasible concept. They're plague marines, that's the point of them.
How many of the equivalent units can not be sorted with a couple of rules options and name option
REALLY Hopes some idiot will not go into a stupid whiny rant that doing this would be the same as Making Guardsmen and Titans the same - like idiots usually do.....
You have to differentiate a profile for a mutilator to cover all god specific legions and the renegades etc.
If you give it meaningful rules for being in deathguard (+1 t & dr), it will need to cost more points, it also has a different stat line.
Then repeat this for Ec, WE and Tsons and rules that fit if it isn't in one of those legions.
Or, you write its DG points and profile, separately... in a DG codex.
Look at it this way. They didn't just say "use tacticals" to represent grey hunters and they don't even have a different stat line. Why is it then rational to give units with different stat lines all printed in 1 entry with 5/6 different base costs with 4-5 different wargear lists based on a supplement you may or may not have?
Well GW has clearly shown they don't think all Death Guard have a FNP equivalent. So there's no point in having a separate codex.
All Death Guard units should have Disgustingly Resilient, and I bet they'll get it in the new codex. Everything not having it is just a relic of the poor design of early 8th edition codexes.
Based on the choices made with the two new codices, you're going to be SUPER mistaken.
Sorry, don't all loyalist units get their chapter trait, doctrines, Angels of Death, etc? Are you referring to the CORE rule?
FNP is not their Legion Trait, which is part 1. Two, with the design of characters being given specific datasheets for wargear loadouts, I will guarantee that, once again there being no "Death Guard Chaos Lord" model, you will get the non-FNP entry once more. Three, you already have separate entries for the Sorcerer and "Plaguecaster", which is just a Sorcerer with the good benefits so you buy that new model.
You have too much hope for someone that should know how GW operates at this point.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Sorry, don't all loyalist units get their chapter trait, doctrines, Angels of Death, etc? Are you referring to the CORE rule?
We're more likely to see standard Chaos Lords and Sorcerers just get cut from the book rather than given Death Guard rules.
Remember, they didn't get the DG rules in the 8th Codex because they're not Death Guard models. GW doesn't sell a "Death Guard Chaos Lord" or "Death Guard Terminator Sorcerer", so they didn't get rules. They just got the regular Chaos Lord/Termy Sorc rules.
If they get updated rules I'll be positively amazed. I think they're more likely to just get cut.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Sorry, don't all loyalist units get their chapter trait, doctrines, Angels of Death, etc? Are you referring to the CORE rule?
We're more likely to see standard Chaos Lords and Sorcerers just get cut from the book rather than given Death Guard rules.
Remember, they didn't get the DG rules in the 8th Codex because they're not Death Guard models. GW doesn't sell a "Death Guard Chaos Lord" or "Death Guard Terminator Sorcerer", so they didn't get rules. They just got the regular Chaos Lord/Termy Sorc rules.
If they get updated rules I'll be positively amazed. I think they're more likely to just get cut.
That's possible, but if they cut everything that isn't a Death Guard model, and therefore doesn't get DR, isn't it possible all of the remaining units has it?
@Slayer-Fan123: Settle down. I admit I could be wrong. No reason to get so worked up.
Maybe, but why not? All the daemon engines have DR except for the Defiler don't they? So cut it, give DR to Rhinos, Land Raiders, and Predators (if they keep those) and up their points compared to the Undivided Legions. It's why they have their own codex and section in CA isn't it? They cut them off from all of the Legion units in the Imperial Armour Compendium for some reason.
Daemon Engines are different to vehicles though. I think that might be there justification. That doesn't mean you're wrong, it's just the weird way GW looks at things.
I just think that Death Guard are going to end up losing more than they gain.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Daemon Engines are different to vehicles though. I think that might be there justification. That doesn't mean you're wrong, it's just the weird way GW looks at things.
I just think that Death Guard are going to end up losing more than they gain.
Oh I definitely agree with you on that. They already have if the rules in the Compendium don't get errated. All those 2W Plague Marines dropping on an objective turn 1 in a Dreadclaw would have been sweet.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Oh I definitely agree with you on that. They already have if the rules in the Compendium don't get errated. All those 2W Plague Marines dropping on an objective turn 1 in a Dreadclaw would have been sweet.
The Dreadlcaw is a good example of the way GW treats Chaos compared to Marines. Death Guard can't use Dreadclaws because it's a "Chaos Space Marine Dreadclaw" and not a "Death Guard Dreadclaw". Meanwhile, Marines get to Drop Pods no matter what symbol is on their shoulder pad.
The Dreadlcaw is a good example of the way GW treats Chaos compared to Marines. Death Guard can't use Dreadclaws because it's a "Chaos Space Marine Dreadclaw" and not a "Death Guard Dreadclaw". Meanwhile, Marines get to Drop Pods no matter what symbol is on their shoulder pad.
This only became true of a number of SM vehicles with the Codex/Supplement style release. Do you want that style release or not? To me it sounds like DG players want their own Codex. Which means giving up things like Dreadclaws, at least currently.
As justyn notes, loyalist marine s have been hit by this plenty of times in the past.
one solution GW could take for some of the stuff is to rename units. the chaos lord suddenly becomes the "Lord of putrification" etc. one model box for several units is something GW's proven willing to do, what with death company intercessors and hounds of morkai
Justyn wrote: This only became true of a number of SM vehicles with the Codex/Supplement style release. Do you want that style release or not? To me it sounds like DG players want their own Codex. Which means giving up things like Dreadclaws, at least currently.
I don't see how these two are related at all.
Nothing is stopping GW from allowing things to carry on between books. They already carry Land Raiders, Rhinos and Predators. Why not other types of units as well, just with the DG special rules added.
If they're so desperate to keep the CSM units unchanged as a base profile in the DG Codex let's just hope they add contaminated monstrosity with a points cost to any of these profiles.
Sorry, don't all loyalist units get their chapter trait, doctrines, Angels of Death, etc? Are you referring to the CORE rule?
Necrons have heaps of units that don't get their dynasty traits, including the Silent King not getting the Szarekhan Dynasty benefits, which could easily be a precedent for Mortarion not getting Disgustingly Resilient (if it plays out that way).
Sorry, don't all loyalist units get their chapter trait, doctrines, Angels of Death, etc? Are you referring to the CORE rule?
Necrons have heaps of units that don't get their dynasty traits, including the Silent King not getting the Szarekhan Dynasty benefits, which could easily be a precedent for Mortarion not getting Disgustingly Resilient (if it plays out that way).
Dynastic agents don't get it because they don't belong to any one dynasty or in the case of the silent king, supercede it in their own right. They will work with any dy asty for the good of the race.
There is no fluff reason a death guard chaos lord isn't some form of plague marine. Well, not beyond not existing witb a specific kit as others have noted.
Also the correct comparison for dynastic codes is the plague hosts.
Sorry, don't all loyalist units get their chapter trait, doctrines, Angels of Death, etc? Are you referring to the CORE rule?
Necrons have heaps of units that don't get their dynasty traits, including the Silent King not getting the Szarekhan Dynasty benefits, which could easily be a precedent for Mortarion not getting Disgustingly Resilient (if it plays out that way).
Dynastic agents don't get it because they don't belong to any one dynasty or in the case of the silent king, supercede it in their own right. They will work with any dy asty for the good of the race.
There is no fluff reason a death guard chaos lord isn't some form of plague marine. Well, not beyond not existing witb a specific kit as others have noted.
Also the correct comparison for dynastic codes is the plague hosts.
Not really. Plague Marines are an old Elite-Slot Finecast selection from CSM, which they turned into a spin off with some Heresy-novels fluff. They are a sub-faction to CSM like Ultramarines are to Space Marines or Ulthwe are to Eldar or Novok are to Necrons.
The equivalent to Death Guard would be a dedicated Novok Flayed-Ones-focussed Spin-Off Codex from Necrons (with Plague Hosts then being variants of Flayed-One-centric armies).
Sorry, don't all loyalist units get their chapter trait, doctrines, Angels of Death, etc? Are you referring to the CORE rule?
Necrons have heaps of units that don't get their dynasty traits, including the Silent King not getting the Szarekhan Dynasty benefits, which could easily be a precedent for Mortarion not getting Disgustingly Resilient (if it plays out that way).
Dynastic agents don't get it because they don't belong to any one dynasty or in the case of the silent king, supercede it in their own right. They will work with any dy asty for the good of the race.
There is no fluff reason a death guard chaos lord isn't some form of plague marine. Well, not beyond not existing witb a specific kit as others have noted.
Also the correct comparison for dynastic codes is the plague hosts.
Not really. Plague Marines are an old Elite-Slot Finecast selection from CSM, which they turned into a spin off with some Heresy-novels fluff. They are a sub-faction to CSM like Ultramarines are to Space Marines or Ulthwe are to Eldar or Novok are to Necrons.
The equivalent to Death Guard would be a dedicated Novok Flayed-Ones-focussed Spin-Off Codex from Necrons (with Plague Hosts then being variants of Flayed-One-centric armies).
dismissing them as "just a subfaction" is remarkably blind. they're a VERY VERY differant army. at this point calling DG "just a CSM subfaction" is like claiming sisters of battle are "just space marines with boobplate and S3+T3"
Sorry, don't all loyalist units get their chapter trait, doctrines, Angels of Death, etc? Are you referring to the CORE rule?
Necrons have heaps of units that don't get their dynasty traits, including the Silent King not getting the Szarekhan Dynasty benefits, which could easily be a precedent for Mortarion not getting Disgustingly Resilient (if it plays out that way).
Dynastic agents don't get it because they don't belong to any one dynasty or in the case of the silent king, supercede it in their own right. They will work with any dy asty for the good of the race.
There is no fluff reason a death guard chaos lord isn't some form of plague marine. Well, not beyond not existing witb a specific kit as others have noted.
Also the correct comparison for dynastic codes is the plague hosts.
Not really. Plague Marines are an old Elite-Slot Finecast selection from CSM, which they turned into a spin off with some Heresy-novels fluff. They are a sub-faction to CSM like Ultramarines are to Space Marines or Ulthwe are to Eldar or Novok are to Necrons.
The equivalent to Death Guard would be a dedicated Novok Flayed-Ones-focussed Spin-Off Codex from Necrons (with Plague Hosts then being variants of Flayed-One-centric armies).
Except that doesn't exist.
Death guard are an existing codex with 7 death guard sub-faction. Maybe we should have a root codex and 7 supplements for the plague hosts.
Either way I'll leave it here because its going too far off topic, ultimately they're getting a codex regardless.
Death guard are an existing codex with 7 death guard sub-faction. Maybe we should have a root codex and 7 supplements for the plague hosts.
Either way I'll leave it here because its going too far off topic, ultimately they're getting a codex regardless.
Maybe. Thus far, they rolled back all the campaign-book specific stuff like Chapter-specific litanies, Vigilus detachments, etc.. .
I am doubtful the Death Guard, TS, Custodes, etc.. sub-sub-factions for previous "mono-sub-faction-books" will stay around anymore than 7th Edition campaign book formations and such did, or even previous CSM spin-off books like Khorne Daemonkin (though DG, TS seem to have made at least one additional edition).
Death guard are an existing codex with 7 death guard sub-faction. Maybe we should have a root codex and 7 supplements for the plague hosts.
Either way I'll leave it here because its going too far off topic, ultimately they're getting a codex regardless.
Maybe. Thus far, they rolled back all the campaign-book specific stuff like Chapter-specific litanies, Vigilus detachments, etc.. .
I am doubtful the Death Guard, TS, Custodes, etc.. sub-sub-factions for previous "mono-sub-faction-books" will stay around anymore than 7th Edition campaign book formations and such did, or even previous CSM spin-off books like Khorne Daemonkin (though DG, TS seem to have made at least one additional edition).
But we'll see.
GW has already said DG are getting their own codex. frankly I think they're more likely to spin off more. it's pretty clear to me a SINGLE codex for CSMs just wasn't making anyone happy.
You guys are only getting 2/3 of GW's long game:
Release a Deathguard codex
A year later release a CSM codex with "ALL CSM!!"
Release a Deathguard Supplement
You guys are only getting 2/3 of GW's long game:
Release a Deathguard codex
A year later release a CSM codex with "ALL CSM!!"
Release a Deathguard Supplement
And now you have bought 3 books in 2 years.
They may not. They may decide on another 'campaign' book series like PA first. They need to get everyone used to paying them $400 a year for the right to play before printing your miniatures is something you do right before a game.
Beyond the fact some of that list is already redundant with existing options in the deathguard codex. I.e. you want unique dg flavour terminators... and blightlords and death shroud? Why would you ever not take the supplement army that has nigh on 100% core with added options and more units on top.
To make it worse I don't really understand why you think having death guard chaos marines is even a feasible concept. They're plague marines, that's the point of them.
How many of the equivalent units can not be sorted with a couple of rules options and name option
REALLY Hopes some idiot will not go into a stupid whiny rant that doing this would be the same as Making Guardsmen and Titans the same - like idiots usually do.....
You have to differentiate a profile for a mutilator to cover all god specific legions and the renegades etc.
If you give it meaningful rules for being in deathguard (+1 t & dr), it will need to cost more points, it also has a different stat line.
Then repeat this for Ec, WE and Tsons and rules that fit if it isn't in one of those legions.
Or, you write its DG points and profile, separately... in a DG codex.
Look at it this way. They didn't just say "use tacticals" to represent grey hunters and they don't even have a different stat line. Why is it then rational to give units with different stat lines all printed in 1 entry with 5/6 different base costs with 4-5 different wargear lists based on a supplement you may or may not have?
Well GW has clearly shown they don't think all Death Guard have a FNP equivalent. So there's no point in having a separate codex.
All Death Guard units should have Disgustingly Resilient, and I bet they'll get it in the new codex. Everything not having it is just a relic of the poor design of early 8th edition codexes.
Don't pay too much attention to slayer. He has repeatedly shown that he doesn't know the first thing about DG and just takes extreme stances on things to start discussions.
Maybe, but why not? All the daemon engines have DR except for the Defiler don't they? So cut it, give DR to Rhinos, Land Raiders, and Predators (if they keep those) and up their points compared to the Undivided Legions. It's why they have their own codex and section in CA isn't it? They cut them off from all of the Legion units in the Imperial Armour Compendium for some reason.
Capturing vehicles (loyalist and chaos) after killing the crew of marine with bio-weapons is part of their fluff, and one of the reason given why they still have ready access to them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote: one solution GW could take for some of the stuff is to rename units. the chaos lord suddenly becomes the "Lord of putrification" etc. one model box for several units is something GW's proven willing to do, what with death company intercessors and hounds of morkai
Honestly, ever since Lords of Contagion got access to the chaos lord aura in War of the Spider, I haven't fielded a single chaos lord. If they just roll the aura into the datasheet, neither Chaos Lords nor Sorcerers would be missed, since there already are DG variants of them. The only loss would be from a competitive viewpoint, as chaos lords and sorcerers are significantly cheaper than the more powerful and durable DG variants.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Morden wrote: IMO the following should be a Deathguard option with DG themed options - job done.
On some of those on your list I agree, some would just be nice to have but aren't necessary. However, quite a few have no place in the Death Guard legion:
Spoiler:
Warpsmith
Fluff-wise DG don't get access to warpsmiths, since anything they would build would rot and mutate while doing so. This is the same reason why the Lord Discordant has no place in the legion.
Chaos marines Chosen Terminators
What's the point in that? They've already got plague marines as chosen and blight lords as terminators. Not having chaos marines is the whole point of the codex.
Raptor Warp talon Bikers Heldrake
There also is good reason why DG don't have those. The whole legion's thing is marching at the enemy while shelling them with artillery, not jumping and racing across the board.
Havocs
Fluff quite clearly calls out Mortarion not believing in putting heavy weaponry on expendable infantry. And by expendable infantry, he means his entire legion.
There's a massive leap between letting death guard use them (which is what they have now with cultists and chaos lords), because they don't get DR and an obliterator having DR and +1 toughness and mysteriously costing the same because its in the same core codex as everyone else's.
Which is why I didn't mention obliterators.
All Death Guard units should have Disgustingly Resilient, and I bet they'll get it in the new codex. Everything not having it is just a relic of the poor design of early 8th edition codexes.
I disagree. Vehicles should not. Death Guard Astartes infantry sure.
Oddly all the dg players and fans want everything to have the fnp equivalent.
Well why wouldn't they want all of their everything to have damage reduction. I mean I want everything I have to get fnp too. Guard, Mechanicum, you name it.
Are you guys not aware that everything but possessed and cultists already can have DR?
Dudeface wrote: Then again, it would stop plague marines being 23-25ppm or anything daft.
It really wouldn't.
