I consider it a huge issue. I think we all agreed DG were not exactly setting the 40k tabletop on fire, and we have lost pur mortal wound protection. I seriously struggled to fight a friend's Salamanders before, but at least my tanks and drones shrugged an awful lot of his firepower.
Don't forget an awful lot of really effective Marine armies are heavily biased to infantry - so all those rapid fire bolters, auto bolt rifles, assault cannons are going to be more effective against us?
I don't understand how our hardest foe to beat, the Loyalist, isn't going to have a field day now?
A single plasma shot will not be able to kill a Plague Marine. It will be able to kill a Primaris marine.
While I liked the way DR used to work, this is not a huge nerf. It just means they take less guaranteed damage at the upper end of the spectrum instead of randomly shrugging off damage all over.
The difference is that without FnP Poxwalkers are useless as they are T3 with 7+ save(hopefully they'll get something to barely survive). It also means we are now quite vulnerable to Mortal Wound gimmicks. Also, D2 weapons are not a dime a dozen even if it has been increased with the new Heavy Bolter changes. I have also not seen that great a proliferation of plasma to really fear plasma.
Ultimately this makes DG vulnerable to small arms fire.
I am not a fan of the change, but will live with it as long as we see an appropriate point drop. I just want the book now so I can see the entire picture.
I
If the PWs cost 1 point less, would they still be useless?
I'd happily take no-DR meatshields if I could field them in greater numbers.
A single plasma shot will not be able to kill a Plague Marine. It will be able to kill a Primaris marine.
While I liked the way DR used to work, this is not a huge nerf. It just means they take less guaranteed damage at the upper end of the spectrum instead of randomly shrugging off damage all over.
It's good vs >= D2 weapons. Against the cheapest D1 weapons Plague Marines are no more resilient than vanilla Marines which definitely is a problem in my book. And Poxwalkers don't benefit at all.
KirvesUK wrote: I consider it a huge issue. I think we all agreed DG were not exactly setting the 40k tabletop on fire, and we have lost pur mortal wound protection. I seriously struggled to fight a friend's Salamanders before, but at least my tanks and drones shrugged an awful lot of his firepower.
Don't forget an awful lot of really effective Marine armies are heavily biased to infantry - so all those rapid fire bolters, auto bolt rifles, assault cannons are going to be more effective against us?
I don't understand how our hardest foe to beat, the Loyalist, isn't going to have a field day now?
Lots of Loyalist weapons are two damage so you're actually buffed against those (Bladeguard Veterans only do 1 damage now, Heavy Bolters are back to 1 damage now, e.t.c.). I'd be more worried if you faced Grey Knights or TSons because you've now entered the Custodes world where MW will tear you apart.
You can also think of it as probabilities. 5+++ basically let you ignore 1 out of every 3 damage. Against a 2 damage weapon, this would average nothing. Now you always reduce it by one (statistically equivalent to a 4+++). Against 3 damage weapons you always reduce it by one (same as the average of the 5+++). You're actually only less effective vs. 4 damage and up, 1 damage and MW.
Lots of Loyalist weapons are two damage so you're actually buffed against those (Bladeguard Veterans only do 1 damage now, Heavy Bolters are back to 1 damage now, e.t.c.). I'd be more worried if you faced Grey Knights or TSons because you've now entered the Custodes world where MW will tear you apart.
Well, both Grey Knights and TSons rank quite a bit below Death Guard, so they need a bit of help to begin with. Not to mention they lost unlimited smite. And Plague Marines are 33% MORE resilient vs. Mortals than they were in 8th.
Lots of Loyalist weapons are two damage so you're actually buffed against those (Bladeguard Veterans only do 1 damage now, Heavy Bolters are back to 1 damage now, e.t.c.). I'd be more worried if you faced Grey Knights or TSons because you've now entered the Custodes world where MW will tear you apart.
Well, both Grey Knights and TSons rank quite a bit below Death Guard, so they need a bit of help to begin with. And Plague Marines are 33% MORE resilient vs. Mortals than they were in 8th.
Yeah, I'm pretty upbeat about Death Guard's position in 9th. This book is overall a strong buff too.
BleachHawk wrote: Against the cheapest D1 weapons Plague Marines are no more resilient than vanilla Marines which definitely sucks in my book.
How do you know? We haven't seen stratagems, auras or psychic powers yet. They may (and probably will) still have a bunch of ways to ignore wounds on a smaller scale.
It's funny how many people were saying on here a few months ago that marines getting 2 wounds was pointless, because so many weapons were revised to 2 damage. Seems like this is something that will pay off as more codexes get their heavy bolter-style upgrades.
Also I think it's good to see army-wide rules that are effective, but don't require extra dice rolls to be made on every single attack.
KirvesUK wrote: I consider it a huge issue. I think we all agreed DG were not exactly setting the 40k tabletop on fire, and we have lost pur mortal wound protection. I seriously struggled to fight a friend's Salamanders before, but at least my tanks and drones shrugged an awful lot of his firepower.
Don't forget an awful lot of really effective Marine armies are heavily biased to infantry - so all those rapid fire bolters, auto bolt rifles, assault cannons are going to be more effective against us?
I don't understand how our hardest foe to beat, the Loyalist, isn't going to have a field day now?
More effective than imaginary w2 5+++ death guard. Less effective than they were vs old with new. 4 bolter shots to kill 2 plague marine vs 3. 33% increase in survivability.
To say bolters are more effective you need to compare vs stats that never existed.
BleachHawk wrote: Against the cheapest D1 weapons Plague Marines are no more resilient than vanilla Marines which definitely sucks in my book.
How do you know? We haven't seen stratagems, auras or psychic powers yet. They may (and probably will) still have a bunch of ways to ignore wounds on a smaller scale.
It's funny how many people were saying on here a few months ago that marines getting 2 wounds was pointless, because so many weapons were revised to 2 damage. Seems like this is something that will pay off as more codexes get their heavy bolter-style upgrades.
Also I think it's good to see army-wide rules that are effective, but don't require extra dice rolls to be made on every single attack.
How do I know? I compare simple stat lines for both, PM and vanilla marines. Most cheap weapons have S3 - S4, D1. So same wound roll vs 2 wounds and 3+ save.
Vanilla marines have defensive auras, strats, ... as well.
Edit: ok against cheap S4 weapons PM still are tougher.
puma713 wrote: We are the most resilient of troops! We are the toughest in the galaxy! Except against the weakest of arms fire.
When the new codex launches, the Death Guard will be ignoring one wound guaranteed against any attacks that deal more than 1 Damage. When you consider that Plague Marines, Death Guard Possessed, Blightlord Terminators, and Deathshroud Terminators also gain an additional Wound in the new codex, it makes the legion a true force to be reckoned with. The 2-Damage weapons (super-charged plasma weapons, we’re looking at you) that are the bane of Space Marines of every stripe simply won’t cut it against the Death Guard.*
I mean this in the nicest way, but really? What did people expect? Being able to reduce damage by 1 is nothing really to sneeze at--and they aren't going to let 1 damage get reduced to 0.
BleachHawk wrote: Against the cheapest D1 weapons Plague Marines are no more resilient than vanilla Marines which definitely sucks in my book.
How do you know? We haven't seen stratagems, auras or psychic powers yet. They may (and probably will) still have a bunch of ways to ignore wounds on a smaller scale.
It's funny how many people were saying on here a few months ago that marines getting 2 wounds was pointless, because so many weapons were revised to 2 damage. Seems like this is something that will pay off as more codexes get their heavy bolter-style upgrades.
Also I think it's good to see army-wide rules that are effective, but don't require extra dice rolls to be made on every single attack.
How do I know? I compare simple stat lines for both, PM and vanilla marines. Most cheap weapons have S3 - S4, D1. So same wound roll vs 2 wounds and 3+ save.
Vanilla marines have defensive auras, strats, ... as well.
Edit: ok against cheap S4 weapons PM still are tougher.
lol glad the penny dropped "Marines have so many releases, it's 90% vs marines but damn those s3 weapons nobody uses!"
Overall I like it and means plague marines might not need to be pointed astronomically. I get people are upset about mortal wounds but I feel it actually fits in universe better this way.
Sister Repentia? trash
Plasma Inceptors? trash
New Incubi? trash
Shining Spears? trash
Bladeguard? well ... nerfed
Avenger Gattling? trash
Most Custodes melee? trash
Riptide Burstcannon? even more trash
GSC Aberrants? ... yeah, I guess we needed another nerf
This might be the biggest fubar by GW since the Iron Hands supplement.
GW just nerfed probably a good third of models in their 40K range right out of the game.
BleachHawk wrote: Against the cheapest D1 weapons Plague Marines are no more resilient than vanilla Marines which definitely sucks in my book.
How do you know? We haven't seen stratagems, auras or psychic powers yet. They may (and probably will) still have a bunch of ways to ignore wounds on a smaller scale.
It's funny how many people were saying on here a few months ago that marines getting 2 wounds was pointless, because so many weapons were revised to 2 damage. Seems like this is something that will pay off as more codexes get their heavy bolter-style upgrades.
Also I think it's good to see army-wide rules that are effective, but don't require extra dice rolls to be made on every single attack.
How do I know? I compare simple stat lines for both, PM and vanilla marines. Most cheap weapons have S3 - S4, D1. So same wound roll vs 2 wounds and 3+ save.
Vanilla marines have defensive auras, strats, ... as well.
Edit: ok against cheap S4 weapons PM still are tougher.
lol glad the penny dropped "Marines have so many releases, it's 90% vs marines but damn those s3 weapons nobody uses!"
Overall I like it and means plague marines might not need to be pointed astronomically. I get people are upset about mortal wounds but I feel it actually fits in universe better this way.
You don't know which factions I play against. 90% Ad Mech and Astra Militarum (that's mostly S3 on the troops). So thank you for the sassy response but I couldn't care less
BleachHawk wrote: Against the cheapest D1 weapons Plague Marines are no more resilient than vanilla Marines which definitely sucks in my book.
How do you know? We haven't seen stratagems, auras or psychic powers yet. They may (and probably will) still have a bunch of ways to ignore wounds on a smaller scale.
It's funny how many people were saying on here a few months ago that marines getting 2 wounds was pointless, because so many weapons were revised to 2 damage. Seems like this is something that will pay off as more codexes get their heavy bolter-style upgrades.
Also I think it's good to see army-wide rules that are effective, but don't require extra dice rolls to be made on every single attack.
How do I know? I compare simple stat lines for both, PM and vanilla marines. Most cheap weapons have S3 - S4, D1. So same wound roll vs 2 wounds and 3+ save.
Vanilla marines have defensive auras, strats, ... as well.
Edit: ok against cheap S4 weapons PM still are tougher.
lol glad the penny dropped "Marines have so many releases, it's 90% vs marines but damn those s3 weapons nobody uses!"
Overall I like it and means plague marines might not need to be pointed astronomically. I get people are upset about mortal wounds but I feel it actually fits in universe better this way.
You don't know which factions I play against. 90% Ad Mech and Astra Militarum (that's mostly S3 on the troops). So thank you for the sassy response but I couldn't care less
Sorry it was more a satirical response about people on these boards more than at you.
Going from W1 with a 5+ FNP to W2 would be an upgrade for Plague Marines even if they lost DR entirely. The new implementation of DR might not be as helpful against D1 weapons, but that's a huge buff against increasingly-common D2 weapons. Compared to their current statline, it's a net 33% increase in durability against everything up to D3.
Bolters- needed 1.5 wounds to kill, now need 2
Overcharged Plasma- needed 1.5 wounds to kill, now need 2
Mortal Wounds- needed 1.5MW to kill, now need 2
The extra wound gives you better survivability against D1 weapons, the new DR gives you better survivability against D2 weapons, and T5 still helps out against S4-5 and S8-9 weapons. The only things you're no more durable than a regular Marine against are being drowned in S3 fire (against which you're still 33% more durable than before), or hit with S6-7 D3+ weapons, of which there aren't very many in the first place.
Given the other significant buffs to Plague Marines, and the lack of points changes in the SM and Necron codices, it looks like Plague Marines are getting a major improvement. The jury's still out on Poxwalkers since the new DR doesn't help them, and the way it'll interact with vehicles is different, but it seems to me like when it comes to Plague Marines people are disappointed due to unreasonable expectations.
Sunny Side Up wrote: 2 wound plague marines with this vs. 1 wound plague marines with old DG still are more resilient vs. Bolters, Heavy Bolters, even Mortal Wounds, etc.. .
Seems good, and most importantly, less dice-rolling to get through stuff!!!
It's bad. The comparison isn't with 'old 1W plague marines,' it's with all other marines (that also have 2 wounds), since that is the norm for all marines.
Most of the time, disgustingly resilient does nothing. And plasma weapons were already on the decline since it's harder to sheninangans around the natural one, and the platforms you can have plasma on went up in cost.
Yes, it helps against heavy bolters. But... The reality is, DR has been their signature rule. For it to do nothing at all except against a handful of very specific weapons (and a plethora of exceptions that you don't see very often and should have just been standard weapons)... Feels bad.
So far the rules changes for DG have been minor tweaks and one big nerf. Nothing that adds to their ability to kill enemies or take objectives, just a light utility change and a durability downgrade.
---
It is nice for vehicles (except dreads, since it's redundant with the rule that dreads got innately for free), especially the ones that didn't get DR previously, and probably the terminators. But for line death guard it's a big hit.
catbarf wrote: Going from W1 with a 5+ FNP to W2 would be an upgrade for Plague Marines even if they lost DR entirely. The new implementation of DR might not be as helpful against D1 weapons, but that's a huge buff against increasingly-common D2 weapons. Compared to their current statline, it's a net 33% increase in durability against everything up to D3.
Bolters- needed 1.5 wounds to kill, now need 2
Overcharged Plasma- needed 1.5 wounds to kill, now need 2
Mortal Wounds- needed 1.5MW to kill, now need 2
The extra wound gives you better survivability against D1 weapons, the new DR gives you better survivability against D2 weapons, and T5 still helps out against S4-5 and S8-9 weapons. The only things you're no more durable than a regular Marine against are being drowned in S3 fire (against which you're still 33% more durable than before), or hit with S6-7 D3+ weapons, of which there aren't very many in the first place.
Given the other significant buffs to Plague Marines, and the lack of points changes in the SM and Necron codices, it looks like Plague Marines are getting a major improvement. The jury's still out on Poxwalkers since the new DR doesn't help them, and the way it'll interact with vehicles is different, but it seems to me like when it comes to Plague Marines people are disappointed due to unreasonable expectations.
I think the big question that arises from this is how much D2 weaponry are we going to see in the future 9th edition codexes. With this rule and what we've seen in the Space Marine codex I could very well imagine we'll see a decent proliferation of D2 weapons in general.
Sunny Side Up wrote: 2 wound plague marines with this vs. 1 wound plague marines with old DG still are more resilient vs. Bolters, Heavy Bolters, even Mortal Wounds, etc.. .
Seems good, and most importantly, less dice-rolling to get through stuff!!!
It's bad. The comparison isn't with 'old 1W plague marines,' it's with all other marines (that also have 2 wounds), since that is the norm for all marines.
Most of the time, disgustingly resilient does nothing. And plasma weapons were already on the decline since it's harder to sheninangans around the natural one, and the platforms you can have plasma on went up in cost.
Yes, it helps against heavy bolters. But... The reality is, DR has been their signature rule. For it to do nothing at all except against a handful of very specific weapons (and a plethora of exceptions that you don't see very often and should have just been standard weapons)... Feels bad.