Remember that GW is excellent at over-balancing things.
Pretty much this. They've already removed Contemptors and Leviathans from the DG repertoire so who knows what will happen next.
I just finished painting 3000 points of Death Guard this year and I dread what will happen to them in the upcoming codex. The rumor of removing shared units does make me sad as I kitbashed my own versions of a few Death Guard CSM units.
Marshal Loss wrote: Looks like a fake to me; rule describes Daemons yet the art above features DG fighting Tau, numerous spelling mistakes (e.g. indured), etc.
Daemons feature in the codex however so it's not impossible it's from the rules for the daemons. Indured is about right for a GW typo but the art at the top could be from a page of generic faction special rules.
It's not enough to be conclusive one or the other for me still.
Wouldn't be shocked if DG lost the 5+++, because it would be easier to balance offense/defence on a 6+++. As people have said, 2 wound plague marines with a 5++ would need to be quite expensive and it might have ended up being silly. (Can a 25 point unit really just have a boltgun for instance? Probably not.)
Tyel wrote: Wouldn't be shocked if DG lost the 5+++, because it would be easier to balance offense/defence on a 6+++. As people have said, 2 wound plague marines with a 5++ would need to be quite expensive and it might have ended up being silly. (Can a 25 point unit really just have a boltgun for instance? Probably not.)
If the Necron and Space Marine codexes are any indication, I'm betting it's 6+++ by default with a stratagem to take it back to 5+++ on one unit. They seem to be removing some of the more powerful generic rules from datasheets and moving them to targeted strats (see: repulsor field rule). In some cases it's a buff (smokescreen), in others it's a nerf (repulsor field).
Tyel wrote: Wouldn't be shocked if DG lost the 5+++, because it would be easier to balance offense/defence on a 6+++. As people have said, 2 wound plague marines with a 5++ would need to be quite expensive and it might have ended up being silly. (Can a 25 point unit really just have a boltgun for instance? Probably not.)
It's a good point, and with the removal of the 3++ Storm Shield it does feel like they are trying to reign in any weird mechanisms that have a negative effect on game enjoyment. I just hope that Death Guard get something nice in return, but we won't see until the end of the month/beginning og December.
Tyel wrote: Wouldn't be shocked if DG lost the 5+++, because it would be easier to balance offense/defence on a 6+++. As people have said, 2 wound plague marines with a 5++ would need to be quite expensive and it might have ended up being silly. (Can a 25 point unit really just have a boltgun for instance? Probably not.)
It's a good point, and with the removal of the 3++ Storm Shield it does feel like they are trying to reign in any weird mechanisms that have a negative effect on game enjoyment. I just hope that Death Guard get something nice in return, but we won't see until the end of the month/beginning og December.
TIL "any rule that might result in a thing I am targeting not immediately dying" = "weird mechanism that have a negative effect on game enjoyment."
Theres no reason why W2 plague marines with 5++ would be unbalanceable. DG termies are currently W2 models with 2+/5++/5+FNP. If they had to cost 24ppm and be extremely defensively oriented vs their offense, then...idk...great? Good? I'm glad there is a defensive army in 40k?
Brutus_Apex wrote: It's possible that DG get +1 to their Disgustingly Resilient roll if they are battlforged. Changing it up from their current Rapidfire at 18 rule.
Not saying its true, just spitballing.
"We heard you loud and clear that your chapter trait was almost worthless, so here's a chapter trait that's just 'the rules you used to have as a baseline' instead!"
.....meanwhile in loyalist-land we've still got like a half dozen concurrent army-wide special rules just blanket applied to everything for funsies.
Dudeface wrote: There is no fluff reason a death guard chaos lord isn't some form of plague marine.[...]
Not really. Plague Marines are an old Elite-Slot Finecast selection from CSM, which they turned into a spin off with some Heresy-novels fluff. They are a sub-faction to CSM like Ultramarines are to Space Marines or Ulthwe are to Eldar or Novok are to Necrons.
What are you on about? Death Guard well predate finecast and HH novels. They had both metals and plastics in 2nd. By at least 3 they had a variant army list (I can't remember about 2nd).
By that logic of going with some arbitrary less developed version of them, Grey knights are just some terminator squad; Deathwatch are an upgrade sprue, Death Korps are just a Guard re-skin, Daemons are just a few units from CSM. Why should any of them have rules to represent them as armies when they're just spinoffs?
"We heard you loud and clear that your chapter trait was almost worthless, so here's a chapter trait that's just 'the rules you used to have as a baseline' instead!"
.....meanwhile in loyalist-land we've still got like a half dozen concurrent army-wide special rules just blanket applied to everything for funsies.
Tyel wrote: Wouldn't be shocked if DG lost the 5+++, because it would be easier to balance offense/defence on a 6+++. As people have said, 2 wound plague marines with a 5++ would need to be quite expensive and it might have ended up being silly. (Can a 25 point unit really just have a boltgun for instance? Probably not.)
It's a good point, and with the removal of the 3++ Storm Shield it does feel like they are trying to reign in any weird mechanisms that have a negative effect on game enjoyment. I just hope that Death Guard get something nice in return, but we won't see until the end of the month/beginning og December.
TIL "any rule that might result in a thing I am targeting not immediately dying" = "weird mechanism that have a negative effect on game enjoyment."
Theres no reason why W2 plague marines with 5++ would be unbalanceable. DG termies are currently W2 models with 2+/5++/5+FNP. If they had to cost 24ppm and be extremely defensively oriented vs their offense, then...idk...great? Good? I'm glad there is a defensive army in 40k?
The way DG is implemented is unfun to play against a lot of the time. Roll an armys worth of shots and ping off a couple of wounds through 4-5 rounds of rolling dice, it's a massive time sink.
10 intercessors fire twice, reroll 1's to hit, wound rolls, reroll 1's to wound, saves, DR, DR rerolls (possibly) aaaaand you do 2-3 wounds for all that dice rolling.
Tyel wrote: Wouldn't be shocked if DG lost the 5+++, because it would be easier to balance offense/defence on a 6+++. As people have said, 2 wound plague marines with a 5++ would need to be quite expensive and it might have ended up being silly. (Can a 25 point unit really just have a boltgun for instance? Probably not.)
It's a good point, and with the removal of the 3++ Storm Shield it does feel like they are trying to reign in any weird mechanisms that have a negative effect on game enjoyment. I just hope that Death Guard get something nice in return, but we won't see until the end of the month/beginning og December.
TIL "any rule that might result in a thing I am targeting not immediately dying" = "weird mechanism that have a negative effect on game enjoyment."
Theres no reason why W2 plague marines with 5++ would be unbalanceable. DG termies are currently W2 models with 2+/5++/5+FNP. If they had to cost 24ppm and be extremely defensively oriented vs their offense, then...idk...great? Good? I'm glad there is a defensive army in 40k?
TIL "if I don't understand the context/perspective of other people's post I'll just make my own and be snarky about it". I was thinking of actually writing a proper answer, but I fear you'll just do the same again. So goodbye.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The way DG is implemented is unfun to play against a lot of the time. Roll an armys worth of shots and ping off a couple of wounds through 4-5 rounds of rolling dice, it's a massive time sink.
I do agree to a point. I do feel, however, that the 5++ has been mitigated somewhat with the changes to the damage output of some of the heavy weaponry for Marines.
I am thinking we might see the preorder for the Death Guard codex the Saturday after next, 28th of November.
Tyel wrote: Wouldn't be shocked if DG lost the 5+++, because it would be easier to balance offense/defence on a 6+++. As people have said, 2 wound plague marines with a 5++ would need to be quite expensive and it might have ended up being silly. (Can a 25 point unit really just have a boltgun for instance? Probably not.)
It's a good point, and with the removal of the 3++ Storm Shield it does feel like they are trying to reign in any weird mechanisms that have a negative effect on game enjoyment. I just hope that Death Guard get something nice in return, but we won't see until the end of the month/beginning og December.
TIL "any rule that might result in a thing I am targeting not immediately dying" = "weird mechanism that have a negative effect on game enjoyment."
Theres no reason why W2 plague marines with 5++ would be unbalanceable. DG termies are currently W2 models with 2+/5++/5+FNP. If they had to cost 24ppm and be extremely defensively oriented vs their offense, then...idk...great? Good? I'm glad there is a defensive army in 40k?
The way DG is implemented is unfun to play against a lot of the time. Roll an armys worth of shots and ping off a couple of wounds through 4-5 rounds of rolling dice, it's a massive time sink.
10 intercessors fire twice, reroll 1's to hit, wound rolls, reroll 1's to wound, saves, DR, DR rerolls (possibly) aaaaand you do 2-3 wounds for all that dice rolling.
Going from a 5+++ to a 6+++ wouldn't cut down on any dice rolling. And they're no more aggravating to kill than Custodes IMO. And most of that rolling you're complaining about is loyalists.
Tyel wrote: Wouldn't be shocked if DG lost the 5+++, because it would be easier to balance offense/defence on a 6+++. As people have said, 2 wound plague marines with a 5++ would need to be quite expensive and it might have ended up being silly. (Can a 25 point unit really just have a boltgun for instance? Probably not.)
It's a good point, and with the removal of the 3++ Storm Shield it does feel like they are trying to reign in any weird mechanisms that have a negative effect on game enjoyment. I just hope that Death Guard get something nice in return, but we won't see until the end of the month/beginning og December.
TIL "any rule that might result in a thing I am targeting not immediately dying" = "weird mechanism that have a negative effect on game enjoyment."
Theres no reason why W2 plague marines with 5++ would be unbalanceable. DG termies are currently W2 models with 2+/5++/5+FNP. If they had to cost 24ppm and be extremely defensively oriented vs their offense, then...idk...great? Good? I'm glad there is a defensive army in 40k?
The way DG is implemented is unfun to play against a lot of the time. Roll an armys worth of shots and ping off a couple of wounds through 4-5 rounds of rolling dice, it's a massive time sink.
10 intercessors fire twice, reroll 1's to hit, wound rolls, reroll 1's to wound, saves, DR, DR rerolls (possibly) aaaaand you do 2-3 wounds for all that dice rolling.
Going from a 5+++ to a 6+++ wouldn't cut down on any dice rolling. And they're no more aggravating to kill than Custodes IMO. And most of that rolling you're complaining about is loyalists.
In part, but it's still mentally deflating to know that 3/4 of whatever you shoot is just wasted rolling most of the time. Powering up your havocs with stacking buffs and spending resources to then chip 4-5 wounds off a vehicle doesn't feel great
That's kind of the whole point of DG, isn't it? High durability, low damage output. If you change that, it's just a another flavor of marines.
I any case 6+++ would be really annoying. Nothing is more fun that rolling for models one at a time with almost no chance of a positive result. Might as well just have removed it completely.
Tyel wrote: Wouldn't be shocked if DG lost the 5+++, because it would be easier to balance offense/defence on a 6+++. As people have said, 2 wound plague marines with a 5++ would need to be quite expensive and it might have ended up being silly. (Can a 25 point unit really just have a boltgun for instance? Probably not.)
It's a good point, and with the removal of the 3++ Storm Shield it does feel like they are trying to reign in any weird mechanisms that have a negative effect on game enjoyment. I just hope that Death Guard get something nice in return, but we won't see until the end of the month/beginning og December.
TIL "any rule that might result in a thing I am targeting not immediately dying" = "weird mechanism that have a negative effect on game enjoyment."
Theres no reason why W2 plague marines with 5++ would be unbalanceable. DG termies are currently W2 models with 2+/5++/5+FNP. If they had to cost 24ppm and be extremely defensively oriented vs their offense, then...idk...great? Good? I'm glad there is a defensive army in 40k?
The way DG is implemented is unfun to play against a lot of the time. Roll an armys worth of shots and ping off a couple of wounds through 4-5 rounds of rolling dice, it's a massive time sink.
10 intercessors fire twice, reroll 1's to hit, wound rolls, reroll 1's to wound, saves, DR, DR rerolls (possibly) aaaaand you do 2-3 wounds for all that dice rolling.
Going from a 5+++ to a 6+++ wouldn't cut down on any dice rolling. And they're no more aggravating to kill than Custodes IMO. And most of that rolling you're complaining about is loyalists.
In part, but it's still mentally deflating to know that 3/4 of whatever you shoot is just wasted rolling most of the time. Powering up your havocs with stacking buffs and spending resources to then chip 4-5 wounds off a vehicle doesn't feel great
Perhaps, but it also doesn't feel good to have a 300+ PPM vehicle blown off the table in a single round of shooting from six eradicators that cost less than the vehicle in question. One would think gw could find a balance between the two. I'm not sure we should be complaining about an army that's actually durable with how killy most things in 40k currently are.
Tyel wrote: Wouldn't be shocked if DG lost the 5+++, because it would be easier to balance offense/defence on a 6+++. As people have said, 2 wound plague marines with a 5++ would need to be quite expensive and it might have ended up being silly. (Can a 25 point unit really just have a boltgun for instance? Probably not.)
It's a good point, and with the removal of the 3++ Storm Shield it does feel like they are trying to reign in any weird mechanisms that have a negative effect on game enjoyment. I just hope that Death Guard get something nice in return, but we won't see until the end of the month/beginning og December.
TIL "any rule that might result in a thing I am targeting not immediately dying" = "weird mechanism that have a negative effect on game enjoyment."
Theres no reason why W2 plague marines with 5++ would be unbalanceable. DG termies are currently W2 models with 2+/5++/5+FNP. If they had to cost 24ppm and be extremely defensively oriented vs their offense, then...idk...great? Good? I'm glad there is a defensive army in 40k?
The way DG is implemented is unfun to play against a lot of the time. Roll an armys worth of shots and ping off a couple of wounds through 4-5 rounds of rolling dice, it's a massive time sink.
10 intercessors fire twice, reroll 1's to hit, wound rolls, reroll 1's to wound, saves, DR, DR rerolls (possibly) aaaaand you do 2-3 wounds for all that dice rolling.
Going from a 5+++ to a 6+++ wouldn't cut down on any dice rolling. And they're no more aggravating to kill than Custodes IMO. And most of that rolling you're complaining about is loyalists.
In part, but it's still mentally deflating to know that 3/4 of whatever you shoot is just wasted rolling most of the time. Powering up your havocs with stacking buffs and spending resources to then chip 4-5 wounds off a vehicle doesn't feel great
Perhaps, but it also doesn't feel good to have a 300+ PPM vehicle blown off the table in a single round of shooting from six eradicators that cost less than the vehicle in question. One would think gw could find a balance between the two. I'm not sure we should be complaining about an army that's actually durable with how killy most things in 40k currently are.
Hard to say, there's problems with how high output is, likewise there are problems with how fiddly implementation can be on defensive stats. Saying all that I'm not sure how to manage it without stripping out reroll auras or radically reinventing how they handle or define a defensive army.
Edit:
Quick thoughts to replace DR:
higher T or more W rather than damage avoidance mechanics
cloud of flies -1 to hit or maybe reduce targeting units range on their weapons
a fat damage reduction of 1 across the board to a minimum of 1
AP reduction
All things that require less rolling and make them hard to kill in some way
People hate when stuff they attack doesnt die, thats why everything has to die instantly.
The only exceptions are characters. People hate for their cool characters to die so they need to be inmortal. And kill imperial knights in a single meele round.
I like for stuff to be resilient. The problem of rolling 200 dice to remove 2 wounds of a DG unit is actually having to roll 200 dice on the first place.
Galas wrote: People hate when stuff they attack doesnt die, thats why everything has to die instantly.
The only exceptions are characters. People hate for their cool characters to die so they need to be inmortal. And kill imperial knights in a single meele round.
I like for stuff to be resilient. The problem of rolling 200 dice to remove 2 wounds of a DG unit is actually having to roll 200 dice on the first place.
This sums it up nicely, the mental build up of firing X shots and being "this is loads of shots, this is gonna be great" doing all the rolling to convert to picking up 1-2 guys is both time consuming and demoralising often.
Tyel wrote: Wouldn't be shocked if DG lost the 5+++, because it would be easier to balance offense/defence on a 6+++. As people have said, 2 wound plague marines with a 5++ would need to be quite expensive and it might have ended up being silly. (Can a 25 point unit really just have a boltgun for instance? Probably not.)
It's a good point, and with the removal of the 3++ Storm Shield it does feel like they are trying to reign in any weird mechanisms that have a negative effect on game enjoyment. I just hope that Death Guard get something nice in return, but we won't see until the end of the month/beginning og December.
TIL "any rule that might result in a thing I am targeting not immediately dying" = "weird mechanism that have a negative effect on game enjoyment."
Theres no reason why W2 plague marines with 5++ would be unbalanceable. DG termies are currently W2 models with 2+/5++/5+FNP. If they had to cost 24ppm and be extremely defensively oriented vs their offense, then...idk...great? Good? I'm glad there is a defensive army in 40k?
The way DG is implemented is unfun to play against a lot of the time. Roll an armys worth of shots and ping off a couple of wounds through 4-5 rounds of rolling dice, it's a massive time sink.
10 intercessors fire twice, reroll 1's to hit, wound rolls, reroll 1's to wound, saves, DR, DR rerolls (possibly) aaaaand you do 2-3 wounds for all that dice rolling.
Going from a 5+++ to a 6+++ wouldn't cut down on any dice rolling. And they're no more aggravating to kill than Custodes IMO. And most of that rolling you're complaining about is loyalists.
In part, but it's still mentally deflating to know that 3/4 of whatever you shoot is just wasted rolling most of the time. Powering up your havocs with stacking buffs and spending resources to then chip 4-5 wounds off a vehicle doesn't feel great
Perhaps, but it also doesn't feel good to have a 300+ PPM vehicle blown off the table in a single round of shooting from six eradicators that cost less than the vehicle in question. One would think gw could find a balance between the two. I'm not sure we should be complaining about an army that's actually durable with how killy most things in 40k currently are.
Hard to say, there's problems with how high output is, likewise there are problems with how fiddly implementation can be on defensive stats. Saying all that I'm not sure how to manage it without stripping out reroll auras or radically reinventing how they handle or define a defensive army.
Edit:
Quick thoughts to replace DR:
higher T or more W rather than damage avoidance mechanics
cloud of flies -1 to hit or maybe reduce targeting units range on their weapons
a fat damage reduction of 1 across the board to a minimum of 1
AP reduction
All things that require less rolling and make them hard to kill in some way
Additional wounds could help, but we allready have people having fits about 2W and 3W marines. Higher toughness runs into the problem of the current wounding table: make Plague Marines T6 and they're tougher against S5 and 6, but the same against everything lower or higher until you hit S10 or drop to S3 . Minuses to hit run into the problem with the -1 cap gw implemented, and limiting range wouldn't do much with the smaller boards and the ranges on most weapons, and nothing in melee. Damage and AP reduction would just mean you spam 1D low AP weapons against them, same as 1W terminators in older editions.
Like you said: it's "fiddly".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galas wrote: People hate when stuff they attack doesnt die, thats why everything has to die instantly.
The only exceptions are characters. People hate for their cool characters to die so they need to be inmortal. And kill imperial knights in a single meele round.
I like for stuff to be resilient. The problem of rolling 200 dice to remove 2 wounds of a DG unit is actually having to roll 200 dice on the first place.
Eh, I could care if you kill my characters. They're just there to either pay the HQ tax or provide some psychic shenanigans. It's when my tanks and dreads start getting blasted off the board before they can do anything that I get cranky.
There is one thing I'd like to consider. If this little snippet is actually from the upcoming book it would indicate that Nurgle Daemons might play a role in the next Death Guard book. Personally I'd hope for a better implementation than the last. Not a fan of the multi-book/detachment shenanigan that followed the old DG book.
Tyel wrote: Wouldn't be shocked if DG lost the 5+++, because it would be easier to balance offense/defence on a 6+++. As people have said, 2 wound plague marines with a 5++ would need to be quite expensive and it might have ended up being silly. (Can a 25 point unit really just have a boltgun for instance? Probably not.)
It's a good point, and with the removal of the 3++ Storm Shield it does feel like they are trying to reign in any weird mechanisms that have a negative effect on game enjoyment. I just hope that Death Guard get something nice in return, but we won't see until the end of the month/beginning og December.
TIL "any rule that might result in a thing I am targeting not immediately dying" = "weird mechanism that have a negative effect on game enjoyment."
Theres no reason why W2 plague marines with 5++ would be unbalanceable. DG termies are currently W2 models with 2+/5++/5+FNP. If they had to cost 24ppm and be extremely defensively oriented vs their offense, then...idk...great? Good? I'm glad there is a defensive army in 40k?
The way DG is implemented is unfun to play against a lot of the time. Roll an armys worth of shots and ping off a couple of wounds through 4-5 rounds of rolling dice, it's a massive time sink.
10 intercessors fire twice, reroll 1's to hit, wound rolls, reroll 1's to wound, saves, DR, DR rerolls (possibly) aaaaand you do 2-3 wounds for all that dice rolling.
Good. Fantastic. Give me more factions in 40k that you can actually build for durability. feth your intercessors - sorry they're not hyperefficient killing T5 heavy infantry as well as mowing down hordes.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I put FRFSRF on two guard squads and I rolled 80 shots and only did 2w it was so demoralizing GW nerf it why didnt it diiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiie
Tyel wrote: Wouldn't be shocked if DG lost the 5+++, because it would be easier to balance offense/defence on a 6+++. As people have said, 2 wound plague marines with a 5++ would need to be quite expensive and it might have ended up being silly. (Can a 25 point unit really just have a boltgun for instance? Probably not.)
It's a good point, and with the removal of the 3++ Storm Shield it does feel like they are trying to reign in any weird mechanisms that have a negative effect on game enjoyment. I just hope that Death Guard get something nice in return, but we won't see until the end of the month/beginning og December.
TIL "any rule that might result in a thing I am targeting not immediately dying" = "weird mechanism that have a negative effect on game enjoyment."
Theres no reason why W2 plague marines with 5++ would be unbalanceable. DG termies are currently W2 models with 2+/5++/5+FNP. If they had to cost 24ppm and be extremely defensively oriented vs their offense, then...idk...great? Good? I'm glad there is a defensive army in 40k?
The way DG is implemented is unfun to play against a lot of the time. Roll an armys worth of shots and ping off a couple of wounds through 4-5 rounds of rolling dice, it's a massive time sink.
10 intercessors fire twice, reroll 1's to hit, wound rolls, reroll 1's to wound, saves, DR, DR rerolls (possibly) aaaaand you do 2-3 wounds for all that dice rolling.
Good. Fantastic. Give me more factions in 40k that you can actually build for durability. feth your intercessors - sorry they're not hyperefficient killing T5 heavy infantry as well as mowing down hordes.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I put FRFSRF on two guard squads and I rolled 80 shots and only did 2w it was so demoralizing GW nerf it why didnt it diiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiie
Way to miss the point completely, I'm saying as a defensive measure it adds to the frustration and endless dice rolling. I dont want then to be less durable, I want to have to jump through less hoops.
While you want to be snarky, use that time playing the violin to see why it requires you to roll 138ish dice to kill 2 guys. Surely you can manage it with fewer dice rolls via modifiers?
Tyel wrote: Wouldn't be shocked if DG lost the 5+++, because it would be easier to balance offense/defence on a 6+++. As people have said, 2 wound plague marines with a 5++ would need to be quite expensive and it might have ended up being silly. (Can a 25 point unit really just have a boltgun for instance? Probably not.)
It's a good point, and with the removal of the 3++ Storm Shield it does feel like they are trying to reign in any weird mechanisms that have a negative effect on game enjoyment. I just hope that Death Guard get something nice in return, but we won't see until the end of the month/beginning og December.
TIL "any rule that might result in a thing I am targeting not immediately dying" = "weird mechanism that have a negative effect on game enjoyment."
Theres no reason why W2 plague marines with 5++ would be unbalanceable. DG termies are currently W2 models with 2+/5++/5+FNP. If they had to cost 24ppm and be extremely defensively oriented vs their offense, then...idk...great? Good? I'm glad there is a defensive army in 40k?
The way DG is implemented is unfun to play against a lot of the time. Roll an armys worth of shots and ping off a couple of wounds through 4-5 rounds of rolling dice, it's a massive time sink.
10 intercessors fire twice, reroll 1's to hit, wound rolls, reroll 1's to wound, saves, DR, DR rerolls (possibly) aaaaand you do 2-3 wounds for all that dice rolling.
Good. Fantastic. Give me more factions in 40k that you can actually build for durability. feth your intercessors - sorry they're not hyperefficient killing T5 heavy infantry as well as mowing down hordes.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I put FRFSRF on two guard squads and I rolled 80 shots and only did 2w it was so demoralizing GW nerf it why didnt it diiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiie
Way to miss the point completely, I'm saying as a defensive measure it adds to the frustration and endless dice rolling. I dont want then to be less durable, I want to have to jump through less hoops.
While you want to be snarky, use that time playing the violin to see why it requires you to roll 138ish dice to kill 2 guys. Surely you can manage it with fewer dice rolls via modifiers?
A blanket -1 to wound could do just that. Quick math shows that your double firing intercessors would kill the same number of 1W Plague Marines with that as with DR, same for the damage that a PBC would take from 6 eradicators. I'll need to do more comparisons. I didn't do it with rerolls BTW.
except that any durable unit will, by definition take "A lot of killing" which means yes a lot of dice rolling if you're trying to kill it wth bolters.
Same reason people hated Alaitoc and Iron Hands, etc..
Stuff‘s got to die, or the fans want it nerfed.
I disagree. people hate it when they face an opponent who's army has ridiculous resiliency without giving up an appropriate amount of offense. That is by definition imbalanced.
Same reason people hated Alaitoc and Iron Hands, etc..
Stuff‘s got to die, or the fans want it nerfed.
I disagree. people hate it when they face an opponent who's army has ridiculous resiliency without giving up an appropriate amount of offense. That is by definition imbalanced.
Sums it up, the_scotsman gave an example earlier of 135 points of guard doing 2 wounds (36 points) to plague marines, currently 144 points of plague marines do 25 points worth to a guardsmen squad. they're paying for that durability. It seems like they lose out here but that's ignoring the fact the plague marines rapid fire from further out etc.
Same reason people hated Alaitoc and Iron Hands, etc..
Stuff‘s got to die, or the fans want it nerfed.
I disagree. people hate it when they face an opponent who's army has ridiculous resiliency without giving up an appropriate amount of offense. That is by definition imbalanced.
Its the balancing that's difficult.
In theory you can make DG super tough - so rather than killing 30%+ of them in a turn, you can only kill 15%. But this is *balanced* because they will in turn expect to only kill say 15% of your army rather than 30%.
But in practice I'm not sure that's happened. In 8th they were either so pillowfisted that the fact they were tough didn't matter - you just slugged your whole army into them and wiped them in say 4 turns rather than 2 - prioritising the bits that mattered. Or for brief moments the toughness was pushed beyond the point people could reliably clear, so they won ITC missions by denying kill something/kill more.
With 9th's objective focus, there could be fairly obvious issues of "I go first, I stick a bunch of Plague Marines on objectives. Come at me, I'm getting 15 points on the primary if you don't".
I don't see how you marry up 2 wounds T5 3+/5+++ and potentially more defensive synergies, with "a boltgun". I guess you can say "screw the boltguns, I'm in it for the special weapons - like tactical marines" - but it still seems a gap. Its arguably less of an issue on vehicles because - to a degree - being bespoke they can be altered to match. (I.E. you could give plagueburst crawlers more shots if you wanted to tune up its output.)
Maybe there is some middle ground in the low 20s - but its not immediately clear to me.
Brutus_Apex wrote: It's possible that DG get +1 to their Disgustingly Resilient roll if they are battlforged.
Getting +1 to something that only works on a natural 6 doesn't actually do anything.
This is a good point, but it could be worded to say that DR succeeds on a natural 5 or 6 instead of just a natural 6.
I hope you guys are right on this. If you are, it would be a nice way to finally get DG players to use pox walkers and plague marines instead of daemon troops.
A 6+ DR would just combine the worst of both worlds: lots of dice rolling and a lot less durability.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyel wrote: With 9th's objective focus, there could be fairly obvious issues of "I go first, I stick a bunch of Plague Marines on objectives. Come at me, I'm getting 15 points on the primary if you don't".
How do you get troops moving 5" and with no option to deep strike onto objectives though? A rhino is the best DG currently can do.
I don't see how you marry up 2 wounds T5 3+/5+++ and potentially more defensive synergies, with "a boltgun". I guess you can say "screw the boltguns, I'm in it for the special weapons - like tactical marines" - but it still seems a gap. Its arguably less of an issue on vehicles because - to a degree - being bespoke they can be altered to match. (I.E. you could give plagueburst crawlers more shots if you wanted to tune up its output.)
Plague marines get up to 3 plasma guns/blight launchers per unit and can have a whole slew of deadly melee weapons, including two flails. There also is a number of small offensive buffs you can stack on them for 1 CP each, like doubling their shots, turning them into plague bolters, etc.
The do have the grenade combo, but I fully expect that to go away. Nuking a fully buffed Magnus or knight tyrant with a 150 points unit, a 55 points character and 3 cp is not ok at all.
In the beginning of 8th DG could grind down opponents because their units had lower damage, but usually stayed alive much longer than other units, so they dealt their damage for 3-4 turns rather than 1-2 turns like most other armies do. I would really like to return to that dynamic.
Tyel wrote: With 9th's objective focus, there could be fairly obvious issues of "I go first, I stick a bunch of Plague Marines on objectives. Come at me, I'm getting 15 points on the primary if you don't".
How do you get troops moving 5" and with no option to deep strike onto objectives though? A rhino is the best DG currently can do.
You play DG so probably know better than me - but depending on the scenario/terrain a high advance roll could get a guy in 3" range of mid-board objectives 12" from your deployment zone if you were deployed directly in front of it. If someone's done the similar thing to you it would be a 9-10" charge, so unlikely but not impossible. I accept it may not be possible sometimes.
Rhinos are therefore more reliable - but... kind of fragile and not that cheap. And rolling a few ones on expensive guys if it does die quickly adds up.
The terminators can deep strike can't they? 3 wounds with a 4++5+++, depending on points, would seem quite solid, even if they are glacially slow which brings its own issues.
I agree on the special weapons - although there's still a question of how expensive you should get.
Lol at "I have to roll so much for so little result" marine players. Now you know how it feels to run Ork boyz into your infantry. Heaven's forbid there is an army that can actually withstand the ridiculous amount of damage a marine list puts out.
Having said that, I've seen these rumors/images pop up everywhere last few days and it annoys me to no end. We are getting a reveal this Saturday, the codex itself presumably 2 or 3 weeks later. Just hold your horses until then. I agree with Jidmah, a 6+ FNP adds absolutely nothing, we keep the tedious rolling but now the DG player gets to be salty too because it hardly does anything.
Tyel wrote: You play DG so probably know better than me - but depending on the scenario/terrain a high advance roll could get a guy in 3" range of mid-board objectives 12" from your deployment zone if you were deployed directly in front of it. If someone's done the similar thing to you it would be a 9-10" charge, so unlikely but not impossible. I accept it may not be possible sometimes.
Since I play pure DG (so no nurglings like competitive players), I actually tried that a couple of times, and in theory a Noxious Blightbringer (aka bell guy) can help with those advances.
The issue is, that a terrain obstacle or a bad roll leaves your rather expensive plague marines stranded in an exposed position where they are just gunned down. Some times you just get one or two models within that 3" range, so an enemy can still contest the objective rather easily.
And, of course, there always is the issue of simply not winning the roll-off.
The terminators can deep strike can't they? 3 wounds with a 4++5+++, depending on points, would seem quite solid, even if they are glacially slow which brings its own issues.
They already fulfill that role though, and they just do it for more points. They also don't have objective secured and are 4", half advance rolls.
In general death guards high durability is rather nicely counter-balanced by slow movement and low damage output, playing against them just doesn't feel that way because so far players could avoid these drawbacks by souping daemons and/or CSM.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Argive wrote: Maybe now I will actually be able to kill a PBC in one round of shooting . Rather then ignore them for the game.
Sinking an entire armies worth of shooting into a PBC and it not dying is a bit silly...
And yet, somehow the significant more durable Mortarion manages to implode on turn one every game.
But can't have a single tank with low damage output not fold like wet paper, can we?
honestly we dunno the full story here, I mean if GW nerfs disgustingly resiliant but makes basic plague mariens 3 Wounds that's definatly a big increase. just for example.
BrianDavion wrote: honestly we dunno the full story here, I mean if GW nerfs disgustingly resiliant but makes basic plague mariens 3 Wounds that's definatly a big increase. just for example.
I agree, they managed to turn around issues like the KFF mek, Thrakka's Waaagh!, the biker warboss, and the DGPA actually seemed like they knew what they were doing.
There also is the rumor of DR going to -1 to wound floating around, so let's wait and see.
Tyel wrote: You play DG so probably know better than me - but depending on the scenario/terrain a high advance roll could get a guy in 3" range of mid-board objectives 12" from your deployment zone if you were deployed directly in front of it. If someone's done the similar thing to you it would be a 9-10" charge, so unlikely but not impossible. I accept it may not be possible sometimes.