So far the rules changes for DG have been minor tweaks and one big nerf. Nothing that adds to their ability to kill enemies or take objectives, just a light utility change and a durability downgrade.
---
It is nice for vehicles (except dreads, since it's redundant with the rule that dreads got innately for free), especially the ones that didn't get DR previously, and probably the terminators. But for line death guard it's a big hit.
Sure. If Eldar, Dark Eldar, GSC and Sisters and all those all go up to 2 wounds, and things like Repentia Chainswords and Shining Spears lances and all such things go up to flat damage 3 minimum, you'd be right.
As long as this is not the case, this is perhaps the most insane buff to an army in a decade.
I appreciate that we’re all stuck talking about Plague Marine buffs. It’s not like the increased toughness is negated by Lt rerolls on small arms.
The bigger issue is that 50% of the time, when a D6 weapon lands an unsaved wound on a daemon engine that daemon engine is worse off than before. For new melta, it’s immediately, always worse in melta range. Was there a major, competitive list that didn’t feature 500+ points of daemon engines?
And Morty is at 490 points still, giving a slight indication that there will be no points drops. I can’t imagine Blighthaulers not going up significantly with Nu-Melta, an extra wound, and a 3+ to hit.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also having a hard time imagining that Contagion is straight buffs each turn given the course of this week.
Uh, Plague Marines are most certainly more resilient than regular loyalist marines.
Have we all collectively forgotten that they are T5?
People sure think that Duty Eternal is strong, so what if we gave it to everying in DG with 2 wounds or more?
For Death Guard infantry, this is a buff (except vs mortal wounds) when taking into account that CSM of all stripes are getting an extra wound.
The only real question now is what are they going to do about Poxwalkers? Will the Plague Surgeon now give a 6+++ aura like the Apothecary?
Melta is stronger than before against new DR, but I think that's an issue with Melta currently being undercosted compared to how much they buffed it in 9th.
I did a quick calculation of Plague Marines against Intercessors.
They now do exactly same damage to each other if they have equal models..
Overall its a nerf have -1 D over having 5+++ across the army
Against 1D weapons - Worse
Against 2D - 3D weapons - Better
Against 4D or more weapons - Worse (Old DR saved 1.333 wounds, New DR saves 1 wound But it is more consistent)
Against Mortal wounds Worse as it does nothing.
That is quite a small window when it's an improvement
2 years of constant complaining to GW that they made high damage weapons suck compared to mid damage high RoF weapons, and then when they finally start going in the other direction, you have all these complaints...
D2 is the most common damage profile on a weapon right now, next to Dd3. This is an incredibly huge buff, with the single caveat that it creates a MW sized vulnerable point.
And Morty is at 490 points still, giving a slight indication that there will be no points drops. I can’t imagine Blighthaulers not going up significantly with Nu-Melta, an extra wound, and a 3+ to hit.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also having a hard time imagining that Contagion is straight buffs each turn given the course of this week.
Gw buffed tons of weapons across imperium with zero effect on points.
Doohicky wrote: I did a quick calculation of Plague Marines against Intercessors.
They now do exactly same damage to each other if they have equal models..
Overall its a nerf have -1 D over having 5+++ across the army
Against 1D weapons - Worse
Against 2D - 3D weapons - Better
Against 4D or more weapons - Worse (Old DR saved 1.333 wounds, New DR saves 1 wound But it is more consistent)
Against Mortal wounds Worse as it does nothing.
That is quite a small window when it's an improvement
It's a small window in terms of numbers but D2 and D3 weapons are like almost half of all the weapons in the game at this point (1D3 counts here too) so it actually effects a very wide swath of things.
Spoletta wrote: 2 years of constant complaining to GW that they made high damage weapons suck compared to mid damage high RoF weapons, and then when they finally start going in the other direction, you have all these complaints...
D2 is the most common damage profile on a weapon right now, next to Dd3. This is an incredibly huge buff, with the single caveat that it creates a MW sized vulnerable point.
Thats more a problem with Mortal Wounds being a mechanic to begin with, especially with the fact EVERY Psyker power does it in some variation (which is terribly boring, as most are just a worse Smite).
Also this is a pretty consistent buff against Custodes melee, as 2/3 of the time they will fail to roll a successful D3 to kill a Plague Marine in melee, and slaying a Terminator in one go is outright impossible. Point costs will determine everything, but it's a refreshing change compared to randumb rolling.
PoorGravitasHandling wrote: I appreciate that we’re all stuck talking about Plague Marine buffs. It’s not like the increased toughness is negated by Lt rerolls on small arms.
The bigger issue is that 50% of the time, when a D6 weapon lands an unsaved wound on a daemon engine that daemon engine is worse off than before. For new melta, it’s immediately, always worse in melta range. Was there a major, competitive list that didn’t feature 500+ points of daemon engines?
And Morty is at 490 points still, giving a slight indication that there will be no points drops. I can’t imagine Blighthaulers not going up significantly with Nu-Melta, an extra wound, and a 3+ to hit.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also having a hard time imagining that Contagion is straight buffs each turn given the course of this week.
I think the best performing list was 3 plagueburst crawlers and then a snot ton of Nurglings and some infantry. I dunno how much PBC's cost. They are worse against melta now.
Doohicky wrote: I did a quick calculation of Plague Marines against Intercessors.
They now do exactly same damage to each other if they have equal models..
Overall its a nerf have -1 D over having 5+++ across the army
Against 1D weapons - Worse
Against 2D - 3D weapons - Better
Against 4D or more weapons - Worse (Old DR saved 1.333 wounds, New DR saves 1 wound But it is more consistent)
Against Mortal wounds Worse as it does nothing.
That is quite a small window when it's an improvement
vs. Mortals - Intercessor resilience improved 0%, Plague Marine improved by 33%
vs. Damage 1 - Intercessor resilience improved 0%, Plague Marine improved by 33%
vs. Damage 2 - Intercessor resilience improved by 0%, Plague Marine improved by 66%
vs. Damage 3 - Intercessor resilience improved by 0%, Plague Marine decreased by about 4.5%
vs. Damage 4 - Intercessor resilience improved by 0%, Plague Marine decreased by less than 1%
Lets see.... -1 damage to all of those 2D weapons that people are fielding due to, you know, marines, does nothing to 2W T5 Plague Marines. But people are crying nerf!!!
bullyboy wrote: Lets see.... -1 damage to all of those 2D weapons that people are fielding due to, you know, marines, does nothing to 2W T5 Plague Marines. But people are crying nerf!!!
Y'all crazy.
The entire army used to take 1/3 of unsaved wounds from small arms and throw them in the trash. I'd like a trip on whatever you're smoking.
bullyboy wrote: Lets see.... -1 damage to all of those 2D weapons that people are fielding due to, you know, marines, does nothing to 2W T5 Plague Marines. But people are crying nerf!!!
Y'all crazy.
The entire army used to take 1/3 of unsaved wounds from small arms and throw them in the trash. I'd like a trip on whatever you're smoking.
Yes. And if it was an infantry list, it would now take the equivalent of 1/2 of unsaved wounds from small arms and throw it into the trash. Hence it's 33% more resilient.
Doohicky wrote: I did a quick calculation of Plague Marines against Intercessors.
They now do exactly same damage to each other if they have equal models..
Overall its a nerf have -1 D over having 5+++ across the army
Against 1D weapons - Worse
Against 2D - 3D weapons - Better
Against 4D or more weapons - Worse (Old DR saved 1.333 wounds, New DR saves 1 wound But it is more consistent)
Against Mortal wounds Worse as it does nothing.
That is quite a small window when it's an improvement
vs. Mortals - Intercessor resilience improved 0%, Plague Marine improved by 33%
vs. Damage 1 - Intercessor resilience improved 0%, Plague Marine improved by 33%
vs. Damage 2 - Intercessor resilience improved by 0%, Plague Marine improved by 66%
vs. Damage 3 - Intercessor resilience improved by 0%, Plague Marine decreased by about 4.5%
vs. Damage 4 - Intercessor resilience improved by 0%, Plague Marine decreased by less than 1%
Yes, if you compare 2W DG to a unit that came into existence with the 2W buff already in place, it sure looks like DG got everything and Intercessors got nothing.
Lovely use of misleading statistics.
Doohicky wrote: I did a quick calculation of Plague Marines against Intercessors.
They now do exactly same damage to each other if they have equal models..
Overall its a nerf have -1 D over having 5+++ across the army
Against 1D weapons - Worse
Against 2D - 3D weapons - Better
Against 4D or more weapons - Worse (Old DR saved 1.333 wounds, New DR saves 1 wound But it is more consistent)
Against Mortal wounds Worse as it does nothing.
That is quite a small window when it's an improvement
vs. Mortals - Intercessor resilience improved 0%, Plague Marine improved by 33%
vs. Damage 1 - Intercessor resilience improved 0%, Plague Marine improved by 33%
vs. Damage 2 - Intercessor resilience improved by 0%, Plague Marine improved by 66%
vs. Damage 3 - Intercessor resilience improved by 0%, Plague Marine decreased by about 4.5%
vs. Damage 4 - Intercessor resilience improved by 0%, Plague Marine decreased by less than 1%
And what has that got to do with the price of a loaf?
We are discussing the change to DR, not the extra wound. To do that you have to compare what a two wound plague marine with 5++ is like compared to a plague marine with -1 damage.
.
My point about being equal to intercessors in a shoot out is that on that basis a plaguemarine should theoretically not cost any more than 20 points now. But we will see when codex is released. I am still expecting 23+ points
2 wounds is standard for all marines now. It's a constant that can be taken out of calculations
bullyboy wrote: Lets see.... -1 damage to all of those 2D weapons that people are fielding due to, you know, marines, does nothing to 2W T5 Plague Marines. But people are crying nerf!!!
Y'all crazy.
The entire army used to take 1/3 of unsaved wounds from small arms and throw them in the trash. I'd like a trip on whatever you're smoking.
Yes. And if it was an infantry list, it would now take the equivalent of 1/2 of unsaved wounds from small arms and throw it into the trash. Hence it's 33% more resilient.
As would a list of 2W vanilla Marines. Where is the fabled (even in the current article) extra resilience of Death Guard?
Edit: look I get that the new rule is very good against a lot of widespread D2 weapons, but it just feels extremely wrong against enemy chaff.
We are discussing the change to DR, not the extra wound. To do that you have to compare what a two wound plague marine with 5++ is like compared to a plague marine with -1 damage.
What Codex / Edition had a 2-wound 5+++ Plague Marine?
Why not compare it to a 20 wound, 2+++ Plague Marine, if you wanna compare it to stuff that never even existed and has no data / benchmark for how it ever preformed in the game?
Doohicky wrote: I did a quick calculation of Plague Marines against Intercessors.
They now do exactly same damage to each other if they have equal models..
Overall its a nerf have -1 D over having 5+++ across the army
Against 1D weapons - Worse
Against 2D - 3D weapons - Better
Against 4D or more weapons - Worse (Old DR saved 1.333 wounds, New DR saves 1 wound But it is more consistent)
Against Mortal wounds Worse as it does nothing.
That is quite a small window when it's an improvement
This is pretty much it. New DR is better against 2 damage, same against 3 damage and worse against everything else.
With this in mind a plague marine better not cost a single point more than an intercessor.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Brutus_Apex wrote: I wonder if this stacks on dreadnoughts? Looks like I might have to get a leviathan
You better don't. It's likely that the next Codex: CSM will exclude DG from taking them, and the rules aren't clear-cut right now either.
Doohicky wrote: I did a quick calculation of Plague Marines against Intercessors.
They now do exactly same damage to each other if they have equal models..
Overall its a nerf have -1 D over having 5+++ across the army
Against 1D weapons - Worse
Against 2D - 3D weapons - Better
Against 4D or more weapons - Worse (Old DR saved 1.333 wounds, New DR saves 1 wound But it is more consistent)
Against Mortal wounds Worse as it does nothing.
That is quite a small window when it's an improvement
This is pretty much it. New DR is better against 2 damage, same against 3 damage and worse against everything else.
With this in mind a plague marine better not cost a single point more than an intercessor.
that solely relies upon GW not overvaluing T5. Which we know they do massively..
So i'd say very likely that they get a larger pricetag
This is pretty much it. New DR is better against 2 damage, same against 3 damage and worse against everything else.
With this in mind a plague marine better not cost a single point more than an intercessor.
Wait, why do you think a 2W T5 3+ with -1 dmg profile would cost the same as a 2W T4 3+ profile? Is it just the bolt rifle?
Stick some special weapons on those Plague Marines and the ablative bolters just got even more valuable. It's a fever dream fantasy land where Plague Marines will be the same cost as Intercessors.
We are discussing the change to DR, not the extra wound. To do that you have to compare what a two wound plague marine with 5++ is like compared to a plague marine with -1 damage.
.
Uuh no. Plague marine has never had 5++. Nor w2 and 5+++. If you have played with w2 5+++ then you have been cheating. There never has been version like that. And shows why "testing" based on leaks without every rule is useless. Even if you knew datasheets and their rules and costs you couldnt try unless you play without any stratagem besides leaked ones. Can't even use old ones as no idea which stay. Necrons for example lost tons of stratagems
I wasn't aware that +6" range, shock assault and AP-1 was worth 0 points. I'll have one of those for every single death guard unit then.
Well, I assume they still have Hateful Assault. And Death Guard apparently get a Doctines-equivalent with their contagion rule seen on Mortarion's datasheet.
Heavy Intercessor is a lot more comparable, he's also T5, also M5 and 3 wounds, which is similar to 2 wounds and -1 damage. Better gun admittedly, but also 28 points.
So 28 points, perhaps minus 1 or 2 points for having a worse gun, would put the Plague Marine at 27 points "reasonable" and 26 points "on the cheap side" (if they lose access to special weapons in the squad).
I wasn't aware that +6" range, shock assault and AP-1 was worth 0 points. I'll have one of those for every single death guard unit then.
Well, I assume they still have Hateful Assault.
Heavy Intercessor is a lot more comparable, he's also T5, also M5 and 3 wounds, which is similar to 2 wounds and -1 damage. Better gun admittedly, but also 28 points.
So 28 points, perhaps minus 1 or 2 points for having a worse gun, would put the Plague Marine at 27 points "reasonable" and 26 points "on the cheap side" (if they lose access to special weapons in the squad).
W3 is better than W2 -1D though, against both D1 weapons & mortal wounds. Not to mention that there is no way the gun is worth only "1 or 2" points more than a regular bolter. 50% more range, +1S, better AP.
W3 is better than W2 -1D though, against both D1 weapons & mortal wounds.
Yes, but T5, W2 -1 damage is better than T4, W2, nothing/nada ... which Jidmah said should be priced the same.
I said Heavy Intercessor is a better comparison because more stats are the same, not that they are exactly the same in every stat.
Sure the Plague Marine should be cheaper than a Heavy Intercessor, but certainly more expensive than a regular Intercessor and, by and large, closer to the former than the latter.
W3 is better than W2 -1D though, against both D1 weapons & mortal wounds.
Yes, but T5, W2 -1 damage is better than T4, W2, nothing/nada ... which Jidmah said should be priced the same.
I said Heavy Intercessor is a better comparison because more stats are the same, not that they are exactly the same in every stat.
Sure the Plague Marine should be cheaper than a Heavy Intercessor, but certainly more expensive than a regular Intercessor and, by and large, closer to the former than the latter.
Which would be fine if you didn't only just take the gun into account and say then that they'd be 26 points "on the cheap side".