Since I play pure DG (so no nurglings like competitive players), I actually tried that a couple of times, and in theory a Noxious Blightbringer (aka bell guy) can help with those advances.
The issue is, that a terrain obstacle or a bad roll leaves your rather expensive plague marines stranded in an exposed position where they are just gunned down. Some times you just get one or two models within that 3" range, so an enemy can still contest the objective rather easily.
And, of course, there always is the issue of simply not winning the roll-off.
The terminators can deep strike can't they? 3 wounds with a 4++5+++, depending on points, would seem quite solid, even if they are glacially slow which brings its own issues.
They already fulfill that role though, and they just do it for more points. They also don't have objective secured and are 4", half advance rolls.
In general death guards high durability is rather nicely counter-balanced by slow movement and low damage output, playing against them just doesn't feel that way because so far players could avoid these drawbacks by souping daemons and/or CSM.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Argive wrote: Maybe now I will actually be able to kill a PBC in one round of shooting . Rather then ignore them for the game.
Sinking an entire armies worth of shooting into a PBC and it not dying is a bit silly...
And yet, somehow the significant more durable Mortarion manages to implode on turn one every game.
But can't have a single tank with low damage output not fold like wet paper, can we?
That ineffective 190 point vehicle only takes 800 points of quad las predator fire to die, it does seem a little disproportionate.
Why is it that people always take units that literally no one considers to be even halfway decent as a point of reference?
That's also not correct, a las predator is 170 and does 3 damage on average to a PBC. So 680 points of a rather inefficient anti-tank unit suffice to kill it. A single unit of 6 eradicators with zero support blows them mile high in a single shooting phase just fine.
It also takes 480 points of entropy cannon PBC to kill a predator, or 680 points of the much more popular spitter load-out, assuming none of the PBC have lost more than 6 wounds, 640/850 points if even a single one did.
Nobody should be using Predators as a metric for anything. Predators have been garbage for a few editions now and does not represent the full capacity of a Space marine force.
dont try to kill DG whit bolter or lasgun fire, use heavy bolters, plasma, autocannons and so for, my best friend playes DG and my plan is alway to shoot him up and finisch him in close combat
yes its hard to do, but it can be done. what do you think DG will die from small arms fire )
Never mind, it's a personal opinion that using 18+ lascannon shots to kill a sub 200 point vehicle feels a chore. The metric or comparisons aren't really relevant, it's a subjective feeling.
Never mind, it's a personal opinion that using 18+ lascannon shots to kill a sub 200 point vehicle feels a chore. The metric or comparisons aren't really relevant, it's a subjective feeling.
This is why you've ditched lascannons for multimeltas/eradicators.
Anyway, I think the line is to be tough but not too tough. Not really DG - but while from a design perspective nuking "mass Plaguebearers+Tzeentch mortal wound spam" from orbit was kind of lame, from a gameplay approach it didn't seem especially fun. I felt it reduced the game very explicitly to rolling dice (which is to a degree always there, but still).
Its kind of the problem with all "toughness builds" - whether its via feel no pains, stacked minuses to hit etc.
Yes, durable units are supposed to be durable and lascannons are bad. In other news, ultramarines are blue and orks like to fight.
To put your numbers in context, a defiler still takes 14 lascannons to kill (21 when upgraded with DR), an impulsor with shield dome 13, an ork wazzbom 16 and the mighty allaitoc wave serpent also takes 18.
And I wouldn't exactly consider 160/170 points "cheap" for what's essentially a LRBT (205/195) without grinding advance, less range and no army trait whatsoever.
So going through them might feel like chore, but it's really more of a head thing. Other durable vehicles in that weight category require similar amounts of damage to kill. Personally, I would say that when people despair because the Death Guard feels unkillable, GW has gotten their fluff perfectly right
Jidmah wrote: Yes, durable units are supposed to be durable and lascannons are bad. In other news, ultramarines are blue and orks like to fight.
To put your numbers in context, a defiler still takes 14 lascannons to kill (21 when upgraded with DR), an impulsor with shield dome 13, an ork wazzbom 16 and the mighty allaitoc wave serpent also takes 18.
And I wouldn't exactly consider 160/170 points "cheap" for what's essentially a LRBT (205/195) without grinding advance, less range and no army trait whatsoever.
So going through them might feel like chore, but it's really more of a head thing. Other durable vehicles in that weight category require similar amounts of damage to kill.
Personally, I would say that when people despair because the Death Guard feels unkillable, GW has gotten their fluff perfectly right
I agree and want them to be hard to kill and durable and you're 100% that it's a perception issue, I think it comes from the durability and damage reduction being A random and B utterly out of your control. If they had a flat -damage or some other modifier, you're firing at them knowing you're going to struggle to hurt them. With DR, mentally, it's frustrating seeing the damage you've already dealt be waved away by a random amount (I know it's 33% playing averages, but it doesn't always work out that way).
Again as a personal feeling on the topic, it would feel less oppressive to have the damage applied with more room to take it than just have your efforts wiped out by an additional layer of saves, but everyone will feel differently on that.
I'd hasten to add that same russ you consider superior can only take 8 lascannon shots as well.
Someone in the DG thread mathed out that -1 to wound would statistically be really close to what 5+ FNP does, would that change how you feel about shooting them?
Jidmah wrote: Someone in the DG thread mathed out that -1 to wound would statistically be really close to what 5+ FNP does, would that change how you feel about shooting them?
Definitely, it makes it a choice in my hands to make since I can reliably predict the output rather than there being another layer of RNG.
Marshal Loss wrote: Looks like a fake to me; rule describes Daemons yet the art above features DG fighting Tau, numerous spelling mistakes (e.g. indured), etc.
Indured isn't a spelling mistake... it's an incorrect use of a real but redundant form of endure. It wouldn't be impossible for an editor and writer to both be of a generation or background that still uses older english words they don't truly understand.
The loss of a 5+ FNP is quite sad as it was a staple, flavoursome part of the DG/Nurgle. I can see them adding the 5+ back it in as part of the battle forge bonus, some form of doctrine addition or even as a unique plague host (as the trend has been to boost mono-factions) but we'll see. I hope it's balanced in other ways (maybe they'll get more toughness or wounds) but I am doubtful and think this will just be a straight up nerf.
Marshal Loss wrote: Looks like a fake to me; rule describes Daemons yet the art above features DG fighting Tau, numerous spelling mistakes (e.g. indured), etc.
Indured isn't a spelling mistake... it's an incorrect use of a real but redundant form of endure. It wouldn't be impossible for an editor and writer to both be of a generation or background that still uses older english words they don't truly understand.
Yeah, uh
I doubt that GW copy and pasted the same text but changed inured to an obsolete form of spelling at a whim. It's likely fake
Marshal Loss wrote: Looks like a fake to me; rule describes Daemons yet the art above features DG fighting Tau, numerous spelling mistakes (e.g. indured), etc.
Indured isn't a spelling mistake... it's an incorrect use of a real but redundant form of endure. It wouldn't be impossible for an editor and writer to both be of a generation or background that still uses older english words they don't truly understand.
Yeah, uh
I doubt that GW copy and pasted the same text but changed inured to an obsolete form of spelling at a whim. It's likely fake
This is the wording from codex DG by the way:
Those favoured by Nurgle are inured to pain, their rotting bodies shrugging off all but the most traumatic damage with ease.
skeleton wrote: dont try to kill DG whit bolter or lasgun fire, use heavy bolters, plasma, autocannons and so for, my best friend playes DG and my plan is alway to shoot him up and finisch him in close combat
yes its hard to do, but it can be done. what do you think DG will die from small arms fire )
All joking apart? When fighting DG, the heck else am I gonna shoot my small arms at? They’re only wasted if I choose not to shoot them, no
skeleton wrote: dont try to kill DG whit bolter or lasgun fire, use heavy bolters, plasma, autocannons and so for, my best friend playes DG and my plan is alway to shoot him up and finisch him in close combat
yes its hard to do, but it can be done. what do you think DG will die from small arms fire )
All joking apart? When fighting DG, the heck else am I gonna shoot my small arms at? They’re only wasted if I choose not to shoot them, no
Poxwalkers, the troops choice you never see because everyone is souping in nurglings for cheap troops
Never mind, it's a personal opinion that using 18+ lascannon shots to kill a sub 200 point vehicle feels a chore. The metric or comparisons aren't really relevant, it's a subjective feeling.
I mean yeah, it is. 25% return is just about where you'd want the damage output of a normal unit to be if you wanted to create a 5-turn game where it wasn't a normal thing for one player to be completely tabled by the end. 680 points to kill 190 points is over a 25% return, and the target it something that pays for a gak ton of durability.
Never mind, it's a personal opinion that using 18+ lascannon shots to kill a sub 200 point vehicle feels a chore. The metric or comparisons aren't really relevant, it's a subjective feeling.
I mean yeah, it is. 25% return is just about where you'd want the damage output of a normal unit to be if you wanted to create a 5-turn game where it wasn't a normal thing for one player to be completely tabled by the end. 680 points to kill 190 points is over a 25% return, and the target it something that pays for a gak ton of durability.
I'm not seeing the problem.
That's why it was a subjective opinion.
For what it's worth, a crawler with entropy cannons does 3.6 wounds to a russ. A russ with battle cannon and a las cannon hull weapon (nearest loadout parallel I could manage) is 10 points more and does 2.2 wounds in return.
The crawler is cheaper, does more damage and harder to hurt.
I'll also wait for the "but eradicators" response again.
Jidmah wrote: My math says 2.926 damage for the LRBT. Did you include grinding advance and the heavy bolter?
I did indeed but swapped the bolter for the las cannon. 7 battlecannon shots, 3.5 hit, 1.75 wound, 1.17 get past the save, 2 damage average = 2.34 damage or 1.5 after DR, lascannon 1 shot, 0.5 hit, 0.33 wounds, 0.22 past saves, becomes 0.77 damage which goes to .52 after DR.
So I fluffed up somewhere with the roundings but it's definitely nearer flat 2. If you took a HB instead, the HB does about 0.3.
In order to compare damage you also have to have both shoot the same target, not each other. A LRBT would deal 4.777 damage to another LRBT
Appreciate that, so the crawler does 75% of the damage but only takes 46% of the damage in return for less points. It's still notably better.
Jidmah wrote: Ah, I picked a twin las/heavy bolter/battlecannon LRBT because it matches the twin entropy/heavy slugger/plague mortar load-out more closely.
And I would agree that the PBC is better than a LRBT, but that wasn't ever up for discussion, was it?
Well it kind of is, because it shows the PBC is disproportionately durable to it's peers without sacrificing enough. Either the humble leman russ needs to also become more durable, or the PBC needs to be less killy.
Or that the russ is pants, but then since the list of "good tanks" to use as a basis for comparison is small, it suggests that maybe the PBC is near the top of the scale.
Gladiator Tank will be up for preorder on 28th which means that will probably also be the preorder date for Death Guard and Blood Angels
Yep fits the trend with new codexes. First saturday of month codexes in store
Hang on - haven't you repeatedly claimed that the pre-order date is the one GW uses to determine which month a release falls into? That would make DG and BA a November thing, not a December one.
Well it kind of is, because it shows the PBC is disproportionately durable to it's peers without sacrificing enough. Either the humble leman russ needs to also become more durable, or the PBC needs to be less killy.
Or that the russ is pants, but then since the list of "good tanks" to use as a basis for comparison is small, it suggests that maybe the PBC is near the top of the scale.
The LRBT is about where it should be since it's able to be squadroned and supposed to be fielded en masse rather than super survivable.
Personal opinion there, I guess, but I feel it's why the Guard tanks should be the only real squadrons aside from AdMech and GSC.
Well it kind of is, because it shows the PBC is disproportionately durable to it's peers without sacrificing enough. Either the humble leman russ needs to also become more durable, or the PBC needs to be less killy.
Or that the russ is pants, but then since the list of "good tanks" to use as a basis for comparison is small, it suggests that maybe the PBC is near the top of the scale.
The LRBT is about where it should be since it's able to be squadroned and supposed to be fielded en masse rather than super survivable.
Personal opinion there, I guess, but I feel it's why the Guard tanks should be the only real squadrons aside from AdMech and GSC.
Yeah I agree with all this, A russ being less durable is fine but there isn't enough of a gap in firepower for the points to compensate imo
Gladiator Tank will be up for preorder on 28th which means that will probably also be the preorder date for Death Guard and Blood Angels
Yep fits the trend with new codexes. First saturday of month codexes in store
Hang on - haven't you repeatedly claimed that the pre-order date is the one GW uses to determine which month a release falls into? That would make DG and BA a November thing, not a December one.
You can't have it both ways, tneva.
Yes you can if gw changes things. I have no problems admitting gw changed their years long tradition. You do know things change right? What i stated has been correct until new codexes came that changed things
Sorry. Your attempt at needlling suffered epic fail need to study years to do it
Jidmah wrote: And let's not forget that LRBT also have much more range than PBC and can actually benefit from regimental doctrines.
If you want to get technical about it...
Most regimental doctrines have a subsection that is applied to Infantry or vehicles. Only three(Mordian, Vostroyan, and Cadian) apply to vehicles and infantry both...and even then the Cadian Regimental Doctrine benefits Infantry more by adding a second caveat that bolsters the "Take Aim" Order when coupled with the unit not having moved.
Jidmah wrote: My point was that PBC get absolutely no army bonus, even if the DG legion trait wasn't completely useless.
It's almost like Marine stuff tended not to get army bonuses for vehicles beyond certain types.
I don't have the DG book handy nor do I have War of the Spider where the DG got their Plague Companies. Aren't there some auras and the like that they can benefit from?
Jidmah wrote: Why is it that people always take units that literally no one considers to be even halfway decent as a point of reference?
That's also not correct, a las predator is 170 and does 3 damage on average to a PBC. So 680 points of a rather inefficient anti-tank unit suffice to kill it.
A single unit of 6 eradicators with zero support blows them mile high in a single shooting phase just fine.
It also takes 480 points of entropy cannon PBC to kill a predator, or 680 points of the much more popular spitter load-out, assuming none of the PBC have lost more than 6 wounds, 640/850 points if even a single one did.
Coz every army has acess to the busted eradicators?
The flamer pbc was a bane of my army. Hosing down my -3 to hit infantry with flamers lile nothing..
I mean when there are 3 on the board it really is a grind and many lists just could not shift them. Especialy if you use terrain so you can focus fire on one. Its anectodal but once i remember doing 15 damage to one and he shrugged all but 2...
High toughness, invuln plus shrugs is tough to shift.
I recon thats why ynnari wraithseers went by the way of the dodo.
Jidmah wrote: My point was that PBC get absolutely no army bonus, even if the DG legion trait wasn't completely useless.
It's almost like Marine stuff tended not to get army bonuses for vehicles beyond certain types.
I don't have the DG book handy nor do I have War of the Spider where the DG got their Plague Companies. Aren't there some auras and the like that they can benefit from?
Do we want to start a gakking contest over how many buffs are hidden in the depths of each codex, add up all the points and CP necessary to get those buffs to find out the answer to a question that has already been answered and derail the thread doing so, or shall we rather not?
If LRBT are a good tank for their army(I have no clue) and so is the PBC, what else is there to discuss? Death Guard are supposed to be the most durable army with a focus on daemon engines, so of course no other vehicle is more durable than their daemon main battletank.
Jidmah wrote: My point was that PBC get absolutely no army bonus, even if the DG legion trait wasn't completely useless.
It's almost like Marine stuff tended not to get army bonuses for vehicles beyond certain types.
I don't have the DG book handy nor do I have War of the Spider where the DG got their Plague Companies. Aren't there some auras and the like that they can benefit from?
Do we want to start a gakking contest over how many buffs are hidden in the depths of each codex, add up all the points and CP necessary to get those buffs to find out the answer to a question that has already been answered and derail the thread doing so, or shall we rather not?
If LRBT are a good tank for their army(I have no clue) and so is the PBC, what else is there to discuss? Death Guard are supposed to be the most durable army with a focus on daemon engines, so of course no other vehicle is more durable than their daemon main battletank.
Nothing relevant to add to anything until we get new rules etc.
Death guard and custodes both suffer from the toughness factor. It is demorilizing to shoot your entire army into one unit and do 3 wounds.
Unfortunately for custodes, they dont have cheap obsec bodies to soak mortal wound with so they suffer pretty hard from those. They do however gain a fair bit more mobility.
Nick Nanavati did a podcast where he talked about how toughness has lost its value over 9th Ed as everyone got more killy with every release. DG suffered more from this than anyone. A revamp is overdue. If playing vs DG is demoralizing you, you need to work on your lists.