There is no evidence of that, and quite some evidence of the contrary.
And Death Guard apparently get a Doctines-equivalent with their contagion rule seen on Mortarion's datasheet.
Intercessors already have AP-1 without doctrines.
Heavy Intercessor is a lot more comparable, he's also T5, also M5 and 3 wounds, which is similar to 2 wounds and -1 damage. Better gun admittedly, but also 28 points.
No, it's not. The math is in the post above, it's only does anything for plague marines when shot or hit by weapons with exactly Damage 2 and worthless against every other number of damage.
So 28 points, perhaps minus 1 or 2 points for having a worse gun, would put the Plague Marine at 27 points "reasonable" and 26 points "on the cheap side" (if they lose access to special weapons in the squad).
You're a troll. 1-2 points for +1 wound, +1S, +12" range, -1AP? I hope you have no issues allowing your opponent to take shoota boyz with 2 wounds S5 AP-1 30" weapons for 10 points
With this in mind a plague marine better not cost a single point more than an intercessor.
That doesn't make sense.
If the Plague Marines costs the same as the Intercessor, he should also be T4 and have no DR resilient at all, neither the old, nor the new version.
Both T5 and DR are upgrades over the Intercessor that need significant costs (probably around 2-3 points for each of these buffs)
I wasn't aware that +6" range, +1" movement, shock assault and AP-1 was worth 0 points. I'll have one of those for every single death guard unit then.
Differences for a plague marine compared to intercessor:
+1T
-1 damage
-1 movement
1 less ap at range
1 more ap in melee
Native reroll wounds of 1 in melee
6" shorter range on standard gun
Reroll wounds of 1 on grenades
Always count as stationary for rapid fire etc.
On that list I can see plague marines being a round 20, maybe 22 at the most. Depends what the last special rule is really.
I wound add the -1 damage is a massive deal for a 2 wound marine and probably worth far more than either 1ap or 1" movement.
Doohicky wrote: Is Sunny Side up just a troll? Serious question
Probably? 26 points "on the cheap side" is too expensive, for sure. I was thinking something like 23-24?
PMs are 18ppm now. And even like that they are universally accepted to be over costed.
Do you think +1 wound is worth 5-6 points? Considering the changes to DR makes them worse in most circumstances and other units gaining a wound went up by 3
Spoletta wrote: 2W T5 3+ -1Damage on an obsec platform (durability matters more than firepower) can't be cheap, that's for sure.
I expect at least 24 points.
I expect about the same as an Intercessor as Death Guard are still fielding an older bolter with 24" range and no AP. Not to mention less movement than an Intercessor.
So 28 points, perhaps minus 1 or 2 points for having a worse gun, would put the Plague Marine at 27 points "reasonable" and 26 points "on the cheap side" (if they lose access to special weapons in the squad).
Which would be fine if you didn't only just take the gun into account and say then that they'd be 26 points "on the cheap side".
Well, Special Weapons access costs more (hence why Vanguard Vets, Celestians, etc.. are more expensive base), doubly so when paired with ObSec (unless Plague Marines are moved to Elite for some reason, which I doubt).
Also a worse basic gun should deduct a point or so, but not so many that people just spam a model with this kind of resilience for the wounds/board-presence alone and simply do the damage elsewhere.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Yes, but T5, W2 -1 damage is better than T4, W2, nothing/nada ... which Jidmah said should be priced the same.
Only if you willfully ignore the weapons and movement speed of intercessors.
Sure the Plague Marine should be cheaper than a Heavy Intercessor, but certainly more expensive than a regular Intercessor and, by and large, closer to the former than the latter.
In that case, Intercessors should lose 1 movement speed, only have access to stock bolters and lose shock assault.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Also a worse basic gun should deduct a point or so, but not so many that people just spam a model with this kind of resilience for the wounds/board-presence alone and simply do the damage elsewhere.
So it's only ok if loyalists can do that?
Do you not understand how -1 to damage works on 2W models?
Sunny Side Up wrote: Also a worse basic gun should deduct a point or so, but not so many that people just spam a model with this kind of resilience for the wounds/board-presence alone and simply do the damage elsewhere.
So it's only ok if loyalists can do that?
Do you not understand how -1 to damage works on 2W models?
let it rest, it's sunny, there's no point in discussion with him
With this in mind a plague marine better not cost a single point more than an intercessor.
That doesn't make sense.
If the Plague Marines costs the same as the Intercessor, he should also be T4 and have no DR resilient at all, neither the old, nor the new version.
Both T5 and DR are upgrades over the Intercessor that need significant costs (probably around 2-3 points for each of these buffs)
I wasn't aware that +6" range, +1" movement, shock assault and AP-1 was worth 0 points. I'll have one of those for every single death guard unit then.
Differences for a plague marine compared to intercessor:
+1T
-1 damage
-1 movement
1 less ap at range
1 more ap in melee
Native reroll wounds of 1 in melee
6" shorter range on standard gun
Reroll wounds of 1 on grenades
Always count as stationary for rapid fire etc.
On that list I can see plague marines being a round 20, maybe 22 at the most. Depends what the last special rule is really.
I wound add the -1 damage is a massive deal for a 2 wound marine and probably worth far more than either 1ap or 1" movement.
I'd sure hope you're right, but I just don't think GW would put them that low. I think 22 is the lowest we could possibly hope.
Remember--this is all in a vacuum without knowing anything about how they can be buffed in the new codex with stratagems, relics, warlord traits, other character auras, etc etc. Defensive buffs have a way of stacking that can get pretty crazy depending on what they are (remember IH Levi pre-nerf?).
Sunny Side Up wrote: Again, Shock Assault and Hateful Assault are literally the same rule. Both have it.
Please provide any evidence that Hateful Assault is a thing for any DG unit. Mortarion clearly doesn't have it, and the +1 attack across the board is a clear indicator that it has gone away.
Which means Intercessors have +1 attack in most fights over plague marines.
Doohicky wrote: I did a quick calculation of Plague Marines against Intercessors.
They now do exactly same damage to each other if they have equal models..
Overall its a nerf have -1 D over having 5+++ across the army
Against 1D weapons - Worse
Against 2D - 3D weapons - Better
Against 4D or more weapons - Worse (Old DR saved 1.333 wounds, New DR saves 1 wound But it is more consistent)
Against Mortal wounds Worse as it does nothing.
That is quite a small window when it's an improvement
This is pretty much it. New DR is better against 2 damage, same against 3 damage and worse against everything else.
With this in mind a plague marine better not cost a single point more than an intercessor.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Brutus_Apex wrote: I wonder if this stacks on dreadnoughts? Looks like I might have to get a leviathan
You better don't. It's likely that the next Codex: CSM will exclude DG from taking them, and the rules aren't clear-cut right now either.
I think the best case is 23 points, worst case is 26. Because GW won't see better guns on Inties or better global weapon buffs, just T5. Which contrasts so well with 28point heavy intercessors at T5, 3W, and waaaaaay better shooting.
Great a nerf to our durability, the only area in which I wanted absolutely no nerfs. If I wanted to play killy dudes in power armor there were already 12 other factions to choose from. Obviously we haven´t seen the rest of the codex, maybe it isn't all bad, but my positivity just plummeted and I'm back to being suspicious of what they are going to do to us.
Please stop comparing to intercessors as well, a tac marine is the better comparison. It's got the same base gun, 1 less attack, no -1 damage, no ap in melee or reroll wounds of 1 in melee baked in nor t5. The only advantage they have is +1" movement at 18 points, when you look at those, it's hard to say 20 points is enough.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Again, Shock Assault and Hateful Assault are literally the same rule. Both have it.
Please provide any evidence that Hateful Assault is a thing for any DG unit. Mortarion clearly doesn't have it, and the +1 attack across the board is a clear indicator that it has gone away.
Which means Intercessors have +1 attack in most fights over plague marines.
I am 100% positive that "Contagions of Nurgle" is the DG version of angels of death. Your version of shock assault, doctrines, ATSKNF, and bolter drill will all be lumped together under that rule. That is how loyalist marines work.
Castozor wrote: Great a nerf to our durability, the only area in which I wanted absolutely no nerfs. If I wanted to play killy dudes in power armor there were already 12 other factions to choose from. Obviously we haven´t seen the rest of the codex, maybe it isn't all bad, but my positivity just plummeted and I'm back to being suspicious of what they are going to do to us.
You are 33% more durable than before vs dam1. More durable than before vs dam2. Only lose vs mw and dam3+ guns.
Castozor wrote: Great a nerf to our durability, the only area in which I wanted absolutely no nerfs. If I wanted to play killy dudes in power armor there were already 12 other factions to choose from. Obviously we haven´t seen the rest of the codex, maybe it isn't all bad, but my positivity just plummeted and I'm back to being suspicious of what they are going to do to us.
You are 33% more durable than before vs dam1. More durable than before vs dam2. Only lose vs mw and dam3+ guns.
Wait, how are they more durable against D1? And they're tied against D3 so only weaker to D4+.
Dudeface wrote: Please stop comparing to intercessors as well, a tac marine is the better comparison. It's got the same base gun, 1 less attack, no -1 damage, no ap in melee or reroll wounds of 1 in melee baked in nor t5. The only advantage they have is +1" movement at 18 points, when you look at those, it's hard to say 20 points is enough.
No one's going to compare to Tac marines because Tac marines don't compare well inside their own goddamn codex. For two points more you get way better guns, an extra attack, and better stratagem access. Tacs are on their way to the dustbin, presumably.
Blood Hawk wrote: I am 100% positive that "Contagions of Nurgle" is the DG version of angels of death. Your version of shock assault, doctrines, ATSKNF, and bolter drill will all be lumped together under that rule. That is how loyalist marines work.
From Mortarion's datasheet we know that Contagions of Nurgle is a turn-based effect for DG models.
Castozor wrote: Great a nerf to our durability, the only area in which I wanted absolutely no nerfs. If I wanted to play killy dudes in power armor there were already 12 other factions to choose from. Obviously we haven´t seen the rest of the codex, maybe it isn't all bad, but my positivity just plummeted and I'm back to being suspicious of what they are going to do to us.
You are 33% more durable than before vs dam1. More durable than before vs dam2. Only lose vs mw and dam3+ guns.
Wait, how are they more durable against D1? And they're tied against D3 so only weaker to D4+.
Did you forget pm are to be gaining extra wound? You don't compare one change only and forget rest.you compare old version(t5, w1, 3+/5+++) vs new one(t5, w2, 3+/-1damage).
You can't compare old dr with 2 wounds and claim it's nerf as
Only way to play w2 5+++ was cheating.
It's like saying "we lost-1T, we got nerfed"and forget point cosd dropped to 1/10...
You compare new to old, not new to imaginary version.
Of course until we know point costs as bare minimum,stratagems and other buffs preferably hard to say is it buff or nerf. But for now premature to say it's nerf when new pm is tougher than old vs dam1 and dam2 hurting vs d3(no i's" not equal. Dam3 kills new flat out. It did not kill old one 100% times). So the more dam3+ you face the worse of you are but at least for now dam1-2 is majority)
Castozor wrote: Great a nerf to our durability, the only area in which I wanted absolutely no nerfs. If I wanted to play killy dudes in power armor there were already 12 other factions to choose from. Obviously we haven´t seen the rest of the codex, maybe it isn't all bad, but my positivity just plummeted and I'm back to being suspicious of what they are going to do to us.
You are 33% more durable than before vs dam1. More durable than before vs dam2. Only lose vs mw and dam3+ guns.
But it does nothing vs D1? So we only gain vs D2, which is common but this still is a nerf overall. Especially for our vehicles. Edit: ah I see you think the extra wound we gained also counts, lol. DR itself is strictly worse no matter how you try to spin it.
Blood Hawk wrote: I am 100% positive that "Contagions of Nurgle" is the DG version of angels of death. Your version of shock assault, doctrines, ATSKNF, and bolter drill will all be lumped together under that rule. That is how loyalist marines work.
From Mortarion's datasheet we know that Contagions of Nurgle is a turn-based effect for DG models.
AKA doctrines. It could do more than that you know.
Dudeface wrote: Please stop comparing to intercessors as well, a tac marine is the better comparison. It's got the same base gun, 1 less attack, no -1 damage, no ap in melee or reroll wounds of 1 in melee baked in nor t5. The only advantage they have is +1" movement at 18 points, when you look at those, it's hard to say 20 points is enough.
No one's going to compare to Tac marines because Tac marines don't compare well inside their own goddamn codex. For two points more you get way better guns, an extra attack, and better stratagem access. Tacs are on their way to the dustbin, presumably.
Frankly I don't care, they're the comparable basis, you can compare them to a 14 point chaos marine if you like, the point is they're obviously not plague intercessors.
Dudeface wrote: Please stop comparing to intercessors as well, a tac marine is the better comparison. It's got the same base gun, 1 less attack, no -1 damage, no ap in melee or reroll wounds of 1 in melee baked in nor t5. The only advantage they have is +1" movement at 18 points, when you look at those, it's hard to say 20 points is enough.
No one's going to compare to Tac marines because Tac marines don't compare well inside their own goddamn codex. For two points more you get way better guns, an extra attack, and better stratagem access. Tacs are on their way to the dustbin, presumably.
Castozor wrote: Great a nerf to our durability, the only area in which I wanted absolutely no nerfs. If I wanted to play killy dudes in power armor there were already 12 other factions to choose from. Obviously we haven´t seen the rest of the codex, maybe it isn't all bad, but my positivity just plummeted and I'm back to being suspicious of what they are going to do to us.
You are 33% more durable than before vs dam1. More durable than before vs dam2. Only lose vs mw and dam3+ guns.
Wait, how are they more durable against D1? And they're tied against D3 so only weaker to D4+.
Did you forget pm are to be gaining extra wound? You don't compare one change only and forget rest.you compare old version(t5, w1, 3+/5+++) vs new one(t5, w2, 3+/-1damage).
You can't compare old dr with 2 wounds and claim it's nerf as
Only way to play w2 5+++ was cheating.
It's like saying "we lost-1T, we got nerfed"and forget point cosd dropped to 1/10...
You compare new to old, not new to imaginary version.
Of course until we know point costs as bare minimum,stratagems and other buffs preferably hard to say is it buff or nerf. But for now premature to say it's nerf when new pm is tougher than old vs dam1 and dam2 hurting vs d3(no i's" not equal. Dam3 kills new flat out. It did not kill old one 100% times). So the more dam3+ you face the worse of you are but at least for now dam1-2 is majority)
Real ? Is point cost
Oh the extra wound. I was just doing a straight '-1 damage' vs. '5+++'.
Also, I didn't say they were nerfed. Go back like just 2 pages. You just confused me for a second here.
Dudeface wrote: Please stop comparing to intercessors as well, a tac marine is the better comparison. It's got the same base gun, 1 less attack, no -1 damage, no ap in melee or reroll wounds of 1 in melee baked in nor t5. The only advantage they have is +1" movement at 18 points, when you look at those, it's hard to say 20 points is enough.
No one's going to compare to Tac marines because Tac marines don't compare well inside their own goddamn codex. For two points more you get way better guns, an extra attack, and better stratagem access. Tacs are on their way to the dustbin, presumably.
Frankly I don't care
And yet, you post
I care about the topic, I don't care for the comparison to an intercessor.
If you want some fun let's compare them point for point against some firewarriors or other pointless things.
2 wound 5++ never existed, they are flat better than they were and no they're not intercessors.
Dudeface wrote: Please stop comparing to intercessors as well, a tac marine is the better comparison. It's got the same base gun, 1 less attack, no -1 damage, no ap in melee or reroll wounds of 1 in melee baked in nor t5. The only advantage they have is +1" movement at 18 points, when you look at those, it's hard to say 20 points is enough.
No one's going to compare to Tac marines because Tac marines don't compare well inside their own goddamn codex. For two points more you get way better guns, an extra attack, and better stratagem access. Tacs are on their way to the dustbin, presumably.
Frankly I don't care, they're the comparable basis, you can compare them to a 14 point chaos marine if you like, the point is they're obviously not plague intercessors.
Even assuming that marines are overcosted by 1 point, that comparison still brings us to a cost of 23 points.
+1 T is at the very least a 3 point stat, going from T4 to T5 is a huge step.
-1 damage applies in this case only to D2 weapons, so it is worth only a couple of points.
-1Ap and rr1 to wound in melee is easily another point if not 2.
Better weapon selection is kind of a wash with -1 move.
Better grandes counts for nothing.
This is assuming that hateful assault is not a thing, in which case they also have 1 more attack for 2 points more.
Dudeface wrote: I care about the topic, I don't care for the comparison to an intercessor.
If you want some fun let's compare them point for point against some firewarriors or other pointless things.
2 wound 5++ never existed, they are flat better than they were and no they're not intercessors.
They are flat worse than what they were if GW puts a 24-25 point pricetag on them. Which is what people are discussing.
Oh, and they aren't tactical marines either.
Flat out worse is difficult to say, they die to 3 damage attacks now, they have a not insignificant chance to die to 2 damage attacks now, which is a literal impossibility in a month. 50% hike is too much likely though I agree, 22 seems a more likely figure.
Spoletta wrote: +1 T is at the very least a 3 point stat, going from T4 to T5 is a huge step.
Hilarious. Got anything to back that up?
-1 damage applies in this case only to D2 weapons, so it is worth only a couple of points.
Codex: Space Marines says it is worth 0 points, according to all dread datasheets.
-1Ap and rr1 to wound in melee is easily another point if not 2.
Right, exactly like the extra points assault intercessors are paying, right?
Better weapon selection is kind of a wash with -1 move.
Tacticals both have larger and better weapon choices AND more movement.
This is assuming that hateful assault is not a thing, in which case they also have 1 more attack for 2 points more.
And ten thousand points for griffindor.
Your math doesn't even add up for Space Marine units, so how about you stop posting this gak?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote: Flat out worse is difficult to say, they die to 3 damage attacks now, they have a not insignificant chance to die to 2 damage attacks now, which is a literal impossibility in a month. 50% hike is too much likely though I agree, 22 seems a more likely figure.
An extra wound is worth no more than 3 points if there is no 5++ behind it.
Talking half damage from shots that do exactly 2 damage is not worth a single point. If it were an optional upgrade for 1 point it would not be taken even once.
Yes it would, especially when D2 is one of the most prolific damage profiles LOL. Stop acting butthurt when the 5+++ wasn't even that good vs D3+ weapons for the Marines. Oh yeah, and your vehicles were already fine vs Melta because of the 5++ they already, which denies one of the main selling points of the Melta to begin with.
Spoletta wrote: +1 T is at the very least a 3 point stat, going from T4 to T5 is a huge step.
Hilarious. Got anything to back that up?
-1 damage applies in this case only to D2 weapons, so it is worth only a couple of points.
Codex: Space Marines says it is worth 0 points, according to all dread datasheets.
-1Ap and rr1 to wound in melee is easily another point if not 2.
Right, exactly like the extra points assault intercessors are paying, right?
Better weapon selection is kind of a wash with -1 move.
Tacticals both have larger and better weapon choices AND more movement.
This is assuming that hateful assault is not a thing, in which case they also have 1 more attack for 2 points more.
And ten thousand points for griffindor.
Your math doesn't even add up for Space Marine units, so how about you stop posting this gak?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote: Flat out worse is difficult to say, they die to 3 damage attacks now, they have a not insignificant chance to die to 2 damage attacks now, which is a literal impossibility in a month. 50% hike is too much likely though I agree, 22 seems a more likely figure.
An extra wound is worth no more than 3 points if there is no 5++ behind it.
Talking half damage from shots that do exactly 2 damage is not worth a single point. If it were an optional upgrade for 1 point it would not be taken even once.
Soo surviving overcharged plasma shots is worthless? And a t4 wound is 3 points but a t5 should be the same?
Your wild arguments are pulling facets of 3-4 different units and applying them to something abstractly. Find a comparable stat line or profile for 1 unit you want to compare against and stick with that. Intercessors as not aren't the most direct comparison but its better than pretending they should have assault intercessors melee with dreadnought damage rules and tacticals upgrades all at once.
Correct, because the opponent can just not overcharge and kill you at zero risk anyways. And then there is the issue of many armies, including marines, simply not bringing any plasma to the table.
I did the comparison to both intercessors and tactical marines earlier in this thread. Both put plague marines at 23-24 points, under the assumption of a 50% increased durability against all weapons and mortal wounds.
Instead they now have a rule that does nothing against the vast majority of attacks they will ever suffer.
Soo surviving overcharged plasma shots is worthless?
It isn't worthless, its circumstantial.
Its not unlike having Preferred Enemy: Plasmaguns.
Getting the months old wound buff that's universal to all marines (eventually) is just catching up to the standard. Losing 5+++ is bad. It doesn't matter that they're happening at the same time.
Jidmah wrote: Correct, because the opponent can just not overcharge and kill you at zero risk anyways.
Before:
-Not overcharged- average of 1.5 wounds to kill
-Overcharged- average of 1.15 wounds to kill
Now:
-Not overcharged- 2 wounds to kill
-Overcharged- no point
Realistically DG have become nearly twice as hard to kill with plasma, at the cost of not provoking overcharge, which never really mattered because anyone using plasma has a source of re-roll 1s.
Jidmah wrote: Instead they now have a rule that does nothing against the vast majority of attacks they will ever suffer.
Bolters, heavy bolters, and their equivalents have to get through 2 wounds instead of the effective 1.5 they had before. 33% buff.
I don't know why people are comparing to an assumed statline that never existed rather than the actual stats DG currently have. W2 with Duty Eternal is straight up better than W1/5+++ against everything short of D3+ weapons. If the points don't change- and based on the SM and Necron codices, they probably won't- they'll be in a much better spot than current.
Jidmah wrote: Correct, because the opponent can just not overcharge and kill you at zero risk anyways.
Before:
-Not overcharged- average of 1.5 wounds to kill
-Overcharged- average of 1.15 wounds to kill
Now:
-Not overcharged- 2 wounds to kill
-Overcharged- no point
Realistically DG have become nearly twice as hard to kill with plasma, at the cost of not provoking overcharge, which never really mattered because anyone using plasma has a source of re-roll 1s.
Jidmah wrote: Instead they now have a rule that does nothing against the vast majority of attacks they will ever suffer.
Bolters, heavy bolters, and their equivalents have to get through 2 wounds instead of the effective 1.5 they had before. 33% buff.
I don't know why people are comparing to an assumed statline that never existed rather than the actual stats DG currently have. W2 with Duty Eternal is straight up better than W1/5+++ against everything short of D3+ weapons. If the points don't change- and based on the SM and Necron codices, they probably won't- they'll be in a much better spot than current.
DR was nerfed.
Points depending, the W2 change might be a net buff, but that specific rule was nerfed.
I don't know why people are comparing to an assumed statline that never existed rather than the actual stats DG currently have. They're getting tougher. If the points don't change- and based on the SM and Necron codices, they probably won't- they'll be in a much better spot than current.
Because that's the statline for marines now. It does NOT matter that it never existed 'before,' its the norm for the edition in which this codex is happening. The new normal is two wound marines, coupling that with taking 5+++ away is a nerf.
And marine points did change. Tacticals went from 15 in the munitorium book to 18 with 2W in the codex. Slapping a similar increase on DG when they're losing their signature ability would be real bad.
I don't know why people are comparing to an assumed statline that never existed rather than the actual stats DG currently have. They're getting tougher. If the points don't change- and based on the SM and Necron codices, they probably won't- they'll be in a much better spot than current.
Because that's the statline for marines now. It does NOT matter that it never existed 'before.' The new normal is two wound marines, coupling that with taking 5+++ away is a nerf.
And marine points did change. Tacticals went from 15 in the munitorium book to 18 with 2W in the codex. Slapping a similar increase on DG when they're losing their signature ability would be real bad.
You mean they changed their signature ability, gave them better melee and can now rapidfire bolters at max range if they move, the extra wound and 1 special rule yet to be seen. How is that not worth 3 points?
Doohicky wrote: I did a quick calculation of Plague Marines against Intercessors.
They now do exactly same damage to each other if they have equal models..
Overall its a nerf have -1 D over having 5+++ across the army
Against 1D weapons - Worse
Against 2D - 3D weapons - Better
Against 4D or more weapons - Worse (Old DR saved 1.333 wounds, New DR saves 1 wound But it is more consistent)
Against Mortal wounds Worse as it does nothing.
That is quite a small window when it's an improvement
This is pretty much it. New DR is better against 2 damage, same against 3 damage and worse against everything else.
With this in mind a plague marine better not cost a single point more than an intercessor.
puma713 wrote: So, mathematically, it's now easier for melta Eradiactors to kill my vehicles.
Let's be honest they needed that buff, can't have our army actually be durable like they are supposed to be. Better they are the same flavorless killy power armor dudes as everyone else.
And for the folks who think we're salty now, just wait until the points values for Poxwalkers land after we find out that Contagions/etc requires a mono list.
I keep seeing this line of thinking here and in other corners of the internet: 2W 5+++ PMs never existed, so why is there any saltiness about them not existing now?
You can compare stats that you expected to have with stats that you actually received. We expected 5+++ or comparable and received -1 damage. In those regards, Disgustingly Resilient was nerfed. I see a lot of people conflating a wound increase with a change to DR. The wound increase would've happened anyway, no matter how DR changed. Therefore, in that vaccuum, DR was nerfed. Of course, we haven't seen the whole codex, so for all we know, Plague Surgeons or T3 in Contagions gives 5+++.
The biggest nerf I see for DR is not for plague marines or plague terminators (both of those will be good agaisnt the kind of weapons that are used to kill them) but for the bigger stuff where 5++ was basically +33% wounds.
For everyone finding it so hard to understand why we are comparing using 2 wounds for both old and new DR I'll try to explain.
The entire argument is around is NEW DR better or worse than OLD DR.
The only way to do a fair comparison on ANYTHING is to make everything else constant.
That's why we have to use the same statline.
Anyone who has done any sort of scientific comparisons knows this.
You can use 1 wound PMs or 2 wound PMs.
Or if you like you can use Morty.
You just have to make sure that everything except the thing you are evaluating stays constant.
After that feel free to compare the entire change of the model to say whether they have got better or worse, but that is much more difficult to do without a new points value
puma713 wrote: I keep seeing this line of thinking here and in other corners of the internet: 2W 5+++ PMs never existed, so why is there any saltiness about them not existing now?
You can compare stats that you expected to have with stats that you actually received. We expected 5+++ or comparable and received -1 damage. In those regards, Disgustingly Resilient was nerfed. I see a lot of people conflating a wound increase with a change to DR. The wound increase would've happened anyway, no matter how DR changed. Therefore, in that vaccuum, DR was nerfed. Of course, we haven't seen the whole codex, so for all we know, Plague Surgeons or T3 in Contagions gives 5++.
The issue is a large amount of these claims are also toy throwing "stupid gw I didn't get what I wanted they should all be free now because my plague marines only require 33% more bolter rounds to kill, render d2 almost pointless and d3+ didn't matter anyway".
If it was "oh it sucks my daemon engines might take a couple more wounds a turn" fair, but it's actually more a whinefest they're not point for point better than Intercessors, when we don't have a points value.
Spoletta wrote: 2W T5 3+ -1Damage on an obsec platform (durability matters more than firepower) can't be cheap, that's for sure.
I expect at least 24 points.
By what percentage of points did loyalist dreads increase when they got -1 to damage?
Yeah, thought so.
With this change, plague marines are 20 points at best.
I wouldnt put them at 20ppm... Their toughness is what you are paying for. Toughness 5 is far superior to toughness 4 as it effects Str 4, 5, 8 and 9. They now have the same amount of wounds as a Firstborn/Pimaris and the same amount of attacks if they still have Hateful Assault. From their previous iteration they are tougher vs damage 1 weapons from the extra wound they received. Vs damage 2 they are more durable than previously with the 5+++. Vs everything else they arent and thats fine. Rolling 6 5+++ on a 1 wound PM was stupid and a waste of time. It was a hail mary throw.
An extra AP on a Bolt Rifle is cool and dandy but it doesnt make them better than Plague Marines who ignore 16% more wound rolls from being 1 higher toughness than the weapon firing and the 30" is fine but a lot of the time the fighting is in the middle of the board either 24" or in combat. And arent most if not all loadouts for Plague Marines are combat based with flails and knives? Its rare that ive seen people tool them up with plasma or Blight Launchers when they have more punch in melee.
Id put PM at 24ppm. We dont know what else the codex will bring or change, but that is a fair price. Im not buying my Plague Marine for his Bolter. Im buying him for his durability and objective holding abilities. We could see a rise in D3 weapons to combat this like Heavy Plasma Incinerators on Hell Blasters but last I checked there werent that many D3 weapons out there (not damage d3 but flat 3).
Now DR is weaker on vehicles I believe. A PBC has what 12 wounds? So on average the old DR would provide him with 4-5 extra wounds yes? now not so much as its dependent on damage per attack. Damage 2 and 3 sure he is tougher, 4 and above he isnt and we are seeing more and more D3+D3 or 4 or 6.
Galas wrote: The biggest nerf I see for DR is not for plague marines or plague terminators (both of those will be good agaisnt the kind of weapons that are used to kill them) but for the bigger stuff where 5++ was basically +33% wounds.
More like 50% extra wounds actually, so this is a big nerf to them.
Voss wrote: Because that's the statline for marines now. It does NOT matter that it never existed 'before,' its the norm for the edition in which this codex is happening. The new normal is two wound marines, coupling that with taking 5+++ away is a nerf.
Calling an objective buff a nerf, just because you didn't get buffed as much on the whole as another army, seems really petty.
Plague Marines are now actually significantly harder to kill than Intercessors, rather than being roughly comparable. This is where they should have been all along. Take a step back, stop comparing to the W2/5+++ profile that never existed, stop trying to be envious of W1 Marines, and look at it objectively. You're now Marines that are T5 and reduce incoming damage by 1. That is not a bad place for Plague Marines to be, and it's significantly better than they were.
Against D1 or on models with many wounds, 5+ FNP is a 50% wound increase, effectively. (Assuming average rolls-of course you can roll hot or cold, sometimes.)
Voss wrote: Because that's the statline for marines now. It does NOT matter that it never existed 'before,' its the norm for the edition in which this codex is happening. The new normal is two wound marines, coupling that with taking 5+++ away is a nerf.
Calling an objective buff a nerf, just because you didn't get buffed as much on the whole as another army, seems really petty.
They still got more mileage out of 2 wounds than marines do, even with old dr they could die to d2 weapons. Again against d3+ the outcome is the same if it was -1 damage or DR the bulk of the time.
Voss wrote: Because that's the statline for marines now. It does NOT matter that it never existed 'before,' its the norm for the edition in which this codex is happening. The new normal is two wound marines, coupling that with taking 5+++ away is a nerf.