Virules wrote: Nick Nanavati did a podcast where he talked about how toughness has lost its value over 9th Ed as everyone got more killy with every release. DG suffered more from this than anyone. A revamp is overdue. If playing vs DG is demoralizing you, you need to work on your lists.
Pretty much this. It wasn't like Death Guard was face stomping people in 8th. They've seen some resurgence with War of the Spider and 9th, but even then that appears to be a short lived era with other armies rushing for the top spot.
tneva82 wrote: Yes you can if gw changes things. I have no problems admitting gw changed their years long tradition. You do know things change right? What i stated has been correct until new codexes came that changed things
Sorry. Your attempt at needlling suffered epic fail need to study years to do it
Calling you on your bull isn't needling. That would be repeatedly poking at you over many posts, over many threads.
Calling you out on a spectacularly fast pivot from "pre-order date is what they judge when a release is" to "release date is what they judge when a release is" after you've been repeating the former for months - if not years - is what it is.
Hell, I got whiplash reading that post of yours.
Virules wrote: Nick Nanavati did a podcast where he talked about how toughness has lost its value over 9th Ed as everyone got more killy with every release. DG suffered more from this than anyone. A revamp is overdue. If playing vs DG is demoralizing you, you need to work on your lists.
You think he'd know better than to mouth off about how the edition is going to develop, or they won't have him back to do any more "meta" articles on WHC with his little power level graphic...
Gladiator Tank will be up for preorder on 28th which means that will probably also be the preorder date for Death Guard and Blood Angels
My guess is that is when we see the Assault Intercessors prerorder as well. Probably one other kit (we are waiting Eradicators, Heavy Intercessors, Stormspeeder, and Bladeguard), which is likely the Eradicators. I am guessing Heavy Intercessors, Stormspeeder, and Bladeguard come with the Dark Angels.
Virules wrote: If playing vs DG is demoralizing you, you need to work on your lists.
Got it in one
Isn't that applicable to everything in this game?
Including playing against marines and eradicator spam?
Well there are some factions where the list can only be worked so far.
That said, I can't say that 8th ed Death Guard is/was so durable that it required a highly optimized or tailored list to combat their durability. Just an understanding what they give up to have that durability and how to exploit it.
Caution: player anecdote ramble below
I only managed to play against Death Guard once as my last game of 8th edition. My first turn was sad only removing like 3-5 wounds to the entire Death Guard army. To be fair, I was targeting his blight-haulers and didn't have much that would hurt them. So I was chipping away at them to lessen their effect later in the game. My all Primaris (100+pts less and no supplements), all Infantry army spiked turn 2 when the Tactical Doctrine and melee started. Also, two groups of Reivers x10 (yeah, I ran 20 Reivers) showed up. Melee in particular was a bloodbath via the sheer number of attacks (my army uses Whirlwind of Rage) as well as an extreme spike in good rolls for me, bad rolls for my opponent.
The low amount of damage when facing the Death Guard is just something a player has to work around I think. I just had faith that my damage would keep chipping away at them eventually. I also had all the control to dictate when and where I wanted to get stuck in as Death Guard are crazy slow with the few units that are fast easy enough to cutoff and defeat in detail/tarpit. That was probably the worst of it for that Death Guard player as the entire table felt dangerous and sooner or later that durability is going to fail them.
My opponent said to me after the game that every thing in my army seemed to have a purpose while he couldn't figure out what he wanted his army to do. Which I think was more he was still pretty new to full 40k coming from Kill Team, and I know my Primaris army pretty well (they are really easy to know) despite being a largely random assortment of models. I didn't know I was going to play a game of 40k and only had my Primaris with me to allow another try before they buy units for their Space Marine army. I even had to trade out a LT for the Gravis Captain as the LT fell off his base (I didn't use enough glue) before the game. Yes, the Gravis Cpt is more points, but I desperately wanted more re-roll wounds (my other chapter tactic is Bolter Fusillades). So I basically yeeted the Gravis Cpt straight into the moving castle of Typus, his terminator bodyguards and more pox walkers than I thought I had bolter rounds.
Dudeface wrote: I find having something I've earned/accomplished (damage from wounds) then taken away from me (DR) demoralising.
It's not an accomplishment until the saves are failed. That's literally how the game works. You are the only person I've seen floating around claiming that the existence of DR is somehow demoralising, because there is a chance that it takes away the results of your hard-earned rolling. If your argument was purely "DR takes up too much time", sure. I disagree, but sure. DR being demoralising, however, is just absurd, such a view being your perception or no.
I can understand a new player, having a game against DG for the first time, being a bit taken aback by how much firepower might be required to take (x unit) down. But an experienced player? Come on. With experience should come realistic expectations. I don't shoot boltguns at a PBC expecting it to blow up, ergo I am not "demoralised". 40k already caters to instant gratification so much in 8th & 9th with characters virtually always hitting on 2's, re-rolls everywhere, stratagems to improve efficiency, etc, they don't need to baby people further. As others have said, DG aren't exactly enjoying game-breaking levels of power here, so if you can't deal with them, perhaps try changing your list...
Virules wrote: Nick Nanavati did a podcast where he talked about how toughness has lost its value over 9th Ed as everyone got more killy with every release. DG suffered more from this than anyone. A revamp is overdue. If playing vs DG is demoralizing you, you need to work on your lists.
Pretty much this. It wasn't like Death Guard was face stomping people in 8th. They've seen some resurgence with War of the Spider and 9th, but even then that appears to be a short lived era with other armies rushing for the top spot.
Yeah, toughness isn't tricky. Toughness and killing power and speed to grab objectives and ability to accomplish secondaries? That's hard.
Dudeface wrote: I find having something I've earned/accomplished (damage from wounds) then taken away from me (DR) demoralising.
It's not an accomplishment until the saves are failed. That's literally how the game works. You are the only person I've seen floating around claiming that the existence of DR is somehow demoralising, because there is a chance that it takes away the results of your hard-earned rolling. If your argument was purely "DR takes up too much time", sure. I disagree, but sure. DR being demoralising, however, is just absurd, such a view being your perception or no.
I have had multiple opponents tell me the exact same thing, so it surely isn't a problem exclusive to Dudeface.
Gladiator Tank will be up for preorder on 28th which means that will probably also be the preorder date for Death Guard and Blood Angels
Yep fits the trend with new codexes. First saturday of month codexes in store
Hang on - haven't you repeatedly claimed that the pre-order date is the one GW uses to determine which month a release falls into? That would make DG and BA a November thing, not a December one.
You can't have it both ways, tneva.
Historically, he would have been correct. But the November release of Deathwatch and Space Wolves went on Preorder on 10/31.
Who can decipher the ways of GW with 100% accuracy?
Gladiator Tank will be up for preorder on 28th which means that will probably also be the preorder date for Death Guard and Blood Angels
My guess is that is when we see the Assault Intercessors prerorder as well. Probably one other kit (we are waiting Eradicators, Heavy Intercessors, Stormspeeder, and Bladeguard), which is likely the Eradicators. I am guessing Heavy Intercessors, Stormspeeder, and Bladeguard come with the Dark Angels.
Why? Bladeguard would make more sense for BA being melee unit. Gladiator is also themed for them seeing resemblance to Baal. That would leave Eradicators/Heavy Intercessors for DA as 'deathwing' theme, along with speeder which is also fitting for DA given the number of unique variants they have...
The LRBT is about where it should be since it's able to be squadroned and supposed to be fielded en masse rather than super survivable.
Uh, what? When AV was a thing, it was literally one of the only two widely available tanks with maximum AV of 14, outranking even majority of superheavies and some titans in durability from the front. Toughness is literally Russ' main point, always had been...
Dudeface wrote: I find having something I've earned/accomplished (damage from wounds) then taken away from me (DR) demoralising.
It's not an accomplishment until the saves are failed. That's literally how the game works. You are the only person I've seen floating around claiming that the existence of DR is somehow demoralising, because there is a chance that it takes away the results of your hard-earned rolling. If your argument was purely "DR takes up too much time", sure. I disagree, but sure. DR being demoralising, however, is just absurd, such a view being your perception or no.
I have had multiple opponents tell me the exact same thing, so it surely isn't a problem exclusive to Dudeface.
What, that it's demoralising? That when you successfully roll DR it makes them feel...bad? Do they feel bad when you pass armour saves as well? Invulnerable saves? When you deny a psychic power?
I mean, Dudeface is literally on record on the previous page saying that he'd be happy with a -1 to wound over 5+ FnP, which you say is statistically the same, because...
Dudeface wrote: Definitely, it makes it a choice in my hands to make since I can reliably predict the output rather than there being another layer of RNG.
So what, it's just that people feel sad because somebody gets two saves and that looks worse to their eyes than an alternative which is statistically identical? Some real galaxy brain thinking going on here
Dudeface wrote: I find having something I've earned/accomplished (damage from wounds) then taken away from me (DR) demoralising.
It's not an accomplishment until the saves are failed. That's literally how the game works. You are the only person I've seen floating around claiming that the existence of DR is somehow demoralising, because there is a chance that it takes away the results of your hard-earned rolling. If your argument was purely "DR takes up too much time", sure. I disagree, but sure. DR being demoralising, however, is just absurd, such a view being your perception or no.
I have had multiple opponents tell me the exact same thing, so it surely isn't a problem exclusive to Dudeface.
What, that it's demoralising? That when you successfully roll DR it makes them feel...bad? Do they feel bad when you pass armour saves as well? Invulnerable saves? When you deny a psychic power?
I mean, Dudeface is literally on record on the previous page saying that he'd be happy with a -1 to wound over 5+ FnP, which you say is statistically the same, because...
Dudeface wrote: Definitely, it makes it a choice in my hands to make since I can reliably predict the output rather than there being another layer of RNG.
So what, it's just that people feel sad because somebody gets two saves and that looks worse to their eyes than an alternative which is statistically identical? Some real galaxy brain thinking going on here
Depends on the game. If its a friendly game I do feel terrible when I roll absolutely disgustingly, and save all of the saves.../ roll of the hits and wounds. Its just no fun when you crush the whole game in one turn of good rolling IMO.
When you egregiously break the averages in several key moments and youre both like "what.... ?... just happened.. Ok.. good game I guess? lol"
With rerolls being vastly curbed this is going to be much less of an occurance but still if you roll like an absolute mad man and pass those 10 5++ shots its be one of those moments
Gladiator Tank will be up for preorder on 28th which means that will probably also be the preorder date for Death Guard and Blood Angels
My guess is that is when we see the Assault Intercessors prerorder as well. Probably one other kit (we are waiting Eradicators, Heavy Intercessors, Stormspeeder, and Bladeguard), which is likely the Eradicators. I am guessing Heavy Intercessors, Stormspeeder, and Bladeguard come with the Dark Angels.
Why? Bladeguard would make more sense for BA being melee unit. Gladiator is also themed for them seeing resemblance to Baal. That would leave Eradicators/Heavy Intercessors for DA as 'deathwing' theme, along with speeder which is also fitting for DA given the number of unique variants they have...
.
Outrider bikes would fit most in with dark angels but that's what came out along side the space wolves and death watch supplements. well that and, IIRC the terrain piece, fortifications don't exactly scream "space wolves" or death watch to me eaither.
Gladiator Tank will be up for preorder on 28th which means that will probably also be the preorder date for Death Guard and Blood Angels
My guess is that is when we see the Assault Intercessors prerorder as well. Probably one other kit (we are waiting Eradicators, Heavy Intercessors, Stormspeeder, and Bladeguard), which is likely the Eradicators. I am guessing Heavy Intercessors, Stormspeeder, and Bladeguard come with the Dark Angels.
Why? Bladeguard would make more sense for BA being melee unit. Gladiator is also themed for them seeing resemblance to Baal. That would leave Eradicators/Heavy Intercessors for DA as 'deathwing' theme, along with speeder which is also fitting for DA given the number of unique variants they have...
You do realize that Bladeguard are Deathwing while Eradicators/Heavy Intercessors aren't, right?
Gladiator Tank will be up for preorder on 28th which means that will probably also be the preorder date for Death Guard and Blood Angels
My guess is that is when we see the Assault Intercessors prerorder as well. Probably one other kit (we are waiting Eradicators, Heavy Intercessors, Stormspeeder, and Bladeguard), which is likely the Eradicators. I am guessing Heavy Intercessors, Stormspeeder, and Bladeguard come with the Dark Angels.
Why? Bladeguard would make more sense for BA being melee unit. Gladiator is also themed for them seeing resemblance to Baal. That would leave Eradicators/Heavy Intercessors for DA as 'deathwing' theme, along with speeder which is also fitting for DA given the number of unique variants they have...
The LRBT is about where it should be since it's able to be squadroned and supposed to be fielded en masse rather than super survivable.
Uh, what? When AV was a thing, it was literally one of the only two widely available tanks with maximum AV of 14, outranking even majority of superheavies and some titans in durability from the front. Toughness is literally Russ' main point, always had been...
Bladeguard are Deathwing now, so they would be releasing a Deathwing unit (Bladeguard), Ravenwing unit (Stormspeeder), and Greenwing unit (Heavy Intercessors). I agree with your statement about the Gladiator though. Eradicators are not really on theme for BA though, I agree. BA do have a tendency to use more flamer and Melta weapons (still a stretch though).
Dudeface wrote: I find having something I've earned/accomplished (damage from wounds) then taken away from me (DR) demoralising.
It's not an accomplishment until the saves are failed. That's literally how the game works. You are the only person I've seen floating around claiming that the existence of DR is somehow demoralising, because there is a chance that it takes away the results of your hard-earned rolling. If your argument was purely "DR takes up too much time", sure. I disagree, but sure. DR being demoralising, however, is just absurd, such a view being your perception or no.
I have had multiple opponents tell me the exact same thing, so it surely isn't a problem exclusive to Dudeface.
What, that it's demoralising? That when you successfully roll DR it makes them feel...bad? Do they feel bad when you pass armour saves as well? Invulnerable saves? When you deny a psychic power?
I mean, Dudeface is literally on record on the previous page saying that he'd be happy with a -1 to wound over 5+ FnP, which you say is statistically the same, because...
Dudeface wrote: Definitely, it makes it a choice in my hands to make since I can reliably predict the output rather than there being another layer of RNG.
So what, it's just that people feel sad because somebody gets two saves and that looks worse to their eyes than an alternative which is statistically identical? Some real galaxy brain thinking going on here
Yes, if you can't understand the difference between getting past saves, etc rolling a healthy damage number up on your shots, then having that wiped out by an extra wall of saves and simply failing more wound rolls, I'm sorry you seem to take it personally.
Look, you're currently wading in judging me with a "git gud" attitude because you lack the ability to comprehend other people have subjective feelings on a topic or mechanic. Go be less condescending somewhere else.
Dudeface wrote: Yes, if you can't understand the difference between getting past saves, etc rolling a healthy damage number up on your shots, then having that wiped out by an extra wall of saves and simply failing more wound rolls, I'm sorry you seem to take it personally.
Yes, you're quite right; of all the layers of rolling in 40k, it is DR that finally takes it too far. Smashing case. I'll do my best to be more mindful of DR victims in the future
Dudeface wrote: Yes, if you can't understand the difference between getting past saves, etc rolling a healthy damage number up on your shots, then having that wiped out by an extra wall of saves and simply failing more wound rolls, I'm sorry you seem to take it personally.
Yes, you're quite right; of all the layers of rolling in 40k, it is DR that finally takes it too far. Smashing case. I'll do my best to be more mindful of DR victims in the future
Yes, thank you for incorrectly identifying that my argument was DR single handedly ruining 40k with it's extra round of rolls.
Let me phrase it dfferently:
Would you rather order a meal and be told when seated that you have reduced options and just get what you order, or order it, have it placed infront of you then have them take 33% away at random?
Did you stop to wonder why there weren't more mechanics that force people to reroll successful results? It's because the human psyche is adverse to having things taken away from them by default, it creates feel bad moments. I don't care if it equates mathematically to another option, any option where you accomplish something which is then reduced by outside agency will make you feel bad, reanimation protocol is the same and it's why it's a pain to implement correctly.
It's not just facts and figures, a crappy beat up car that's too noisy with squeaky brakes and smells funky might get you somewhere the exact same speed and efficiency as a new one, it doesn't mean it's just as pleasant to use.
Dudeface wrote: Yes, if you can't understand the difference between getting past saves, etc rolling a healthy damage number up on your shots, then having that wiped out by an extra wall of saves and simply failing more wound rolls, I'm sorry you seem to take it personally.
Yes, you're quite right; of all the layers of rolling in 40k, it is DR that finally takes it too far. Smashing case. I'll do my best to be more mindful of DR victims in the future
Yes, thank you for incorrectly identifying that my argument was DR single handedly ruining 40k with it's extra round of rolls.