Calling an objective buff a nerf, just because you didn't get buffed as much on the whole as another army, seems really petty.
Yeah you have to remember this isn't a marine vs marine game, although it may seem that way at times. Sure, DG feel like they lost something when they come up against other marines, but they gained a wound against every other army that didn't. And armies tailored to deal D2 against marines will have increased difficulty against DG. It's a nice attempt at paper-rock-scissors, the problem is with tournaments when over half the people bring rock and paper runs out of time after turn 3.
JNAProductions wrote: Against D1 or on models with many wounds, 5+ FNP is a 50% wound increase, effectively. (Assuming average rolls-of course you can roll hot or cold, sometimes.)
Is it? How so? If you have 1 wound and you need to pass 1 5+++ to stay alive, you have a 33% of succeeding? So the 3rd Plague Marine in the squad would surive the 1 damage attack if 3 failed their armour saves. Now they dont have to bank on rolling a 5+++ to pass the 1 damage as the model instead has 2 wounds. Ive seen it way too much that 5+++ either roll hot or not, whole 10 man squads failing to make a single DR save. Ive also seen when they make pretty much all of them and both cases it wasnt fun for someone and just wasted time rolling.
2 wounds ignoring 1 damage has existed before with Aberrants and they werent blessed with a 3+ save or toughness 5. I think this version of DR is fine for the infantry (D3 and above should vapourise anything man sized with the exception of daemonically inbued Possessed and exceptionally durable Blightlords/Deathshroud. Where DR fails is on vehicles which it looks like everyone is agreeing with. Great vs those D2/3 shots coming in but not so much for those 4+ that come through. You could probably hope that a Mephytic Blight Hauler could survive 2 shots from a Mehnir, now it isnt even possible if they both go through the invun.
JNAProductions wrote: Against D1 or on models with many wounds, 5+ FNP is a 50% wound increase, effectively. (Assuming average rolls-of course you can roll hot or cold, sometimes.)
Is it? How so?
Let's say you have 12 wounds.
You take 12 damage. FNP 5+ saves 4 of those, leaving you with 4 wounds.
You take 4 more damage. FNP 5+ saves 4/3 of those, leaving you with 4/3 wounds.
You take 4/3 damage. FNP 5+ saves 4/9 of those.
Continue ad nauseum, and the limit approaches 18-for a 50% increase.
For quick calculation, take the reciprocal of the odds of FAILING a FNP roll. 2/3 is your odds of failure, so 3/2 is your effective wound multiplier.
Oaka wrote: Sure, DG feel like they lost something when they come up against other marines, but they gained a wound against every other army that didn't. And armies tailored to deal D2 against marines will have increased difficulty against DG.
I'll also come out with the wild and dangerous opinion that Firstborn Marines needed more of a durability buff more than Death Guard did. Plague Marines at 18pts were mediocre. Tacticals at 15pts were awful. I don't think Plague Marines need much of a points hike, but Tacticals are now a good buy at 18ppm and Plague Marines are pretty much the same but tougher. At 20pts they'd be slightly slower and less damaging than Intercessors but much harder to kill, which seems about right.
Also, with all Marines now at W2, D2 weapons are more valuable than ever... And oh look, more weapons are becoming D2, starting with Heavy Bolters. All us Guard players are loading up on Heavy Bolters now to kill Marines. Those Heavy Bolters are now just 38% as effective against the new Plague Marines as they are against Intercessors. That is to say, Plague Marines are now nearly three times harder to kill with the new premier Marine-killing gun. That's a big deal.
What remains to be seen is how prevalent D3 weapons become as W3 Gravis and Terminators start to become popular. If there's D3 all over the place then the new DR is significantly weaker. But good lord the knee-jerking in this thread is immense.
JNAProductions wrote: Against D1 or on models with many wounds, 5+ FNP is a 50% wound increase, effectively. (Assuming average rolls-of course you can roll hot or cold, sometimes.)
Is it? How so? If you have 1 wound and you need to pass 1 5+++ to stay alive, you have a 33% of succeeding?
Assess from the perspective of the attacker. For every three wounds, two will fail DR and one will succeed, so you need to inflict 50% more wounds than you would otherwise. 1 wound / 0.67 chance for that wound to kill = 1.5 wounds needed, on average, to kill, or a 50% increase over the baseline.
Doohicky wrote: I really don't get all these calls for such high points values.
That bit of extra toughness is great, but it's not as good as people seem to think.
Let's just look at PMs now. In my opinion they are already overcosted. They are rarely used in any sort of number for that reason.
Increasing points by so much has to also take into account that their firepower is being reduced per point by quite a lot.
At 24ppm they are being placed between an intercessor and heavy intercessor points wise and quite frankly they are no where near that level of good.
I think they are on par with Intercessors now but not Heavy Intercessors. Assuming they keep Hateful Assault, which I dont think theylll lose, they are better than Intercessors in melee combat which is where Plague Marines really shine, and their new Contagions probably buff this too. Most of your standard troops will be wounding PMs on 5s with Powerfists on 3s and only doing 1 damage a swing. White Scars will loose their extra 1 damage with your normal damage 1 weapons like Chainswords and Combat Knives.
Do Plague Marines ever do damage with Bolters? Pretty sure this is mirrored everywhere with CSM as well. They arent gonna win a fire fight with anyone, but they are gonna stick around longer when it matters. And thats what matters. You could have the worst gun either but if your still alive on a point, its yours. Stratagems and abilities is what will make or break them. This is just the tip of the iceberg, but it would be a safe bet to estimate that they are worth more than Intercessors.
Oaka wrote: Sure, DG feel like they lost something when they come up against other marines, but they gained a wound against every other army that didn't. And armies tailored to deal D2 against marines will have increased difficulty against DG.
I'll also come out with the wild and dangerous opinion that Firstborn Marines needed more of a durability buff more than Death Guard did. Plague Marines at 18pts were mediocre. Tacticals at 15pts were awful. I don't think Plague Marines need much of a points hike, but Tacticals are now a good buy at 18ppm and Plague Marines are pretty much the same but tougher. At 20pts they'd be slightly slower and less damaging than Intercessors but much harder to kill, which seems about right.
Also, with all Marines now at W2, D2 weapons are more valuable than ever... And oh look, more weapons are becoming D2, starting with Heavy Bolters. All us Guard players are loading up on Heavy Bolters now to kill Marines. Those Heavy Bolters are now just 38% as effective against the new Plague Marines as they are against Intercessors. That is to say, Plague Marines are now nearly three times harder to kill with the new premier Marine-killing gun. That's a big deal.
What remains to be seen is how prevalent D3 weapons become as W3 Gravis and Terminators start to become popular. If there's D3 all over the place then the new DR is significantly weaker. But good lord the knee-jerking in this thread is immense.
JNAProductions wrote: Against D1 or on models with many wounds, 5+ FNP is a 50% wound increase, effectively. (Assuming average rolls-of course you can roll hot or cold, sometimes.)
Is it? How so? If you have 1 wound and you need to pass 1 5+++ to stay alive, you have a 33% of succeeding?
Assess from the perspective of the attacker. For every three wounds, two will fail DR and one will succeed, so you need to inflict 50% more wounds than you would otherwise. 1 wound / 0.67 chance for that wound to kill = 1.5 wounds needed, on average, to kill, or a 50% increase over the baseline.
Wouldnt the better approach be to make weapons less deadly? More and more buffs to durability start to be felt in your standard gun. Lasguns, autoguns, shootas, bolters, etc. These are all weapons that remain unchanged but Marines get more durable. Then new weapons come out to deal with Marines but the other races dont have it so then things like Heavy Intercessors become a thing to be even more durable to things that kill Marines. The game just keeps vamping up when it could do with a cool down on the arms race. Like I dont believe Heavy Bolters should be damage 2 but they are, it closes the gap on other weapons like Autocannons whose now sole benfit over a Heavy Bolter is str7.
I completely agree that in CC plaguemarines really shine and I do think they are great there. And I agree it looks like they are getting buffed in that regard
But they are slow and with a points increase their ranged damage is going down. Personally, I don't think the extra wound makes up for it enough to significantly increase their points.
For me 21pts would be a good value with what we are seeing so far.
HOWEVER, for all we know the contagions could be great and make them better.
Maybe early round ones make them harder to hit or have an old version of DR?
If it's just a buff that affects the enemy close by then that will be a mistake in my opinion
Spoletta wrote: +1 T is at the very least a 3 point stat, going from T4 to T5 is a huge step.
Hilarious. Got anything to back that up?
Could prepare a sound argumentation but this point already tells me that you are not interested in the least to have a discussion, you are just here to whine.
Seriously, if you really think that T4 to T5 isn't worth the jump from 17 to 20 points on a 2W infantry model, then whatever argumentation used will just be thrown to the wind.
Seemingly the T5, 2W, 3+ save are the defence against small arms fire for PW now which in general is better than many armies get for their soldiers (even if its worse from where they came from). I'd say it just depends on the cost.
My actual biggest concern with this change is for the larger models like Mortation, PBC etc that are all now significantly weaker (pending PP, army buffs and surgeon abilities).
I'm expecting the poxwalkers to still have a 5+ FNP. It's kind of been their thing for a long while.
Yes, because you, just like the other 10 guys posting the exact same thing before you also consider +6" range, AP-1 and +1" movement as free upgrades as well.
Spoletta wrote: +1 T is at the very least a 3 point stat, going from T4 to T5 is a huge step.
Hilarious. Got anything to back that up?
Could prepare a sound argumentation but this point already tells me that you are not interested in the least to have a discussion, you are just here to whine.
Seriously, if you really think that T4 to T5 isn't worth the jump from 17 to 20 points on a 2W infantry model, then whatever argumentation used will just be thrown to the wind.
I can't remember what the increase on a tesla immortal was but that would give a good starting point.
JNAProductions wrote: Against D1 or on models with many wounds, 5+ FNP is a 50% wound increase, effectively. (Assuming average rolls-of course you can roll hot or cold, sometimes.)
Is it? How so? If you have 1 wound and you need to pass 1 5+++ to stay alive, you have a 33% of succeeding? So the 3rd Plague Marine in the squad would surive the 1 damage attack if 3 failed their armour saves. Now they dont have to bank on rolling a 5+++ to pass the 1 damage as the model instead has 2 wounds. Ive seen it way too much that 5+++ either roll hot or not, whole 10 man squads failing to make a single DR save. Ive also seen when they make pretty much all of them and both cases it wasnt fun for someone and just wasted time rolling.
2 wounds ignoring 1 damage has existed before with Aberrants and they werent blessed with a 3+ save or toughness 5. I think this version of DR is fine for the infantry (D3 and above should vapourise anything man sized with the exception of daemonically inbued Possessed and exceptionally durable Blightlords/Deathshroud. Where DR fails is on vehicles which it looks like everyone is agreeing with. Great vs those D2/3 shots coming in but not so much for those 4+ that come through. You could probably hope that a Mephytic Blight Hauler could survive 2 shots from a Mehnir, now it isnt even possible if they both go through the invun.
Basically you have to take into account the wound actually being saved by the FNP, so it becomes roughly 1.5. HOWEVER, the strict wound bump means no variations mathematically, so the consistency itself is actually a buff still.
Yes, because you, just like the other 10 guys posting the exact same thing before you also consider +6" range, AP-1 and +1" movement as free upgrades as well.
Dudeface wrote: The issue is a large amount of these claims are also toy throwing "stupid gw I didn't get what I wanted they should all be free now because my plague marines only require 33% more bolter rounds to kill, render d2 almost pointless and d3+ didn't matter anyway".
If it was "oh it sucks my daemon engines might take a couple more wounds a turn" fair, but it's actually more a whinefest they're not point for point better than Intercessors, when we don't have a points value.
The vast amount of arguments on the other side is "extra wounds are 3 points for tacticals and should be 8 points for plague marines because T5".
Dudeface wrote: The issue is a large amount of these claims are also toy throwing "stupid gw I didn't get what I wanted they should all be free now because my plague marines only require 33% more bolter rounds to kill, render d2 almost pointless and d3+ didn't matter anyway".
If it was "oh it sucks my daemon engines might take a couple more wounds a turn" fair, but it's actually more a whinefest they're not point for point better than Intercessors, when we don't have a points value.
The vast amount of arguments on the other side is "extra wounds are 3 points for tacticals and should be 8 points for plague marines because T5".
T5 AND keeping the 5+++, if you're going to incessantly whine might as well keep the story straight.
Dudeface wrote: The issue is a large amount of these claims are also toy throwing "stupid gw I didn't get what I wanted they should all be free now because my plague marines only require 33% more bolter rounds to kill, render d2 almost pointless and d3+ didn't matter anyway".
If it was "oh it sucks my daemon engines might take a couple more wounds a turn" fair, but it's actually more a whinefest they're not point for point better than Intercessors, when we don't have a points value.
The vast amount of arguments on the other side is "extra wounds are 3 points for tacticals and should be 8 points for plague marines because T5".
They should be more than 3 points but its dishonest to pretend the extra wound is the only buff.
Voss wrote: Because that's the statline for marines now. It does NOT matter that it never existed 'before,' its the norm for the edition in which this codex is happening. The new normal is two wound marines, coupling that with taking 5+++ away is a nerf.
Calling an objective buff a nerf, just because you didn't get buffed as much on the whole as another army, seems really petty.
What? At least try to have a conversation with go to personal attacks and accusations of 'pettiness.' I'm not making any sort of comparison to 'another army.'
We've known for months that DG were going to be brought in line with the 2W marine reality. That's a global thing for 9th edition when the rules update finally gets 'finished.' That isn't a 'buff,' that's just the baseline for marines in 9th edition.
Plague Marines are now actually significantly harder to kill than Intercessors, rather than being roughly comparable. This is where they should have been all along. Take a step back, stop comparing to the W2/5+++ profile that never existed, stop trying to be envious of W1 Marines, and look at it objectively. You're now Marines that are T5 and reduce incoming damage by 1. That is not a bad place for Plague Marines to be, and it's significantly better than they were.
I'm doing none of those things.
Intercessors are not a comparison point for Plague Marines- the appropriate comparison, if you're keen to make it, is tacticals, or even better, Grey Hunters. Bolter+chainsword vs bolter +plagueknife, +2 specials.
No one is being envious of 1W _anything_, I don't even understand what that's about.
Plague marines are still T5 (which isn't a change), but instead of a global 5+++, they have a circumstantial ability that only works on a subset of weapons. If it isn't D2, or a 33% chance on d3 or a 16% chance on a d6 weapon, DR does nothing at all. That's a nerf.
Its a matter of game design- mechanics that only work against a limited number of things are worse than mechanics that apply universally. This is especially true in cases like this where it entirely depends on what decisions your opponent makes during list building, which isn't something you can influence or mitigate. There is no tactical or strategic maneuver on the table that counters 'I'll just take guns that are mathematically more effective against this particular snippet of rules exceptionalism.'
Again, W2 is the normal for marines in 9th edition. That isn't a _Death Guard_ buff, that's a universal change (implemented on a time delay, because GW is bad at this). It doesn't factor into anything, except (and sadly we still don't know this) if there is an accompanying points increase that will definitely make DG worse.
JNAProductions wrote: Against D1 or on models with many wounds, 5+ FNP is a 50% wound increase, effectively. (Assuming average rolls-of course you can roll hot or cold, sometimes.)
Is it? How so?
Let's say you have 12 wounds.
You take 12 damage. FNP 5+ saves 4 of those, leaving you with 4 wounds.
You take 4 more damage. FNP 5+ saves 4/3 of those, leaving you with 4/3 wounds.
You take 4/3 damage. FNP 5+ saves 4/9 of those.
Continue ad nauseum, and the limit approaches 18-for a 50% increase.
For quick calculation, take the reciprocal of the odds of FAILING a FNP roll. 2/3 is your odds of failure, so 3/2 is your effective wound multiplier.
How does this affect 1 wound models though? You take 12 damage, you save 4 guys. You didnt save half of the damage but instead a third. You might need 4 more damage to kill the next 3 but those that died didnt pass half of the damage. Squad wise sure this works but on an individual basis no. You have a 6 man squad and I pass you 10 individual damage 1 saves you need to pass off on a 5++. You pass 3. 7 die. Great for multiwound models like your 12 wound scenario but it doesnt reflect my 1 wound Plague Marines.
That 2 damage would kill your 1 wound Plague Marine, it now doesnt. That 1 damage had a pretty good chance to gibb your 1 wound Plague Marine, it now doesnt. The New DR in conjunction with the extra wound is better for the infantry, worse for the vehicles. There just isnt that many D3 weapons out there that youd want to target PMs with.
Spoletta wrote: Could prepare a sound argumentation but this point already tells me that you are not interested in the least to have a discussion, you are just here to whine.
Try me. If anything, people accuse me of discussing things too much.
Seriously, if you really think that T4 to T5 isn't worth the jump from 17 to 20 points on a 2W infantry model, then whatever argumentation used will just be thrown to the wind.
Your math adds up to 24, not 20 AND ignores or hand-waves all advantages tacticals have over plague marines.
JNAProductions wrote: Against D1 or on models with many wounds, 5+ FNP is a 50% wound increase, effectively. (Assuming average rolls-of course you can roll hot or cold, sometimes.)
Is it? How so?
Let's say you have 12 wounds.
You take 12 damage. FNP 5+ saves 4 of those, leaving you with 4 wounds.
You take 4 more damage. FNP 5+ saves 4/3 of those, leaving you with 4/3 wounds.
You take 4/3 damage. FNP 5+ saves 4/9 of those.
Continue ad nauseum, and the limit approaches 18-for a 50% increase.
For quick calculation, take the reciprocal of the odds of FAILING a FNP roll. 2/3 is your odds of failure, so 3/2 is your effective wound multiplier.
How does this affect 1 wound models though? You take 12 damage, you save 4 guys. You didnt save half of the damage but instead a third. You might need 4 more damage to kill the next 3 but those that died didnt pass half of the damage. Squad wise sure this works but on an individual basis no. You have a 6 man squad and I pass you 10 individual damage 1 saves you need to pass off on a 5++. You pass 3. 7 die. Great for multiwound models like your 12 wound scenario but it doesnt reflect my 1 wound Plague Marines.
That 2 damage would kill your 1 wound Plague Marine, it now doesnt. That 1 damage had a pretty good chance to gibb your 1 wound Plague Marine, it now doesnt. The New DR in conjunction with the extra wound is better for the infantry, worse for the vehicles. There just isnt that many D3 weapons out there that youd want to target PMs with.
To kill six W1 Plague Marines with a 5++, you'd need to do an average of nine unsaved D1 attacks.
If you do exactly six, you'll have two left on average. Those two still have their 5+++, so it takes an average of three more unsaved D1 wounds to kill them.
Spoletta wrote: Could prepare a sound argumentation but this point already tells me that you are not interested in the least to have a discussion, you are just here to whine.
Try me. If anything, people accuse me of discussing things too much.
Seriously, if you really think that T4 to T5 isn't worth the jump from 17 to 20 points on a 2W infantry model, then whatever argumentation used will just be thrown to the wind.
Your math adds up to 24, not 20 AND ignores or hand-waves all advantages tacticals have over plague marines.
What advantage does a tactical marine have beyond 1" of movement?
Spoletta wrote: Could prepare a sound argumentation but this point already tells me that you are not interested in the least to have a discussion, you are just here to whine.
Try me. If anything, people accuse me of discussing things too much.
Seriously, if you really think that T4 to T5 isn't worth the jump from 17 to 20 points on a 2W infantry model, then whatever argumentation used will just be thrown to the wind.
Your math adds up to 24, not 20 AND ignores or hand-waves all advantages tacticals have over plague marines.
What advantage does a tactical marine have beyond 1" of movement?
The ability to take heavy weapons.
-1 AP on their Bolters Turn 2 and sometimes 3.
Whatever their Chapter Tactic and Super Doctrine gives them, potentially including a 6+++.
I think we should wait and see what the Contagions of Nurgle are and what they do. They might provide a new method of adding FnP back to the army.
Also, there is a keyword on Mortarion's datasheet I don't recognize; BUBONIC ASTARTES. Maybe this keyword will be used alongside the Contagions of Nurgle and/or detachment abilities to grant FnP.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Less dice rolling whilst still being a good resilient mechanic. All for it.
DG are also better at shooting on the move and less likely to lose models to morale. You cannot look at just one rule, look at the whole picture.
They just need to be played different now.
Oh I did, and we are now generic killy dudes in power armor like the rest. I play this army for it's durability, taking that away and going: but look at all these nice offensive buffs! does nothing for me. If they wanted less dice rolling it would have been nice of them to take it away from IH too, but I guess SM privilege is a real thing now.
What advantage does a tactical marine have beyond 1" of movement?
The ability to take heavy weapons.
This, in addition to a having access to much wider array of weapons. +1" movement is just as valuable a +1T already.
-1 AP on their Bolters Turn 2 and sometimes 3. Whatever their Chapter Tactic and Super Doctrine gives them, potentially including a 6+++.
To be fair, DG is likely to get similar things through plague fleets and the rule which will be revealed tomorrow.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
oni wrote: Also, there is a keyword I don't recognize; BUBONIC ASTARTES. Maybe this keyword will be used alongside the Contagions of Nurgle and/or detachment abilities.
We've already seen it in the FW book. It's likely to prevent cross-faction synergy with things like warptime, similar to the Eldar Doom nerf. Which is only fair tbh.
Voss wrote:What? At least try to have a conversation with go to personal attacks and accusations of 'pettiness.' I'm not making any sort of comparison to 'another army.'
Yes, you are. You're comparing to loyalist Marines (or CSM) going from W1 to W2. If Firstborn didn't exist and Plague Marines, in a vacuum, were going from W1 to W2 along with these DR changes, that would be rightfully recognized as a net buff.
They're getting buffed compared to their current statline. That's the fact of it. The DR rule is getting slightly nerfed; Plague Marines are getting substantial other buffs that more than compensate. As a whole, Plague Marines are harder to kill than they were. That's a buff. Anyone saying Plague Marines got nerfed because they didn't get buffed as much as Tacticals is wrong.
Castozor wrote: I play this army for it's durability, taking that away
You get an extra point of toughness on your basic Marines, and universally reduce all incoming damage by 1. Your durability has increased on your basic infantry, and is sometimes better and sometimes worse for your vehicles, and we have no idea what is happening to W1 models or stratagems/characters that previously buffed DR.
Spoletta wrote: Could prepare a sound argumentation but this point already tells me that you are not interested in the least to have a discussion, you are just here to whine.
Try me. If anything, people accuse me of discussing things too much.
Seriously, if you really think that T4 to T5 isn't worth the jump from 17 to 20 points on a 2W infantry model, then whatever argumentation used will just be thrown to the wind.
Your math adds up to 24, not 20 AND ignores or hand-waves all advantages tacticals have over plague marines.
What advantage does a tactical marine have beyond 1" of movement?
The ability to take heavy weapons.
-1 AP on their Bolters Turn 2 and sometimes 3.
Whatever their Chapter Tactic and Super Doctrine gives them, potentially including a 6+++.
If we leave out the ap buff since we know dg will be getting a different turn based mechanic, here is a novelty for you, if your chapter tactic was -1 damage, +1 t & a, extra ap on melee with reroll wounds of 1 and always count as stationary, but all you gave up were heavy weapons and 1" movement, would that not be the most over powered chapter tactic?
Spoletta wrote: Could prepare a sound argumentation but this point already tells me that you are not interested in the least to have a discussion, you are just here to whine.
Try me. If anything, people accuse me of discussing things too much.
Seriously, if you really think that T4 to T5 isn't worth the jump from 17 to 20 points on a 2W infantry model, then whatever argumentation used will just be thrown to the wind.
Your math adds up to 24, not 20 AND ignores or hand-waves all advantages tacticals have over plague marines.
What advantage does a tactical marine have beyond 1" of movement?
The ability to take heavy weapons.
-1 AP on their Bolters Turn 2 and sometimes 3.
Whatever their Chapter Tactic and Super Doctrine gives them, potentially including a 6+++.
If we leave out the ap buff since we know dg will be getting a different turn based mechanic, here is a novelty for you, if your chapter tactic was -1 damage, +1 t & a, extra ap on melee with reroll wounds of 1 and always count as stationary, but all you gave up were heavy weapons and 1" movement, would that not be the most over powered chapter tactic?
How many points is a Plague Marine, then? Because if they were the same points, sure. But what are the odds of that?
Castozor wrote: I play this army for it's durability, taking that away
You get an extra point of toughness on your basic Marines, and universally reduce all incoming damage by 1. Your durability has increased on your basic infantry, and is sometimes better and sometimes worse for your vehicles, and we have no idea what is happening to W1 models or stratagems/characters that previously buffed DR.
This is ridiculous.
No it hasn't, it's only better against D2 and 2 wounds on marines was a given. Something I'm assuming we pay the points for too. DR as a rule was hard gutted. It's not sometimes worse, it's always worse except specifically against D2 were it's better and D3 were it's a wash.
Spoletta wrote: Could prepare a sound argumentation but this point already tells me that you are not interested in the least to have a discussion, you are just here to whine.
Try me. If anything, people accuse me of discussing things too much.
Seriously, if you really think that T4 to T5 isn't worth the jump from 17 to 20 points on a 2W infantry model, then whatever argumentation used will just be thrown to the wind.
Your math adds up to 24, not 20 AND ignores or hand-waves all advantages tacticals have over plague marines.
What advantage does a tactical marine have beyond 1" of movement?
The ability to take heavy weapons.
-1 AP on their Bolters Turn 2 and sometimes 3.
Whatever their Chapter Tactic and Super Doctrine gives them, potentially including a 6+++.
If we leave out the ap buff since we know dg will be getting a different turn based mechanic, here is a novelty for you, if your chapter tactic was -1 damage, +1 t & a, extra ap on melee with reroll wounds of 1 and always count as stationary, but all you gave up were heavy weapons and 1" movement, would that not be the most over powered chapter tactic?
How many points is a Plague Marine, then? Because if they were the same points, sure. But what are the odds of that?
Well then we understand they must be more than 18 points, 10% takes them to 20 but I'm not sure they're only 10% better, I'm sitting at 22 personally but I can see 20-22 being the range they fall in.
JNAProductions wrote: Against D1 or on models with many wounds, 5+ FNP is a 50% wound increase, effectively. (Assuming average rolls-of course you can roll hot or cold, sometimes.)
Is it? How so?
Let's say you have 12 wounds.
You take 12 damage. FNP 5+ saves 4 of those, leaving you with 4 wounds.
You take 4 more damage. FNP 5+ saves 4/3 of those, leaving you with 4/3 wounds.
You take 4/3 damage. FNP 5+ saves 4/9 of those.
Continue ad nauseum, and the limit approaches 18-for a 50% increase.
For quick calculation, take the reciprocal of the odds of FAILING a FNP roll. 2/3 is your odds of failure, so 3/2 is your effective wound multiplier.
How does this affect 1 wound models though? You take 12 damage, you save 4 guys. You didnt save half of the damage but instead a third. You might need 4 more damage to kill the next 3 but those that died didnt pass half of the damage. Squad wise sure this works but on an individual basis no. You have a 6 man squad and I pass you 10 individual damage 1 saves you need to pass off on a 5++. You pass 3. 7 die. Great for multiwound models like your 12 wound scenario but it doesnt reflect my 1 wound Plague Marines.
That 2 damage would kill your 1 wound Plague Marine, it now doesnt. That 1 damage had a pretty good chance to gibb your 1 wound Plague Marine, it now doesnt. The New DR in conjunction with the extra wound is better for the infantry, worse for the vehicles. There just isnt that many D3 weapons out there that youd want to target PMs with.
To kill six W1 Plague Marines with a 5++, you'd need to do an average of nine unsaved D1 attacks.
If you do exactly six, you'll have two left on average. Those two still have their 5+++, so it takes an average of three more unsaved D1 wounds to kill them.
So this only comes into effect when you roll poorly or are firing chip damage at them? Its not hard to actually wound Plague Marines, it just got silly when they had the 5++ from the relic and the 5+++ on top of that. If anything thats the opponents fault for chipping away instead of having supremacy units either in shooting or melee. If I charge 5 BA Vanguard Vets all with Lightning Claws or Blade Guard Vets into your unit, we both know your not gonna survive 50% of the damage, they will be wiped out. This only works if you have models left alive in the unit after each subsequent attack which in this day and age of 40k, isnt that often for a 1 wound model.
Spoletta wrote: Could prepare a sound argumentation but this point already tells me that you are not interested in the least to have a discussion, you are just here to whine.
Try me. If anything, people accuse me of discussing things too much.
Seriously, if you really think that T4 to T5 isn't worth the jump from 17 to 20 points on a 2W infantry model, then whatever argumentation used will just be thrown to the wind.
Your math adds up to 24, not 20 AND ignores or hand-waves all advantages tacticals have over plague marines.
What advantage does a tactical marine have beyond 1" of movement?
The ability to take heavy weapons.
-1 AP on their Bolters Turn 2 and sometimes 3.
Whatever their Chapter Tactic and Super Doctrine gives them, potentially including a 6+++.
1. Plague Marines have their special weapons available. All the Heavy weapon does is encourage a camping unit, and for that you have Pox Walkers and Cultists. Not a real advantage. Pass.
2. You're getting into the Doctrine Mechanic, and it was revealed that Death Guard are getting something similar. Pass until more is revealed.
3. Surprise Surprise, Plague Marines are available to Iron Warriors, Black Legion, Word Bearers, and Alpha Legion, some of which are already okay-ish. The core for Death Guard is always double tapping with the Bolters, Chaos players got what they whined for with a mechanic to help ignore morale, AND we still haven't seen everything yet. Super hard fething pass.
So no it IS just whining to whine because NOW you're not rolling for the strictly better durability of W+1 and -1 to damage. Rolling to potentially save a W1 or even a W2 Terminator from four or five dice was a waste of time statistically.
Castozor wrote: I play this army for it's durability, taking that away
You get an extra point of toughness on your basic Marines, and universally reduce all incoming damage by 1. Your durability has increased on your basic infantry, and is sometimes better and sometimes worse for your vehicles, and we have no idea what is happening to W1 models or stratagems/characters that previously buffed DR.
This is ridiculous.
No it hasn't, it's only better against D2 and 2 wounds on marines was a given. Something I'm assuming we pay the points for too. DR as a rule was hard gutted. It's not sometimes worse, it's always worse except specifically against D2 were it's better and D3 were it's a wash.