Given that there's no argument to identify, I think I can be forgiven for missing the subtle layers of your DR-induced trauma
Dudeface wrote: Yes, if you can't understand the difference between getting past saves, etc rolling a healthy damage number up on your shots, then having that wiped out by an extra wall of saves and simply failing more wound rolls, I'm sorry you seem to take it personally.
Yes, you're quite right; of all the layers of rolling in 40k, it is DR that finally takes it too far. Smashing case. I'll do my best to be more mindful of DR victims in the future
Yes, thank you for incorrectly identifying that my argument was DR single handedly ruining 40k with it's extra round of rolls.
Given that there's no argument to identify, I think I can be forgiven for missing the subtle layers of your DR-induced trauma
It's ok, I think we can safely identify you as a stats loving android who can't comprehend human emotional responses or differing opinions. Since you missed my edit:
Let me phrase it differently:
Would you rather order a meal and be told when seated that you have reduced options and just get what you order, or order it, have it placed in front of you then have them take 33% away at random?
Did you stop to wonder why there weren't more mechanics that force people to reroll successful results? It's because the human psyche is adverse to having things taken away from them by default, it creates feel bad moments. I don't care if it equates mathematically to another option, any option where you accomplish something which is then reduced by outside agency will make you feel bad, reanimation protocol is the same and it's why it's a pain to implement correctly.
It's not just facts and figures, a crappy beat up car that's too noisy with squeaky brakes and smells funky might get you somewhere the exact same speed and efficiency as a new one, it doesn't mean it's just as pleasant to use.
DR doesn't force you to re-roll successful results. It's a built-in part of DG's durability and anybody with a modicum of awareness will know that c. 1/3 of the damage you deal will be saved. By that same logic armour & invul saves take away the accomplishment of a successful hit, a DTW save takes away the accomplishment of a successful spell, etc. If you go into two scenarios with identical results but feel better in the one because you don't see somebody roll DR, that's your problem.
This is getting a little sad. I do wish you all the best dealing with DR in the future should it not be changed though. My mother ship will be pleased with all the information I have gathered on how humans are affected when their dice-related achievements are so cruelly impacted by DR
Marshal Loss wrote: DR doesn't force you to re-roll successful results. It's a built-in part of DG's durability and anybody with a modicum of awareness will know that c. 1/3 of the damage you deal will be saved. By that same logic armour & invul saves take away the accomplishment of a successful hit, a DTW save takes away the accomplishment of a successful spell, etc. If you go into two scenarios with identical results but feel better in the one because you don't see somebody roll DR, that's your problem.
This is getting a little sad. I do wish you all the best dealing with DR in the future should it not be changed though. My mother ship will be pleased with all the information I have gathered on how humans are affected when their dice-related achievements are so cruelly impacted by DR
I never said dr forced anyone to reroll successful rolls, it was an example.
Please, move on I will keep my opinions to myself and you can continue being good at stuff.
the main difference is the feeling an extra roll adds to the game
specially if it makes no difference if it would be a modification
everyone is rolling 3 times but that one special codex is rolling 4 times and the other special codex is rolling 5 times
just feels worse than everyone is rolling 3 times but the special codex has an additional -1 on the first roll.
and it was the extra dice rolling that started the problems in 6th/7th
kodos wrote: the main difference is the feeling an extra roll adds to the game
specially if it makes no difference if it would be a modification
everyone is rolling 3 times but that one special codex is rolling 4 times and the other special codex is rolling 5 times
just feels worse than everyone is rolling 3 times but the special codex has an additional -1 on the first roll.
and it was the extra dice rolling that started the problems in 6th/7th
There also is the issue when a gun like the new heavy bolter is shot at pox walkers - you need to roll two dice, one by one, for every single wound. Especially with plague marines going to 2 wounds, -1 to wound would be a very elegant solution to speed up the game.
Then again, DG usually have a lot less models than other armies, so time is rarely an issue.
Love all this DG hate when they are sub 50% and the only thing they have is the ability to sit on an objective. The only build they even have that is competitive right now is Poxmongers that flexes more on its 4++ vs 5+++. No talk of Slanesh Daemons with some absurd 67% win rate. No you gotta go after the Plague Marines with there awesome bolsters at S4 0 1. Cause that’s meta defining there. Couldn’t be the Eradicators coming from deep strike, or a keeper of secrets that face rolls everything on the smaller board. Nope it’s the over costed first gen marines. Not the Deathwing Units with built in Transhuman, nor the Sanguinary guard that smash face, not the Thunderwolf Cav that is stomping you turn 1 with Thunderhammers and Powerfists hitting on 2s with Keen Senses. No it’s the Plague Marines with there 5” Movement and No ap weapons. But but they are monsters in combat. Nah they got 1 dude with a flail and the rest blow goats. 1 and 2 attacks each. Like some lazy guardsmen. DG needs a buff and some of you are acting like they are the worst thing in the game. Get plowed, I don’t complain when you roll out 4 boxes of dice for your gak Guards after first rank fire second rank fire. Who fething cares if DG get DR. They need it. It’s their flavor. You wanna give them bikes back, and access to forge world, you want to have Typhus in a speeder? That would be cool. Maybe make it so Mortarion was worth something more than my favorite paper weight. Give us access to the rest of Chaos. Not like that’s a boon as anything Chaos gets marines get better. How do you like your Storm Cannon now hucksters.
Any game where you have to roll as many dice as you do in 40K is seems fundamentally and obviously flawed anyway. I don't play this game but I read something the other week in a WH community article where the writer stated (with some pride or excitement), that the unit they were describing rolls forty or fifty-odd dice when they're attacking another unit. Seems somewhat horrific to me - repeating this type of thing, several times per game, for multiple units. Who would want this? Seems pretty garbage QoL / Qof design mechanics to me.
JWBS wrote: Any game where you have to roll as many dice as you do in 40K is seems fundamentally and obviously flawed anyway. I don't play this game but I read something the other week in a WH community article where the writer stated (with some pride or excitement), that the unit they were describing rolls forty or fifty-odd dice when they're attacking another unit. Seems somewhat horrific to me - repeating this type of thing, several times per game, for multiple units. Who would want this? Seems pretty garbage QoL / Qof design mechanics to me.
What you talkin’ ‘bout JWBS!
Rolling a bucket of dice is one of life’s little joys! Certainly more fun to me than charts and tables and that.
JWBS wrote: Any game where you have to roll as many dice as you do in 40K is seems fundamentally and obviously flawed anyway. I don't play this game but I read something the other week in a WH community article where the writer stated (with some pride or excitement), that the unit they were describing rolls forty or fifty-odd dice when they're attacking another unit. Seems somewhat horrific to me - repeating this type of thing, several times per game, for multiple units. Who would want this? Seems pretty garbage QoL / Qof design mechanics to me.
Orks. Half the fun is in the act of rolling massive fistfuls of dice, regardless of the result.
Honestly, i feel that there should be a cap to the number of dice a unit can roll for an attack...and that should be around 24-30. It is insane to be rolling 40+ dice in a game that is supposed to be played in 2hrs. They finally stopped the aggressor nonsense (at least cut it in half), now it's time to do the same with others. I totally agree that it basically screams poor game design.
bullyboy wrote: Honestly, i feel that there should be a cap to the number of dice a unit can roll for an attack...and that should be around 24-30. It is insane to be rolling 40+ dice in a game that is supposed to be played in 2hrs. They finally stopped the aggressor nonsense (at least cut it in half), now it's time to do the same with others. I totally agree that it basically screams poor game design.
There has been an inflation in number of dice thrown in the GW games in the past few years. In 2019 I played a lot of FEC and it wasn't uncommon for me to take a 40 strong Crypt Ghoul squad and get around close to 200 rolls with rerolls 1s to hit and reroll to wound. I could literally see the very life force of my opponent waste away in real time as I rolled the dice. Then I used Feeding Frenzy and could do another pile-in and attack.
One of the reason I decided to take a break from the army was because I got tired of seeing my opponent's will to live disappear during a game.
JWBS wrote: Any game where you have to roll as many dice as you do in 40K is seems fundamentally and obviously flawed anyway. I don't play this game but I read something the other week in a WH community article where the writer stated (with some pride or excitement), that the unit they were describing rolls forty or fifty-odd dice when they're attacking another unit. Seems somewhat horrific to me - repeating this type of thing, several times per game, for multiple units. Who would want this? Seems pretty garbage QoL / Qof design mechanics to me.
Orks. Half the fun is in the act of rolling massive fistfuls of dice, regardless of the result.
I don't know, rolling huge fistfulls of dice for very little result is kind of disheartening to me.
JWBS wrote: Any game where you have to roll as many dice as you do in 40K is seems fundamentally and obviously flawed anyway. I don't play this game but I read something the other week in a WH community article where the writer stated (with some pride or excitement), that the unit they were describing rolls forty or fifty-odd dice when they're attacking another unit. Seems somewhat horrific to me - repeating this type of thing, several times per game, for multiple units. Who would want this? Seems pretty garbage QoL / Qof design mechanics to me.
Orks. Half the fun is in the act of rolling massive fistfuls of dice, regardless of the result.
Buckets of dice is fun when you roll them once, when your unit of boyz makes contact with the enemy and gets blasted afterwards. Rolling buckets of dice every turn, for every unit is not.
I get that some units only have a fighting chance of getting an end result by throwing weight of dice, but it's still poor design. Perhaps an alternative would be an increase to the effect of a roll for each number of attacks above a set baseline.
So for example, say the baseline is 30 rolls (purely arbitrary number for the discussion), if your unit has an attack value of 31+ attacks, the roll is modified by +1. So instead of seeking a return through weight of dice, you manipulate the outcome artificially to achieve the same result. maybe even +2 if that roll is over 60. Therefore you are still only rolling 30 dice, but now say your BS5+ unit is hitting on 4s instead.
I'm sure someone could sit down and math out the average return of all these extra rolls and how it would compare to just adding +1 to the entire series of attacks/wounds.
I just figure there could be a more elegant way to do this rather than trying to pick up 60 dice and rolling them, or having to use a dice app (in which case I'd rather just play the whole damn game online)
kodos wrote: the main difference is the feeling an extra roll adds to the game
specially if it makes no difference if it would be a modification
everyone is rolling 3 times but that one special codex is rolling 4 times and the other special codex is rolling 5 times
just feels worse than everyone is rolling 3 times but the special codex has an additional -1 on the first roll.
and it was the extra dice rolling that started the problems in 6th/7th
Alas gw thinks stats are boring, special rules and dice rolling makes game "deep".
Dg being durable good but it could be archieved with less dice rolling
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bres0048 wrote: Love all this DG hate when they are sub 50% and the only thing they have is the ability to sit on an objective. The only build they even have that is competitive right now is Poxmongers that flexes more on its 4++ vs 5+++. No talk of Slanesh Daemons with some absurd 67% win rate. No you gotta go after the Plague Marines with there awesome bolsters at S4 0 1. Cause that’s meta defining there. Couldn’t be the Eradicators coming from deep strike, or a keeper of secrets that face rolls everything on the smaller board. Nope it’s the over costed first gen marines. Not the Deathwing Units with built in Transhuman, nor the Sanguinary guard that smash face, not the Thunderwolf Cav that is stomping you turn 1 with Thunderhammers and Powerfists hitting on 2s with Keen Senses. No it’s the Plague Marines with there 5” Movement and No ap weapons. But but they are monsters in combat. Nah they got 1 dude with a flail and the rest blow goats. 1 and 2 attacks each. Like some lazy guardsmen. DG needs a buff and some of you are acting like they are the worst thing in the game. Get plowed, I don’t complain when you roll out 4 boxes of dice for your gak Guards after first rank fire second rank fire. Who fething cares if DG get DR. They need it. It’s their flavor. You wanna give them bikes back, and access to forge world, you want to have Typhus in a speeder? That would be cool. Maybe make it so Mortarion was worth something more than my favorite paper weight. Give us access to the rest of Chaos. Not like that’s a boon as anything Chaos gets marines get better. How do you like your Storm Cannon now hucksters.
You do realize right there's difference between wanting army nerfed and prefering same strength with less dice rolling aka faster game?
Tell me. What's so bad if dg was just as durable as now or even more but requires less dice rolling?
Do you WANT game take longer to play with most of time spent rolling dice?
Are you by any chance rolling every attack one by one just to slow dice rolling to crawl? Since you seem to want dice rolling eat as much time as possible.
You do realize right there's difference between wanting army nerfed and prefering same strength with less dice rolling aka faster game?
To be fair it's not Death Guard or their rules that are slowing down the game in most games as Death Guard units are expensive and you don't have that many units on the table. In regards to slower games there are quite a few armies that are much slower with more dice rolling and rerolls than Death Guard. I'd even argue that Space Marines are slower as they have access to a plethora of stratagems, rerolls(that have been reduced a little bit in the newest codex, but not by that much), and units with a lot of firepower(ton of dice).
I don't mind adjusting Death Guard to make them play smoother, but let us not kid ourselves that Death Guard are dragging the game down considering everything else that is going on.
Virules wrote: If playing vs DG is demoralizing you, you need to work on your lists.
Got it in one
Isn't that applicable to everything in this game?
Including playing against marines and eradicator spam?
I'm not the one complaining about being "demoralised" here
No, you're just trying to act high and mighty over someone's mental perception of a game mechanic.
I find having something I've earned/accomplished (damage from wounds) then taken away from me (DR) demoralising.
And other people playing against you quite often see the """""""""""""""""""""""work"""""""""""""""" you do to get those wounds through the arduous process of hitting (with full rerolls)_wounding (rerolling 1s) and then getting past the armor save (with free bonus AP) to be comparable to that scene in Space Jam where the alien boss describes how he'll enslave Michael Jordan and force him to play hoops against alien children while tied to a ball and chain and they get a stepladder to the basket.
Love all this DG hate when they are sub 50% and the only thing they have is the ability to sit on an objective. The only build they even have that is competitive right now is Poxmongers that flexes more on its 4++ vs 5+++. No talk of Slanesh Daemons with some absurd 67% win rate. No you gotta go after the Plague Marines with there awesome bolsters at S4 0 1. Cause that’s meta defining there. Couldn’t be the Eradicators coming from deep strike, or a keeper of secrets that face rolls everything on the smaller board. Nope it’s the over costed first gen marines. Not the Deathwing Units with built in Transhuman, nor the Sanguinary guard that smash face, not the Thunderwolf Cav that is stomping you turn 1 with Thunderhammers and Powerfists hitting on 2s with Keen Senses. No it’s the Plague Marines with there 5” Movement and No ap weapons. But but they are monsters in combat. Nah they got 1 dude with a flail and the rest blow goats. 1 and 2 attacks each. Like some lazy guardsmen. DG needs a buff and some of you are acting like they are the worst thing in the game. Get plowed, I don’t complain when you roll out 4 boxes of dice for your gak Guards after first rank fire second rank fire. Who fething cares if DG get DR. They need it. It’s their flavor. You wanna give them bikes back, and access to forge world, you want to have Typhus in a speeder? That would be cool. Maybe make it so Mortarion was worth something more than my favorite paper weight. Give us access to the rest of Chaos. Not like that’s a boon as anything Chaos gets marines get better. How do you like your Storm Cannon now hucksters.
Please, sir (or madam) - for the love of the internet, break that much text into smaller paragraphs.
It makes for easier reading, and conveys that you breathed somewhere in there.
Virules wrote: If playing vs DG is demoralizing you, you need to work on your lists.
Got it in one
Isn't that applicable to everything in this game?
Including playing against marines and eradicator spam?
I'm not the one complaining about being "demoralised" here
No, you're just trying to act high and mighty over someone's mental perception of a game mechanic.
I find having something I've earned/accomplished (damage from wounds) then taken away from me (DR) demoralising.
And other people playing against you quite often see the """""""""""""""""""""""work"""""""""""""""" you do to get those wounds through the arduous process of hitting (with full rerolls)_wounding (rerolling 1s) and then getting past the armor save (with free bonus AP) to be comparable to that scene in Space Jam where the alien boss describes how he'll enslave Michael Jordan and force him to play hoops against alien children while tied to a ball and chain and they get a stepladder to the basket.
Maybe a bit off topic and I'm probably VERY late to this particular party, but has anyone had a serious problem getting their hands on any Invader ATVs? I managed to snag the only one at one of my FLGSs, and my other FLGS sold theirs very quickly, and neither has restocked them. Then, I go to GW's webstore and see that they are out of stock. I even checked eBay and nobody there was selling them either, at least nobody that wasn't a dodgy Russian or other Eastern European "Pro painter". What's up with this supply shortfall? I'm not trying to say the sky is falling, and I'm sure they'll come back, but were they just so popular that GW blew through their entire stock of them like a hot knife through butter?