Well the army has other things that arent just Plague Marines. Possessed, Blightlords, Deathshroud, these have 3 wounds each. Suddenly they are making damage 3 a 2. You need 2 damage 3 wounds to go through to kill a terminator when before he would still die with his 2 wounds 5++. Whats the most prolific damage type in the game? 1, D3 and 2. Where are all these damage 3 weapons coming from? Is your opponent nothing but Orks with Rokkit Launchers or just Space Marines with waves of Thunderhammers? Whatever big bad thing killed them before will still kill them now, but instead they get additional protection from the more common weapons that would kill them. Plasma/Heavy Bolters/Autocannons/Power Fists/etc.
What gets more effected is your vehicles. But again they were getting too durable, with the 4++ 5+++ from PA. Its becoming a trend for 9th ed for things to die quicker as weapons get more shots, more AP, more damage. The new DR is more of a sidegrade than a nerf or buff. Plague Marines are still a durable Troops unit, but even they shouldnt be able to take a Lascannon beam to the torso and live, they are still mortal after all.
JNAProductions wrote: Against D1 or on models with many wounds, 5+ FNP is a 50% wound increase, effectively. (Assuming average rolls-of course you can roll hot or cold, sometimes.)
Is it? How so?
Let's say you have 12 wounds.
You take 12 damage. FNP 5+ saves 4 of those, leaving you with 4 wounds. You take 4 more damage. FNP 5+ saves 4/3 of those, leaving you with 4/3 wounds. You take 4/3 damage. FNP 5+ saves 4/9 of those.
Continue ad nauseum, and the limit approaches 18-for a 50% increase.
For quick calculation, take the reciprocal of the odds of FAILING a FNP roll. 2/3 is your odds of failure, so 3/2 is your effective wound multiplier.
How does this affect 1 wound models though? You take 12 damage, you save 4 guys. You didnt save half of the damage but instead a third. You might need 4 more damage to kill the next 3 but those that died didnt pass half of the damage. Squad wise sure this works but on an individual basis no. You have a 6 man squad and I pass you 10 individual damage 1 saves you need to pass off on a 5++. You pass 3. 7 die. Great for multiwound models like your 12 wound scenario but it doesnt reflect my 1 wound Plague Marines.
That 2 damage would kill your 1 wound Plague Marine, it now doesnt. That 1 damage had a pretty good chance to gibb your 1 wound Plague Marine, it now doesnt. The New DR in conjunction with the extra wound is better for the infantry, worse for the vehicles. There just isnt that many D3 weapons out there that youd want to target PMs with.
To kill six W1 Plague Marines with a 5++, you'd need to do an average of nine unsaved D1 attacks.
If you do exactly six, you'll have two left on average. Those two still have their 5+++, so it takes an average of three more unsaved D1 wounds to kill them.
So this only comes into effect when you roll poorly or are firing chip damage at them? Its not hard to actually wound Plague Marines, it just got silly when they had the 5++ from the relic and the 5+++ on top of that. If anything thats the opponents fault for chipping away instead of having supremacy units either in shooting or melee. If I charge 5 BA Vanguard Vets all with Lightning Claws or Blade Guard Vets into your unit, we both know your not gonna survive 50% of the damage, they will be wiped out. This only works if you have models left alive in the unit after each subsequent attack which in this day and age of 40k, isnt that often for a 1 wound model.
JNAProductions wrote: Against D1 or on models with many wounds, 5+ FNP is a 50% wound increase, effectively. (Assuming average rolls-of course you can roll hot or cold, sometimes.)
Again, this was my statement. That's backed by math.
If you want to ignore the math, you can-but that seems like a silly thing to do.
Edit: Before, a Plague Marine had a 8.32% chance of living through an unsaved Lascannon wound.
JNAProductions wrote: Against D1 or on models with many wounds, 5+ FNP is a 50% wound increase, effectively. (Assuming average rolls-of course you can roll hot or cold, sometimes.)
Is it? How so?
Let's say you have 12 wounds.
You take 12 damage. FNP 5+ saves 4 of those, leaving you with 4 wounds.
You take 4 more damage. FNP 5+ saves 4/3 of those, leaving you with 4/3 wounds.
You take 4/3 damage. FNP 5+ saves 4/9 of those.
Continue ad nauseum, and the limit approaches 18-for a 50% increase.
For quick calculation, take the reciprocal of the odds of FAILING a FNP roll. 2/3 is your odds of failure, so 3/2 is your effective wound multiplier.
How does this affect 1 wound models though? You take 12 damage, you save 4 guys. You didnt save half of the damage but instead a third. You might need 4 more damage to kill the next 3 but those that died didnt pass half of the damage. Squad wise sure this works but on an individual basis no. You have a 6 man squad and I pass you 10 individual damage 1 saves you need to pass off on a 5++. You pass 3. 7 die. Great for multiwound models like your 12 wound scenario but it doesnt reflect my 1 wound Plague Marines.
That 2 damage would kill your 1 wound Plague Marine, it now doesnt. That 1 damage had a pretty good chance to gibb your 1 wound Plague Marine, it now doesnt. The New DR in conjunction with the extra wound is better for the infantry, worse for the vehicles. There just isnt that many D3 weapons out there that youd want to target PMs with.
To kill six W1 Plague Marines with a 5++, you'd need to do an average of nine unsaved D1 attacks.
If you do exactly six, you'll have two left on average. Those two still have their 5+++, so it takes an average of three more unsaved D1 wounds to kill them.
So this only comes into effect when you roll poorly or are firing chip damage at them? Its not hard to actually wound Plague Marines, it just got silly when they had the 5++ from the relic and the 5+++ on top of that. If anything thats the opponents fault for chipping away instead of having supremacy units either in shooting or melee. If I charge 5 BA Vanguard Vets all with Lightning Claws or Blade Guard Vets into your unit, we both know your not gonna survive 50% of the damage, they will be wiped out. This only works if you have models left alive in the unit after each subsequent attack which in this day and age of 40k, isnt that often for a 1 wound model.
JNAProductions wrote: Against D1 or on models with many wounds, 5+ FNP is a 50% wound increase, effectively. (Assuming average rolls-of course you can roll hot or cold, sometimes.)
Again, this was my statement. That's backed by math.
If you want to ignore the math, you can-but that seems like a silly thing to do.
Edit: Before, a Plague Marine had a 8.32% chance of living through an unsaved Lascannon wound.
Now, they have a 1/3 chance.
And whilst thats a buff its not something to hedge your bets on. If a replacemet jet engine I ordered for my F-16 came in and on it was a note saying that it wont instantly combust 1/3 of the time it fires into life, I am not gonna rely on it and ill look for a way to improve on it or find a better option that doesnt end in me burning up in the stratosphere. Im not gonna like having my Plague Marines stare down the barrel of the gun and do as much as possible to ensure it never fires on them like using Obscuring, transports, strategic reserve and Cloud of Flies if it is still around and unchanged in the new Codex.
deffrekka wrote: Plague Marines are still a durable Troops unit, but even they shouldnt be able to take a Lascannon beam to the torso and live, they are still mortal after all.
Castozor wrote:It's not sometimes worse, it's always worse except specifically against D2 were it's better and D3 were it's a wash.
Well, I think that pretty well sums up the mindset behind these complaints.
-The new DR is always worse, except when it's better.
-DG are ruined because they're not 'the tougher Marines' anymore. Having T5 and army-wide damage reduction don't count for some reason.
-Plague Marines are ruined because they're now more vulnerable to D1 weapons, despite actually being less vulnerable to D1 weapons point-for-point if they end up anywhere under 24pts. Going to W2, which more than offsets the loss of DR against D1 weapons, apparently doesn't count because loyalists and CSM got it too, so when DG go up against Guard or Eldar that second wound won't exist and they'll be getting mowed down by lasguns and shurikens.
Well the army has other things that arent just Plague Marines. Possessed, Blightlords, Deathshroud, these have 3 wounds each. Suddenly they are making damage 3 a 2. You need 2 damage 3 wounds to go through to kill a terminator when before he would still die with his 2 wounds 5++. Whats the most prolific damage type in the game? 1, D3 and 2. Where are all these damage 3 weapons coming from? Is your opponent nothing but Orks with Rokkit Launchers or just Space Marines with waves of Thunderhammers? Whatever big bad thing killed them before will still kill them now, but instead they get additional protection from the more common weapons that would kill them. Plasma/Heavy Bolters/Autocannons/Power Fists/etc.
What gets more effected is your vehicles. But again they were getting too durable, with the 4++ 5+++ from PA. Its becoming a trend for 9th ed for things to die quicker as weapons get more shots, more AP, more damage. The new DR is more of a sidegrade than a nerf or buff. Plague Marines are still a durable Troops unit, but even they shouldnt be able to take a Lascannon beam to the torso and live, they are still mortal after all.
I'll agree Terminators and (highly) arguably PM got of better with this, but even then only against specific weapons, they got worse against the majority of guns. And no our vehicles weren't getting too durable, they were fine. The rest of the game is way to lethal and almost no one else had our defenses is what the issue was. New DR is 100% a hard nerf for anything not a Terminator or against people who stack nothing but D2 weapons. Which is my other issue with this rule, DG now feths over anyone who skews into D2, the kind of weapons you normally have to pay extra for. How does that make my opponent feel, knowing he sunk all these points into weapons that are now useless. Or likewise if my opponent knows he's fighting me, why ever even bother taking anything D2 if you can avoid it. Old DR might have issues but at least it didn't invalidate one of the most common damage types in the game.
Castozor wrote:It's not sometimes worse, it's always worse except specifically against D2 were it's better and D3 were it's a wash.
Well, I think that pretty well sums up the mindset behind these complaints.
-The new DR is always worse, except when it's better. -DG are ruined because they're not 'the tougher Marines' anymore. Having T5 and army-wide damage reduction don't count for some reason. -Plague Marines are ruined because they're now more vulnerable to D1 weapons, despite actually being less vulnerable to D1 weapons point-for-point if they end up anywhere under 24pts. Going to W2, which more than offsets the loss of DR against D1 weapons, apparently doesn't count because loyalists and CSM got it too, so when DG go up against Guard or Eldar that second wound won't exist and they'll be getting mowed down by lasguns and shurikens.
I don't get it. I really don't.
You don't get it because you are willfully ignorant. It is always worse except for one very specific number of damage, ergo in 80% of cases it is worse. How you could interpreter as anything other than a flat nerf to the ability is beyond me. They are now barely tougher when their toughness is supposed to be the selling point of the army. 2 wounds is a given and utterly irrelevant when discussing the nerf to DR. A wound we are going to pay for too just like every other marine.
Well the army has other things that arent just Plague Marines. Possessed, Blightlords, Deathshroud, these have 3 wounds each. Suddenly they are making damage 3 a 2. You need 2 damage 3 wounds to go through to kill a terminator when before he would still die with his 2 wounds 5++. Whats the most prolific damage type in the game? 1, D3 and 2. Where are all these damage 3 weapons coming from? Is your opponent nothing but Orks with Rokkit Launchers or just Space Marines with waves of Thunderhammers? Whatever big bad thing killed them before will still kill them now, but instead they get additional protection from the more common weapons that would kill them. Plasma/Heavy Bolters/Autocannons/Power Fists/etc.
What gets more effected is your vehicles. But again they were getting too durable, with the 4++ 5+++ from PA. Its becoming a trend for 9th ed for things to die quicker as weapons get more shots, more AP, more damage. The new DR is more of a sidegrade than a nerf or buff. Plague Marines are still a durable Troops unit, but even they shouldnt be able to take a Lascannon beam to the torso and live, they are still mortal after all.
I'll agree Terminators and (highly) arguably PM got of better with this, but even then only against specific weapons, they got worse against the majority of guns. And no our vehicles weren't getting too durable, they were fine. The rest of the game is way to lethal and almost no one else had our defenses is what the issue was. New DR is 100% a hard nerf for anything not a Terminator or against people who stack nothing but D2 weapons.
Which is my other issue with this rule, DG now feths over anyone who skews into D2, the kind of weapons you normally have to pay extra for. How does that make my opponent feel, knowing he sunk all these points into weapons that are now useless. Or likewise if my opponent knows he's fighting me, why ever even bother taking anything D2 if you can avoid it. Old DR might have issues but at least it didn't invalidate one of the most common damage types in the game.
Castozor wrote:It's not sometimes worse, it's always worse except specifically against D2 were it's better and D3 were it's a wash.
Well, I think that pretty well sums up the mindset behind these complaints.
-The new DR is always worse, except when it's better.
-DG are ruined because they're not 'the tougher Marines' anymore. Having T5 and army-wide damage reduction don't count for some reason.
-Plague Marines are ruined because they're now more vulnerable to D1 weapons, despite actually being less vulnerable to D1 weapons point-for-point if they end up anywhere under 24pts. Going to W2, which more than offsets the loss of DR against D1 weapons, apparently doesn't count because loyalists and CSM got it too, so when DG go up against Guard or Eldar that second wound won't exist and they'll be getting mowed down by lasguns and shurikens.
I don't get it. I really don't.
You don't get it because you are willfully ignorant. It is always worse except for one very specific number of damage, ergo in 80% of cases it is worse. How you could interpreter as anything other than a flat nerf to the ability is beyond me.
They are now barely tougher when their toughness is supposed to be the selling point of the army.
2 wounds is a given and utterly irrelevant when discussing the nerf to DR. A wound we are going to pay for too just like every other marine.
No, they're now more durable point for point against d1 weapons, they're better against d2 and to be frank who has been firing d3+ weapons against plague marines in such quantities to matter? Even if they did, 5+++ is only going to save 1 in 9 anyway.
deffrekka wrote: Plague Marines are still a durable Troops unit, but even they shouldnt be able to take a Lascannon beam to the torso and live, they are still mortal after all.
That was in response to this, you know.
Yeah and I responded. Whilst better odds than previously, the Lascannon will still kill a Plague Marine 2/3rds of the time as it should.
Castozor wrote: You don't get it because you are willfully ignorant. It is always worse except for one very specific number of damage, ergo in 80% of cases it is worse. How you could interpreter as anything other than a flat nerf to the ability is beyond me.
I've said it's a net nerf. It's the 'always worse, except when it's better or the same' that really sounds like looking for reasons to be upset.
It would be just as reasonable for me to say that the old Disgustingly Resilient was worthless because it always failed, except when you rolled a 5 or 6. That's the level of skew you're operating at here.
Castozor wrote: They are now barely tougher when their toughness is supposed to be the selling point of the army.
Primaris are the most common Marine archetype in 2020, and Plague Marines have gone from comparably tough to significantly tougher. That's a huge change.
T5 is a significant advantage against S4/S5 weapons, and the new DR covers you against the D2 profiles that kill Marines well. You're 50% harder to kill with any kind of S4 weapon. You're nearly three times harder to kill with Heavy Bolters. All your vehicles get Duty Eternal.
'Barely tougher' is absolute nonsense for the infantry, and we haven't even seen what else the army is getting as a whole.
Castozor wrote: 2 wounds is a given and utterly irrelevant when discussing the nerf to DR. A wound we are going to pay for too just like every other marine.
Except we're not talking about just the changes to DR when you and others are complaining about Death Guard 'losing their durability'.
I think the rule is the opposite of what it should be. The idea of PMs is that they shrug off smaller arms fire and can only be reliably killed by big high-damage weapons. This makes them less vulnerable to what kills them best in the fluff, while the d1 weapons they are supposedly most resistant to are the most efficient way to kill them.
Castozor wrote:It's not sometimes worse, it's always worse except specifically against D2 were it's better and D3 were it's a wash.
Well, I think that pretty well sums up the mindset behind these complaints.
-The new DR is always worse, except when it's better.