Ahem. In all seriousness, that’s not a terrible thing. My Blood Angels need a lot of tlc to be 9th ready, so I might actually start getting some ready before I buy more. I wonder why this mini in particular keeps being delayed?
Any thoughts on the Blood Angels Lore article dropping today? New Supplement may be up for preorder next weekend perhaps?
That reveal actually scared me a bit as well. A 6 inch aura is highly unusual for DG only auras in our current book. So either whoever wrote the rules for the building didn't know this and made the aura the regular size, or (and this I fear) we are to lose our 7" auras and get standardized again.
I still have this horrible feeling that we'll see them for the first time in whatever the new Killteam thing is. Ditto for the Assault Intercessors.
I refuse to believe that Assault Intercessors will be next year! No! *weeps*
Thats literally the only thing I wanted from the Indomitus Box, not going to happen any time soon I guess. Missed Christmas too.
Heck even if they released before next year it would be sold out for a few months...
I wonder where the DG Codex is? Maybe pushed to a different week in December? Works for me as I can spread my purchases across the month - will be picking up the BA Codex Supplement too.
Not sure on the Death Company Intercessors, I was hoping the published rules would be accompanied by jump packs.
Horla wrote: I wonder where the DG Codex is? Maybe pushed to a different week in December? Works for me as I can spread my purchases across the month - will be picking up the BA Codex Supplement too.
Not sure on the Death Company Intercessors, I was hoping the published rules would be accompanied by jump packs.
The DC intercessors (the kit, not the unit entry) likely exist to push a poor pricing choice.
A full box of 10 intercessors is $60, and the BA sprue is $14 (and you'd need two to do a full squad of 10, with a bunch of leftover bits).
So are the DC intercessors going to be $44 or some weirder price?
Aww yee I’m keen for the supplement. Very intrigued by Death Visions. A little disappointed with the dice but they seem nice enough.
Assault Intercessors! Yeee boiiii!
I feel a little bad for my friend, we both expected to get the DG book at the same time as the BA supplement.
Tiberius501 wrote: Aww yee I’m keen for the supplement. Very intrigued by Death Visions. A little disappointed with the dice but they seem nice enough.
Assault Intercessors! Yeee boiiii!
I feel a little bad for my friend, we both expected to get the DG book at the same time as the BA supplement.
Yep that was odd one. Does increase chance of bigger than usual release for them and gw avoiding overloading one weekend with more stuff than most can buy. So maybe he'll be rewarded of wait with good pile of models.
Tiberius501 wrote: A little disappointed with the dice but they seem nice enough.
What's wrong with the dice, other than the probably price tag? Blood drops as pips is subtle, yet effective, the Chapter symbol is only on the 6, and red on black is a nicely visible colour combination.
Tiberius501 wrote: A little disappointed with the dice but they seem nice enough.
What's wrong with the dice, other than the probably price tag? Blood drops as pips is subtle, yet effective, the Chapter symbol is only on the 6, and red on black is a nicely visible colour combination.
So, called it, melee unit and gladiator for BA, gravis and speeder for DA
Voss wrote:So are the DC intercessors going to be $44 or some weirder price?
Probably the same price as Morkai box was?
Dysartes wrote:What's wrong with the dice, other than the probably price tag? Blood drops as pips is subtle, yet effective, the Chapter symbol is only on the 6, and red on black is a nicely visible colour combination.
Interestingly, they seem to be in a blister, not a box like all previous ones. Kinda pity if package is one use now.
Also, I don't like there isn't a skull or something bigger on 1, would make them roll more fair and easier to pick 1s for rerolls/fails. Oh well.
Well we figured that Flayed Ones and Assault Intercessors would be delayed due to that Kill Team thing, and the Assault Intercessors are going up next week. So there's still hope for Flayed Ones.
Flayed ones would be nice, but I really would like to get my Chronomancer and Pyschomancer. This is a pretty big pre order week though, so I still have some hope I'll get some stuff this year.
Well we figured that Flayed Ones and Assault Intercessors would be delayed due to that Kill Team thing, and the Assault Intercessors are going up next week. So there's still hope for Flayed Ones.
right now we've got a fair number of marine releases. eradicators, bladeguard, the speeders, heavy intercessors. given the way GW's been drip feeding the marine releases I'm not sure it makes sense for all this to come out in january with the dark angels... could we be getting a black templars supplement after the DA supplement?
I think there's every chance we see releases throughout December. I know people say December is traditionally a dead month as far as new releases go but these are unprecedented times.
BT could add a Primaris Crusader squad if they felt like, say 5 to 10 assault or normal intercessors and 5 reivers to help push reivers. But I think that would be later with an upgrade sprue and a primaris helbrecht or grimaldus
Voss wrote: No point. A pure BT supplement would be so thin, it wouldn't even be practical to wrap hardback covers around it.
Unlike the absolute tomes GW produced for the Imperial Fists, Iron Hands, Raven Guard, Salamanders and White Scars?
I must be hard being a Black Templar. So far from people's thoughts that no one realizes you have twice the unit units (5) that exist for Imperial Fist (2), Iron Hands (1), Raven Guard (1), Salamanders (2) or White Scars (2) before GW adds an obligatory new Primaris model or unit
Voss wrote: No point. A pure BT supplement would be so thin, it wouldn't even be practical to wrap hardback covers around it.
Unlike the absolute tomes GW produced for the Imperial Fists, Iron Hands, Raven Guard, Salamanders and White Scars?
I must be hard being a Black Templar. So far from people's thoughts that no one realizes you have twice the unit units (5) that exist for Imperial Fist (2), Iron Hands (1), Raven Guard (1), Salamanders (2) or White Scars (2) before GW adds an obligatory new Primaris model or unit
Black Templars IMHO never really recovered from losing their codex. :(
alextroy wrote: I must be hard being a Black Templar. So far from people's thoughts that no one realizes you have twice the unit units (5) that exist for Imperial Fist (2), Iron Hands (1), Raven Guard (1), Salamanders (2) or White Scars (2) before GW adds an obligatory new Primaris model or unit
And yet they lost their Codex. That seems like a pretty big deal.
Wouldn't it suck if your army had a Codex, and suddenly lost it one day? Or would you be here bleating about unit counts and acting as if it ain't no thang?
alextroy wrote: I must be hard being a Black Templar. So far from people's thoughts that no one realizes you have twice the unit units (5) that exist for Imperial Fist (2), Iron Hands (1), Raven Guard (1), Salamanders (2) or White Scars (2) before GW adds an obligatory new Primaris model or unit
And yet they lost their Codex. That seems like a pretty big deal.
Wouldn't it suck if your army had a Codex, and suddenly lost it one day? Or would you be here bleating about unit counts and acting as if it ain't no thang?
TWO codexes for black marines?
*throws christmas pudding across the room*
LAST edition I had THREE codexes for black marines!!!!
Voss wrote: No point. A pure BT supplement would be so thin, it wouldn't even be practical to wrap hardback covers around it.
Unlike the absolute tomes GW produced for the Imperial Fists, Iron Hands, Raven Guard, Salamanders and White Scars?
That's literally exactly the point.
IF are the parent first founding chapter, and they split their whole 64 pages with one of their progeny. How far many mole hills do you need to build in the face of increasing opposition to Yet More Space Marines?
The hike to the last codex of 9th edition is long enough as is. Don't add more pot holes to the road.
Tiberius501 wrote: A little disappointed with the dice but they seem nice enough.
What's wrong with the dice, other than the probably price tag? Blood drops as pips is subtle, yet effective, the Chapter symbol is only on the 6, and red on black is a nicely visible colour combination.
They’re kind of bland.
Yeah, basically this. They’re totally fine and I like the colour scheme. I just hope they’re cheaper being less detailed than the others and being in a blister instead of a reusable cigarette box.
alextroy wrote: I must be hard being a Black Templar. So far from people's thoughts that no one realizes you have twice the unit units (5) that exist for Imperial Fist (2), Iron Hands (1), Raven Guard (1), Salamanders (2) or White Scars (2) before GW adds an obligatory new Primaris model or unit
And yet they lost their Codex. That seems like a pretty big deal.
Wouldn't it suck if your army had a Codex, and suddenly lost it one day? Or would you be here bleating about unit counts and acting as if it ain't no thang?
They gained WAY more in terms of options and power level from said consolidation. Vows were dumb and never well balanced anyway. Y'all need to get the feth over it.
alextroy wrote: I must be hard being a Black Templar. So far from people's thoughts that no one realizes you have twice the unit units (5) that exist for Imperial Fist (2), Iron Hands (1), Raven Guard (1), Salamanders (2) or White Scars (2) before GW adds an obligatory new Primaris model or unit
And yet they lost their Codex. That seems like a pretty big deal.
Wouldn't it suck if your army had a Codex, and suddenly lost it one day? Or would you be here bleating about unit counts and acting as if it ain't no thang?
They gained WAY more in terms of options and power level from said consolidation. Vows were dumb and never well balanced anyway. Y'all need to get the feth over it.
At the cost of their distinct flavour and role in an increasingly limited design space. It's incredibly condescending to tell people who stuck around for their distinct unorthodoxy from being heavily deviant from the Codex Astartes (certainly more than Blood Angels and Dark Angels in terms of overall composition before they both had model additions out the wazoo) that being rolled into the main codex was a good thing. Half of their schtick was how they went above codex numbers from how much they spread themselves across crusades and the way in which they conducted war moved away from having the conventional combined arms approach of codex tactics, hence the use of crusader squads. You can see the difference from how they abhored the witch to the point that they didn't have Librarians. Being rolled in and taking away vows basically relegated BT to being a slightly more choppy oriented codex chapter with restrictions. The lack of focus is only slowly being addressed, and even now when compared to BA and SW, how do they really distinguish themselves compared to them in CC?
I mean they still have an upgrade sprue... and unique aesthetic. Chains, braziers, oath papers and crosses and monastic robes etc.
I wish we would just eb happy with aesthetic differences between models without need some minor rules for minor things..
Because you get to this silly point where having the biggest codex and the most varied array of options and the most powerful set of rules is still not enough because you dont have even more options because some other sub faction within your faction has more... I wonder if we are trapped in this endless bloat spiral or if GW will go back to a standardised model for all the factions.
Hi. I'm HBMC and I've never played Black Templars, so really I don't have a dog in this fight.
What I despise however, is when people try to justify why others should have their army taken away, or why they shouldn't get it back.
"You've got more units!" "Get over it!"
Y'know, gak like that.
Don't tell people they're having fun the wrong way, or that they don't deserve to have their own army, especially when it was taken away from then.
This.
At the very least, they could have gotten a dedicated spot as part of the IF supplement or their own supplement. I really don't see why they don't get a supplement when Salamanders, Raven Guard or Iron Hands do, especially with two characters with as much lore as Grimaldus and Helbrecht backing them up.
However, I do like what they did with they WD supplement, giving them unique chaplain prayers and all..
And it's not like bringing them up date wouldn't be super easy - simply mix blade guard and assault intercessors into primaris crusader unit, toss in upgrade sprue, update helbrecht and grimaldus to primaris, done. At this point one would simply have to assume that they don't want to. With the indomitus box I was seriously thinking about starting them, but with GW treating them this way, I'd have to expect them to disappear completely the second they discontinue their finecast models.
Hi. I'm HBMC and I've never played Black Templars, so really I don't have a dog in this fight.
What I despise however, is when people try to justify why others should have their army taken away, or why they shouldn't get it back.
"You've got more units!" "Get over it!"
Y'know, gak like that.
Don't tell people they're having fun the wrong way, or that they don't deserve to have their own army, especially when it was taken away from then.
I played Black Templars from before the Armageddon supplement gave them their first taste of individual rules to end of 6th ed or start of 7th ed. I'm not of the opinion that losing the 4th ed codex was this massive blow to the character of Black Templars that it's sometimes made out to be. Most options were still available, and all it took to replicate the absence of certain units like Librarians or Whirlwinds was to just not take them.
In my opinion it was general game design that made Black Templars feel off as the editions progressed with GW's obsession to make the usefulness of close combat ever narrower and increasing the deadliness of shooting to absurd levels. You would be left with the choice of playing an ineffective but fluffy army or jumping on the shooty bandwagon and abandon the character of your army, with little choice in between.
This isn't fixed by having a codex but by having army specific rules that account for the shift in the core rules. That could happen in a standalone codex, or a supplement, or just a page or two of rules in the general Marine codex. The important thing isn't where the rules are located but that GW recognizes that they need to exist at all. Which isn't a problem limited to Black Templars but a general design issue that's been plaguing 40k for over a decade. It's no different than addressing armies that are psyker heavy per their background but can't function (whether they are too powerful or not powerful enough) because an edition's psychic phase isn't designed to handle more than two or three psykers.
I'm not a fan of all these Marine supplements, but I agree that if chapters with a less notable history of rules support like White Scars of Raven Guard warrant a supplement, so should Black Templars. In the grand scheme of things, what's one more book? Supplements are not my ideal solution, but in the state of the game as it's presented right now it's bogus to hand out all these supplements but stop short of Black Templars.
Argive wrote: I wish we would just eb happy with aesthetic differences between models without need some minor rules for minor things..
Me, too. But in this age of bespoke rules it looks like that's not what a lot of players want. Nor GW, for that matter.
Argive wrote: Because you get to this silly point where having the biggest codex and the most varied array of options and the most powerful set of rules is still not enough because you dont have even more options because some other sub faction within your faction has more... I wonder if we are trapped in this endless bloat spiral or if GW will go back to a standardised model for all the factions.
As I see it too many people love their little special rules, and GW loves how they can leverage this to sell all these extra books to those players. I don't see that change anytime soon, not the least because 8th ed could have been that but instead just shifted around the mess of rules from 7th ed to a new format without actually introducing a simplification of the system as 3rd ed did. GW is likely to ride the current core rules for another edition or two before another revolutionary change to the core rules happens.
JWBS wrote: I think there's every chance we see releases throughout December. I know people say December is traditionally a dead month as far as new releases go but these are unprecedented times.
GW Community Team said on FB that Death Guard will be a December release.
JWBS wrote: I think there's every chance we see releases throughout December. I know people say December is traditionally a dead month as far as new releases go but these are unprecedented times.
GW Community Team said on FB that Death Guard will be a December release.
They said that long time ago in road plan. Oddity is it not being together with ba but sooner or later it comes.
Now does it being separate from ba indicate it's more substantial release than most armies will be is the real question.
Grimskul wrote: At the cost of their distinct flavour and role in an increasingly limited design space.
What flavor/design space??
I played BT in 4th, and their book was literally identical in all respects to Codex marines save for Emperor's Champion (who can now be replicated with Chapter Champion) and Crusader squad (that was funnily enough played by most BT players as las/plas minmax, so very similar to Codex MSU). Yes, there was sometimes 12/16 dudes in Land Raider, but that was an outlier, Termies or veterans were better and taken in 95% of the cases. Yes, DA probably should have been rolled into Codex first but the ease with which BT were made Codex army should tell you something.
You want to see real loss of flavour and design space, look at worthless crap that is DW supplement
Jidmah wrote: I really don't see why they don't get a supplement when Salamanders, Raven Guard or Iron Hands do, especially with two characters with as much lore as Grimaldus and Helbrecht backing them up.
If amount of lore and good writing was in any way influencing that decision, Blood Ravens should have got theirs long before all of the above. Yet here we are, with literally whos like Tome Keepers getting one first and BR having literally nothing
If we don't start seeing previews this week for DG, I would assume the release will be minor and half assed.
Two models, the codex/cards/campaign book plus DLC book.
My expectations are that there won't be a model release for the blightcaster, there may be a re-boxing of the blighthaulers, and the codex will still not have a plaguemarine statline Chaos Lord.
PoorGravitasHandling wrote: If we don't start seeing previews this week for DG, I would assume the release will be minor and half assed.
Two models, the codex/cards/campaign book plus DLC book.
My expectations are that there won't be a model release for the blightcaster, there may be a re-boxing of the blighthaulers, and the codex will still not have a plaguemarine statline Chaos Lord.
Previews generally come after preorders are announced. This week previews will thus be for ba. Possible something comes for dg but odds are no. Most of the time previews don't start before preorder is even announced
If you had "GW acknowledges Core in an article while in the same goddamn sentence rolling out a universal buff strat" please mark your bingo cards accordingly.
Also, ROFL, one cp for army wide AP increases to melee weapons in assault doctrine
PoorGravitasHandling wrote: If you had "GW acknowledges Core in an article while in the same goddamn sentence rolling out a universal buff strat" please mark your bingo cards accordingly.
So we're clear, the thing being complained about here is a Relic Banner for an Ancient.
Most of that article showed stuff we already knew.
I assume that, as they said that they’re talking about Death Company tomorrow, the new Death Visions will be talked about tomorrow.
Hi. I'm HBMC and I've never played Black Templars, so really I don't have a dog in this fight.
What I despise however, is when people try to justify why others should have their army taken away, or why they shouldn't get it back.
"You've got more units!" "Get over it!"
Y'know, gak like that.
Don't tell people they're having fun the wrong way, or that they don't deserve to have their own army, especially when it was taken away from then.
This.
At the very least, they could have gotten a dedicated spot as part of the IF supplement or their own supplement. I really don't see why they don't get a supplement when Salamanders, Raven Guard or Iron Hands do, especially with two characters with as much lore as Grimaldus and Helbrecht backing them up.
However, I do like what they did with they WD supplement, giving them unique chaplain prayers and all..
And it's not like bringing them up date wouldn't be super easy - simply mix blade guard and assault intercessors into primaris crusader unit, toss in upgrade sprue, update helbrecht and grimaldus to primaris, done. At this point one would simply have to assume that they don't want to. With the indomitus box I was seriously thinking about starting them, but with GW treating them this way, I'd have to expect them to disappear completely the second they discontinue their finecast models.
They DID get their own "supplement". It just happened to have some CSM rules in it too.
And no, Black Templar players lost nothing of value going into the main codex. You don't want Whirlwinds? Just don't take them. You didn't LOSE Sword Brethren, they're just the way better Vanguard now. As well, the only thing lost was Vows, which were dumb to begin with.
So what DID Black Templars actually lose besides Snowflake Status with Blood Angels and Dark Angels?
PoorGravitasHandling wrote: If you had "GW acknowledges Core in an article while in the same goddamn sentence rolling out a universal buff strat" please mark your bingo cards accordingly.
So we're clear, the thing being complained about here is a Relic Banner for an Ancient.
A. Relic. Banner.
Afraid I’ve missed where that says it’s a banner that can only be taken by an Ancient.
PoorGravitasHandling wrote: If you had "GW acknowledges Core in an article while in the same goddamn sentence rolling out a universal buff strat" please mark your bingo cards accordingly.
So we're clear, the thing being complained about here is a Relic Banner for an Ancient.
A. Relic. Banner.
Afraid I’ve missed where that says it’s a banner that can only be taken by an Ancient.
That's fair, it doesn't say that. I read it focusing on the rules rather than the fluff bit and was thinking Banner rather than 'backpack reliquary'.
Point remains that it's a Relic though. It's not a piece of wargear for every single individual.
If ever there's a place for "Ignores Core"? It's on Relics.
PoorGravitasHandling wrote: If you had "GW acknowledges Core in an article while in the same goddamn sentence rolling out a universal buff strat" please mark your bingo cards accordingly.
So we're clear, the thing being complained about here is a Relic Banner for an Ancient.
A. Relic. Banner.
Afraid I’ve missed where that says it’s a banner that can only be taken by an Ancient.
That's fair, it doesn't say that. I read it focusing on the rules rather than the fluff bit and was thinking Banner rather than 'backpack reliquary'.
Point remains that it's a Relic though. It's not a piece of wargear for every single individual.
If ever there's a place for "Ignores Core"? It's on Relics.
It still seems dumb to ignore core and be any unit in 6", which you can no doubt extend or daisy chain into. Kinda goes against the 9th ed philosophy gw stated.
PoorGravitasHandling wrote: If you had "GW acknowledges Core in an article while in the same goddamn sentence rolling out a universal buff strat" please mark your bingo cards accordingly.
So we're clear, the thing being complained about here is a Relic Banner for an Ancient.
A. Relic. Banner.
Afraid I’ve missed where that says it’s a banner that can only be taken by an Ancient.
That's fair, it doesn't say that. I read it focusing on the rules rather than the fluff bit and was thinking Banner rather than 'backpack reliquary'.
Point remains that it's a Relic though. It's not a piece of wargear for every single individual.
If ever there's a place for "Ignores Core"? It's on Relics.
It still seems dumb to ignore core and be any unit in 6", which you can no doubt extend or daisy chain into. Kinda goes against the 9th ed philosophy gw stated.
Exactly, if anything it should be a targeted buff like the CM ability, where you can affect only one unit within 6". Now it's just going back to the usual holy huddle of auras/buffs that was supposed to be more limited this edition.
It basically comes into play once or twice a game where everything might be packed in.
Really, really not seeing the issue here.
Because that one time it kicks in, helping 3/4 charging units is notably better than helping 1. Especially when they're dreads/tanks/assault cents/all characters.
A point of comparison, for wolves it's a warlord trait, to affect other units the warlord has to complete a charge the proceeding turn, then it only benefits core.
A relic for blood angels: "meh, any one, any time"
Sorry, just not seeing a real issue here. It's a Relic, meaning it's on a single character. The Wolves one being a Warlord Trait is interesting though...but Hero of the Chapter(1CP to give a Warlord Trait to a non-Warlord) does exist. Same argument can be made for "Relic of the Chapter" I guess, but there's more Relics that people usually want than there are Warlord Traits.
Hi. I'm HBMC and I've never played Black Templars, so really I don't have a dog in this fight.
What I despise however, is when people try to justify why others should have their army taken away, or why they shouldn't get it back.
"You've got more units!" "Get over it!"
Y'know, gak like that.
Don't tell people they're having fun the wrong way, or that they don't deserve to have their own army, especially when it was taken away from then.
Black Templars deserve a proper supplement. GW made an Index Astartes file for them with bespoke BT rules, so we have a strong indication that just may happen some day.
That being said and no offense intended (yeah, yeah, that is a preface to say something that might offend), Black Templar players do need to get over it.
They have rules for all their models. They have received support nearly equivalent to all the chapters in Codex Space Marines since being rolled into that book. They got a pseudo-supplement in Psychic Awakening and a new Index Astartes document for 9th Edition. Both of those included a whole list of Litanies to make up for their inability to take Psychers. What more do you want?
Kanluwen wrote: Different subfactions are different, news at 11!
Sorry, just not seeing a real issue here. It's a Relic, meaning it's on a single character. The Wolves one being a Warlord Trait is interesting though...but Hero of the Chapter(1CP to give a Warlord Trait to a non-Warlord) does exist. Same argument can be made for "Relic of the Chapter" I guess, but there's more Relics that people usually want than there are Warlord Traits.
Maybe it won't be a big deal, it's just unsettling rather in 4 months we've gone from: "reduced death balling, reduced auras, core limitations" to: "here's a relic that does stuff to everyone in an aura with no limits and its less restrictive than the other equivalent supplement".
It's more GW missing their own point than it being op or anything.
One of the things they kept harping upon was the keyword system giving them "more levers to pull" when balancing. It might be that they value a reroll to Charges as something that does not need to be restricted to Core only in a Marines force?
NinthMusketeer wrote: But the real cheese is that Blood Angel's rhinos will be inspired by the relic and roll into combat with a bunch of bonus attacks!
When all that is left is Marine players, they will turn on one another rather than the Xenos, Heretic, or Mutant!
Also, Core already covers so many things in a Marine list, does it really matter if charge rerolls don't cover Core, especially if it's taking up the relic??
It's probably also not limited to core so the guy carrying it can also benefit.
Kanluwen wrote: Different subfactions are different, news at 11!
Sorry, just not seeing a real issue here. It's a Relic, meaning it's on a single character. The Wolves one being a Warlord Trait is interesting though...but Hero of the Chapter(1CP to give a Warlord Trait to a non-Warlord) does exist. Same argument can be made for "Relic of the Chapter" I guess, but there's more Relics that people usually want than there are Warlord Traits.
Maybe it won't be a big deal, it's just unsettling rather in 4 months we've gone from: "reduced death balling, reduced auras, core limitations" to: "here's a relic that does stuff to everyone in an aura with no limits and its less restrictive than the other equivalent supplement".
It's more GW missing their own point than it being op or anything.
Well so far core has been relatively speaking buff to marines. Marines very litte impact, necrons actually feels it.
It's marines. Master race. No surprises. Core is to ensure npc factions stay under boots of masters. Just as planned
For those interested, prices in USD are apparently:
$80 for Gladiator(was actually shocked by this one!)
$30 for the supplement
$45 for the DC Intercessors(not shocked about this one)
$60 for the Assault Intercessors
$140 for the Combat Patrol
Datacards are $15
Dice are $35
Kanluwen wrote: Different subfactions are different, news at 11!
Sorry, just not seeing a real issue here. It's a Relic, meaning it's on a single character. The Wolves one being a Warlord Trait is interesting though...but Hero of the Chapter(1CP to give a Warlord Trait to a non-Warlord) does exist. Same argument can be made for "Relic of the Chapter" I guess, but there's more Relics that people usually want than there are Warlord Traits.
Maybe it won't be a big deal, it's just unsettling rather in 4 months we've gone from: "reduced death balling, reduced auras, core limitations" to: "here's a relic that does stuff to everyone in an aura with no limits and its less restrictive than the other equivalent supplement".
It's more GW missing their own point than it being op or anything.
Well so far core has been relatively speaking buff to marines. Marines very litte impact, necrons actually feels it.
It's marines. Master race. No surprises. Core is to ensure npc factions stay under boots of masters. Just as planned
I think you are way too negative.
I believe you should wait and see. Theres more supplements and stuff on the way. Surely they wont bring more rules in with no downside .. That would be terrible for balance.. I mean Incubi got 2D weapons man.. thats all balances out probably. Or soemthing.
Wait and see.
Seriously though. I expect the DE codex + supplaments to make marines look amateur. No new models or anything. Just some over correction knee jerk OP broken stuff they will have to nerf over the next year...
Kanluwen wrote: For those interested, prices in USD are apparently:
$80 for Gladiator(was actually shocked by this one!)
$30 for the supplement
$45 for the DC Intercessors(not shocked about this one)
$60 for the Assault Intercessors
$140 for the Combat Patrol
Datacards are $15
Dice are $35
Kanluwen wrote: For those interested, prices in USD are apparently:
$80 for Gladiator(was actually shocked by this one!)
$30 for the supplement
$45 for the DC Intercessors(not shocked about this one)
$60 for the Assault Intercessors
$140 for the Combat Patrol
Datacards are $15
Dice are $35
Is that cheaper for the dice than usual?
Same as the other 9th edition sets, e.g. Necrons & Space Wolves
Kanluwen wrote: For those interested, prices in USD are apparently:
$80 for Gladiator(was actually shocked by this one!)
$30 for the supplement
$45 for the DC Intercessors(not shocked about this one)
$60 for the Assault Intercessors
$140 for the Combat Patrol
Datacards are $15
Dice are $35
Is that cheaper for the dice than usual?
Same as the other 9th edition sets, e.g. Necrons & Space Wolves
Ah man, they’re in a blister and not a reusable box, and are less detailed. That’s a bit of a bummer but I can’t say I wasn’t expecting it.
So what DID Black Templars actually lose besides Snowflake Status with Blood Angels and Dark Angels?
They didn't really lose much except for very specific (sometimes hindering) rules.
But I'm a snowflake, and as a Black Templars player I want my snowflake rules and specific units.
GW should really just jump on the BT bandwagon and make some decent BT upgrade kits/characters/special units (note: in this case I mean for Primaris because regardless of opinions, that is the future of marines). There's enough of us out there to probably make big bank on it.
The main thing that makes me think Death Visions isn’t for crusade is because we get cards for them. Most crusade upgrades and things are written on your unit roster, you don’t need to keep track usually in game with cards.
I love that the sergeant of a unit of Assault intercessors can make 14 attacks with Honor the Chapter when Jain Zar the pheonix lord of the howling banshees makes 4 and Kharn makes like 8.
Welcome to Space Marine Hammer, where the stats are made up and the lore doesn't matter.
....I'm sure because I did not google kharn's actual statline some Um Aschulallly will materialize and say it's like 10 or something so, that is approximate or whatever. Point being an intercessor sergeant can throw more attacks than fething god and that's dumb.
the_scotsman wrote: I love that the sergeant of a unit of Assault intercessors can make 14 attacks with Honor the Chapter when Jain Zar the pheonix lord of the howling banshees makes 4 and Kharn makes like 8.
Welcome to Space Marine Hammer, where the stats are made up and the lore doesn't matter.
....I'm sure because I did not google kharn's actual statline some Um Aschulallly will materialize and say it's like 10 or something so, that is approximate or whatever. Point being an intercessor sergeant can throw more attacks than fething god and that's dumb.
Did you include the fight twice Strat with Kharn or are you looking to just complain?
the_scotsman wrote: I love that the sergeant of a unit of Assault intercessors can make 14 attacks with Honor the Chapter when Jain Zar the pheonix lord of the howling banshees makes 4 and Kharn makes like 8.
Welcome to Space Marine Hammer, where the stats are made up and the lore doesn't matter.
....I'm sure because I did not google kharn's actual statline some Um Aschulallly will materialize and say it's like 10 or something so, that is approximate or whatever. Point being an intercessor sergeant can throw more attacks than fething god and that's dumb.
Did you include the fight twice Strat with Kharn or are you looking to just complain?
doesn't change the point that probably some rando can out perform established devastating melee specialists , known for melee...
granted that is another issue in regards to as how charachters can limit design space but yeah.
the_scotsman wrote: I love that the sergeant of a unit of Assault intercessors can make 14 attacks with Honor the Chapter when Jain Zar the pheonix lord of the howling banshees makes 4 and Kharn makes like 8.
Welcome to Space Marine Hammer, where the stats are made up and the lore doesn't matter.
....I'm sure because I did not google kharn's actual statline some Um Aschulallly will materialize and say it's like 10 or something so, that is approximate or whatever. Point being an intercessor sergeant can throw more attacks than fething god and that's dumb.
What happened to you? You used to make reasoned constructive arguments (even if disagreeable personally sometimes) but you make a lot of sweeping overy wordy "I hate marine" posts of late, get the hyperbole shot up then vanish for a day or two and repeat.
But yes the sargeants can make too many attacks, not sure how many less it should be though to be honest. 3-4 used to be about top end for a unit champion back in 7th iirc.
How are you getting 14,out of curiosity? The best I can figure for an assault intercessors is 6, 12 when fighting twice.
Also Kharn has 14. :p
Sarge (3) Chainsword (1) echoes (1) Shock assault (1) Black Rage (1) and fight twice.
unless the BADC intercessors can't do chainswords, which would be an odd thing.
I stand corrected that a BA intercessor sergeant cannot throw more attacks than Kharn the Betrayer - he'll have to content himself with more attacks than Jain Zar, Lelith hesperax, Ghazghkull Thraka, Robute Guilliman, a full 5-squad of howling banshees, etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Marshal Loss wrote: Having 3+WS/BS on other Daemon Engines would be incredible
FWIW daemon engines in the IA compendium got bumped to 3s.
the_scotsman wrote: I love that the sergeant of a unit of Assault intercessors can make 14 attacks with Honor the Chapter when Jain Zar the pheonix lord of the howling banshees makes 4 and Kharn makes like 8.
Although I generally agree with your position here, you can't add the fight twice strat for assault intercessors as a foundation for the argument. However, just having 5 attacks on the charge for a bog standard assault intercessor sgt with chainsword (not a vet intercessor), when Jain Zar has 4 is a ridiculous design stance.
Jain Zar should basically have Ragnar's rule..Shock Assault that adds D3 attacks when charging, charged, or HI. 5-7 attacks at S6, -3, D3 damage 9could argue for flat damage 3 really, at least 2) with reroll wounds. Would be much better.
the_scotsman wrote: I love that the sergeant of a unit of Assault intercessors can make 14 attacks with Honor the Chapter when Jain Zar the pheonix lord of the howling banshees makes 4 and Kharn makes like 8.
Although I generally agree with your position here, you can't add the fight twice strat for assault intercessors as a foundation for the argument. However, just having 5 attacks on the charge for a bog standard assault intercessor sgt with chainsword (not a vet intercessor), when Jain Zar has 4 is a ridiculous design stance.
Jain Zar should basically have Ragnar's rule..Shock Assault that adds D3 attacks when charging, charged, or HI. 5-7 attacks at S6, -3, D3 damage 9could argue for flat damage 3 really, at least 2) with reroll wounds. Would be much better.
I know I'm veering off topic, but I would think someone like jain zar is the perfect character to have wounds carry over similar to the DG flail of corruption. Use it to represent her whirlwind of death, one strike being so quick it is used to hit multiple opponents
. Rather then ignore them for the game.
)