That's not a just summary. The times it actually is better is extremely limited and not that unlikely to not come up against armies at all. Skimming through both our groups recent lists and tournament results, there is only a hand full of 2D weapons in them, and many of those units would murder a squad of plague marines despite 1 damage instead of 2 with their plasma or melee weapons.
-DG are ruined because they're not 'the tougher Marines' anymore. Having T5 and army-wide damage reduction don't count for some reason.
DG barely survived the firestorm and flurry of blades that other armies can throw down previously, so obviously losing up to 50% of your armies survivability is a huge deal. Plague marines got an extra wound to compensate, terminators remained the same (assuming the 4++ nerf isn't coming) and every daemon engine has lost massive amounts of durability.
-Plague Marines are ruined because they're now more vulnerable to D1 weapons, despite actually being less vulnerable to D1 weapons point-for-point if they end up anywhere under 24pts. Going to W2, which more than offsets the loss of DR against D1 weapons, apparently doesn't count because loyalists and CSM got it too, so when DG go up against Guard or Eldar that second wound won't exist and they'll be getting mowed down by lasguns and shurikens.
So, this one actually interesting, thanks for bringing it up: Let's take everyone's favorite unit, the intercessors, and assume plague marines are 24 points. 10 of them in rapid fire range kill 1.11 plague marine, or 26.666 points, they used to kill 1.481 one-wound plague marines for 26.658. So for plague marines, this seems fair, but they weren't actually a great unit before unless you gave them flails (nerfed) or used the grenade combo (likely to be gone). It's also worth noting that the new Inexorable Advance also is a net nerf, as it reduced the effective range of plasma, melta and blight launchers.
I think this is a good timeline of what happened in here today
The new rules for DR come out, lots of people look at it compared to old DR and state that it's not as good. That's it.
Then loads of trolls come in comparing them to intercessors, saying they should cost 26+pts and that it's a buff because they got an extra wound.
DG players re-iterate they are just talking direct comparison with DR changes.
Again the extra wound gets called up for some reason despite it not being what was being discussed.
So DG players bite and start talking as a whole about the changes.
Everyone else starts calling DG players as whining because they are complaining despite getting an extra wound.
If you look back when this was a proper discussion thread and DR was being imagined as staying as it was 23pts was being mooted as probable cost with the extra wound and likely buffs due to doctrines equivalent. No one was disputing that. It was generally seen as likely.
Doohicky wrote: I think this is a good timeline of what happened in here today
The new rules for DR come out, lots of people look at it compared to old DR and state that it's not as good. That's it.
Then loads of trolls come in comparing them to intercessors, saying they should cost 26+pts and that it's a buff because they got an extra wound.
DG players re-iterate they are just talking direct comparison with DR changes.
Again the extra wound gets called up for some reason despite it not being what was being discussed.
So DG players bite and start talking as a whole about the changes.
Everyone else starts calling DG players as whining because they are complaining despite getting an extra wound.
If you look back when this was a proper discussion thread and DR was being imagined as staying as it was 23pts was being mooted as probable cost with the extra wound and likely buffs due to doctrines equivalent. No one was disputing that. It was generally seen as likely.
Literally the first page of posts after the article contains some calling it an overall nerf and saying there should be point drops.
Literally the first page of posts after the article contains some calling it an overall nerf and saying there should be point drops.
One person who was roundly ignored stupidly said they should cost same as tacs and there should be points drops across the codex. I find that position as silly as the people saying we can't compare the old and new DRs in a vacuum (Which is a LOT more people)
You will always get exceptions
Automatically Appended Next Post: Just to re-iterate my stance as a whole.
I thought with old DR 22-23 points would have been fair.
With the new DR I think 21-22 is fair.
Many of the tanks and Morty have got less protected. But the tanks have got other buffs so I would be happy if they stay similar points. MBH, I think I could see still going up.
Poxwalkers need new rules or big drop in points as otherwise they are uselss
Castozor wrote: They are now barely tougher when their toughness is supposed to be the selling point of the army.
Primaris are the most common Marine archetype in 2020, and Plague Marines have gone from comparably tough to significantly tougher. That's a huge change.
T5 is a significant advantage against S4/S5 weapons, and the new DR covers you against the D2 profiles that kill Marines well. You're 50% harder to kill with any kind of S4 weapon. You're nearly three times harder to kill with Heavy Bolters. All your vehicles get Duty Eternal.
'Barely tougher' is absolute nonsense for the infantry, and we haven't even seen what else the army is getting as a whole.
Luckily those same SM are also far killier than we are then, although granted if any unit comes of better with this it's Terminators for sure and maybe PM. Yes our vehicles got duty eternal, the very same vehicles people point D3+ weapons at, guess which rule was better in this case? Hint: it's not the new DR
Castozor wrote: 2 wounds is a given and utterly irrelevant when discussing the nerf to DR. A wound we are going to pay for too just like every other marine.
Except we're not talking about just the changes to DR when you and others are complaining about Death Guard 'losing their durability'.
But we should, the extra wound does not count for durability, this is just the new marine baseline we all knew we would get. And again, just like loyalist proper marines, we get to pay for this extra wound. It's not a free buff tacked on.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I think the rule is the opposite of what it should be. The idea of PMs is that they shrug off smaller arms fire and can only be reliably killed by big high-damage weapons. This makes them less vulnerable to what kills them best in the fluff, while the d1 weapons they are supposedly most resistant to are the most efficient way to kill them.
That's 100% my qualm with the rule. It doesn't make any sense that the Death Guard's trademark resilience ability only kicks in against D2+ weapons. I get that the old 5+++ had its issues but at least it impacted (or could impact) everything in the game. Felt far more appropriate thematically.
I posted a detailed analysis on my blog with some math, but the short of it is that this is a huge nerf overall. That said, in practice, at least Plague Marines are probably better off overall especially combined with all the other changes of the codex. It probably hurts Terminators a little bit and then vehicles and Morty are huge losers.
But we have yet to see all the rules and points so it could be that DG come out of the codex very strong even if DR itself was generally gutted as a core rule.
Compared to the old, 1 wound, 18 point PM here is what I see. The old PM was a little too over pointed.
2 wounds with new DR is better than 1 wound with old DR. This change alone made PM's worth 18 points. Now throw in better AP in their knives and the ability to move and shoot, and they are worth more than 18 points. 26 is way too much, but 19 is way too low. 21-23 seems good to me depending on what other changes are made.
I can't wait for Plague Marines to be 28 points each. It's divisible by 7, which is Nurgle's sacred number.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I think the rule is the opposite of what it should be. The idea of PMs is that they shrug off smaller arms fire and can only be reliably killed by big high-damage weapons. This makes them less vulnerable to what kills them best in the fluff, while the d1 weapons they are supposedly most resistant to are the most efficient way to kill them.
So really it's about 100% spot-on for a GW rules redesign. Not a nerf, but just something that runs counter to what they're trying to show.
It's also another one of those "doesn't scale well" rules, where it's meant to make them tougher, but somehow has no effect on the lowest damage weapons, which makes no sense. It'd be like saying that Terminators are dying too easily, so we'll give them a 2+ Invulnerable save, but only against weapons S9 and above.
As I came in and read all through this I kind of went through the levels of loss on an emotional train ride.
Over all, after all those pages ? I feel like this is too early to call. Hear me out here fellows.
Losing what we had, it feels bad as when that 5 came up, it felt good, but lets be honest unless we were super lucky, it tended to kinda be meh, at least for me. So I'd rather have the static benefit, I can't mess that up so it'll help in that regard, might have rather had the -1 to wound rolls but this is alright I suppose.
It really sucks for pox walkers unless they keep their FNP, now if they get the 1 dam and FNP, that could be spicy and we as of now don't know they won't, if they don't, they are DOA unless they are dirt cheap.a
Plagues will be a mixed bag, the 3 wound options sound pretty good with this and the over all higher toughness can help still, it'll all need to get hashed out in use though.
Vehicles, I don't know it'll need to get hashed out and seen as well but does seem like meltas and their ilk are going to be annoying still.
In the end depends on point costs, and things we don't know, like how will all the units still work together, etc.
Over all, I like a static benefit I can't mess up, but it does feel bad to me personally at the moment, I'll reserve full judgement till it gets some play time and we have the whole picture before I have doom and gloom, maybe tomorrow it'll be great news ? Only time will tell, what if that contagions things gives us back FNP ? Not to get too hopeful but I could see it maybe rolled into there and we don't start the game with it but later as the plague grows they gain it, now that could be a game changer.
Try and have some faith fellow snotkins, we may be ok yet. At least we kept MBH in squads, that is good.
H.B.M.C. wrote: It's also another one of those "doesn't scale well" rules, where it's meant to make them tougher, but somehow has no effect on the lowest damage weapons, which makes no sense. It'd be like saying that Terminators are dying too easily, so we'll give them a 2+ Invulnerable save, but only against weapons S9 and above.
I mean that is why Terminators got a 5++.
Realistically no one is killing Plague Marines with masses of S3 AP- weapons. Maybe if the future meta is massed Guardsmen that could be an issue - but it isn't, and it doesn't seem likely to be.
2 wound Plague Marines at reasonable points are going to be amazingly resilient against S4/S5 1 damage guns. They are going to be amazing against 2 damage and D3 damage weapons many factions use for killing regular Marines. Ditto for Terminators.
There are potentially losses to the vehicles. If someone rolls high on a D6 damage weapon, you can't hope to spike high on the FNP roll. But equally you can't spike low - and if they roll low, saving a wound will quickly add up as anyone playing Wave Serpents knows.
Obviously if Plague Marines are now 28 points then they are toast anyway - but assuming something sensible in the lowish 20s, I think you'll find its a buff over the 5++. If stacking a 6+++ can be done cost effectively, it may be a significant buff.
EldarExarch wrote: Word on the street is that Plague Surgeon is a 6" 6+ FNP bubble, on top of whatever else he does.
So basically a Painboy or whatever that Ork unit that gives FnP.
At this point the Plague Surgeon needs a complete rewrite as he just doesn't really fit into this new paradigm.
I can't wait for Plague Marines to be 28 points each. It's divisible by 7, which is Nurgle's sacred number.
28 if they want to kill off Death Guard as an army. Otherwise they'll go for 21 points since that is also divisible by 7. Even better is that it is the multiplication of 7 and 3 which are both prime numbers
cuda1179 wrote: Compared to the old, 1 wound, 18 point PM here is what I see. The old PM was a little too over pointed.
2 wounds with new DR is better than 1 wound with old DR. This change alone made PM's worth 18 points. Now throw in better AP in their knives and the ability to move and shoot, and they are worth more than 18 points. 26 is way too much, but 19 is way too low. 21-23 seems good to me depending on what other changes are made.
I really hope it's not more than 23 points considering the sidegrade on FNP and that PMs were bad at 18 under their old rules and profile. 22 points would be fantastic.
I vote for 21 points, 7 x 3 ftw. The faction won't be over the top good either way, take a hit for the sake of fluff GW, won't someone please think of the nurglings ?!?!?
AngryAngel80 wrote: I vote for 21 points, 7 x 3 ftw. The faction won't be over the top good either way, take a hit for the sake of fluff GW, won't someone please think of the nurglings ?!?!?
If they were 21 ppm I would trip all over myself to put PMs on the table. But I doubt they will be only 1 point more than an Intercessor, even if an Intercessor gets a much better gun and has doctrines.
cuda1179 wrote: Compared to the old, 1 wound, 18 point PM here is what I see. The old PM was a little too over pointed.
2 wounds with new DR is better than 1 wound with old DR. This change alone made PM's worth 18 points. Now throw in better AP in their knives and the ability to move and shoot, and they are worth more than 18 points. 26 is way too much, but 19 is way too low. 21-23 seems good to me depending on what other changes are made.
I really hope it's not more than 23 points considering the sidegrade on FNP and that PMs were bad at 18 under their old rules and profile. 22 points would be fantastic.
It isn't JUST the extra wound you're getting though. You're getting the extra attack and AP-1 Knife, and the always double tapping Bolter. Thats WAY better than the old profile, and the whining is quite frankly mind boggling.
Tyel wrote: I mean that is why Terminators got a 5++.
You completely missed my point.
The Terminator save works against everything. This iconic durability has no additional effect against the weaker weapons, which makes zero sense.
The 5++ didn't work against Bolters, so argument is invalid there. Then again we still have people wanting W3 Terminators with the same 3+ on 2D6 that existed before. I guess some standards are just impossible, or stupid, or both.
GW stated units would gain 20% in cost with the extra wound. DR is worse in many cases now and the DG still have a weaker chapter trait when compared to the loyalists who have 2 trait benefits vs 1. Who knows about contagions vs doctrines that may change my opinion. With all that information and the historical examples, I expect PMs to cost 22pts each. If they go above 23pts then they will stay on the shelf. Being resilient is cool, but you have to be able to kill stuff to win. PMs haven’t seen play in a long time in most lists, I hope they become useful.
Ugg our daemon engines are going to be stupid expensive and in almost all instances got far less resilient.
Hmm, if our terminators are going up to 3 wounds, then our terminators probably got better with this change. Firstly, terminators have a 2+ armor save. In cover, it gets even better. small arms fire seems like a waster of time against T5, 3W terminators with a 2+ armor save. Now now, against those higher damage weapons, Terminators auto reduce the damage by 1. It is going to be a pain to kill DG terminators not to mention our terminators have a 4++. So we save against high damage weapons half the time anyway.
A DG terminator can literally take a lascannon shot to the torso and have a pretty high chance of surviving.
The way the article is worded, it seems to imply that DG vehicles will have the new DR. From the article "Of course, larger, tougher units such as Plagueburst Crawlers and Mortarion will also be harder than ever to drop to their wounded profile levels, let alone destroy." I am hopeful that DG vehicles get the new DR as well.
Wow. Lots of heat going on here when everyone really agrees:
1) Disgustingly Resilient in Isolation: -1 Damage is strictly worst than a 5+ Ignore Wounds
2) Line Infantry: Between the new DR and the additional Wound, Plague Marines and the other Core Infantry are overall more resilient. The additional wound means it takes more small arms to kill them now before. Combined with the new DR, formerly 1 Wound units more resilient to D2 weapons although they lose the theoretical ability to survive 3+ Damage attacks. Similarly, formerly 2 Wound models are more resilient to D2 and D3 weapons.
3) More than 3 Wound Models lose out when targeted by anti-tank weapons, since they never reduce damage by more than 1 per attack.
We now need to wait and see what the Contagions of Nurgle entail. Note, the Contagions of Nurgle are pages 62-63 (per the Mortarion datasheet) while Contagion abilities are on page 63. I think this means Contagions of Nurgle is more than just a pure army ability like Doctrines. It is probably also the home of abilities like Malicious Volleys (from Day 1 preview) and Nurgle's Gift (from the Greater Blight Drone). Of course, it could be that Mortarion just doesn't have those abilities.
H.B.M.C. wrote: This iconic durability has no additional effect against the weaker weapons, which makes zero sense.
I think it does in the sense that marines, plague or no, already don't really care about units that wield S3, AP0 weapons. Even S4, AP 0/-1 aren't really raising a welt on them. I never got all that ruffled when 30 Guardsmen were shooting at my Primaris in 8th. Why would a Death Guard player suddenly be in panic that they lost their last resort rolls against these same kinds of attacks that usually didn't amount to anything.
Straight up, if this is truly seen and an issue with Plague Marines, I'd rather them just have rules outright saying they are immune to S3 and below weapons than bother rolling dice and both players hoping for spikes when the reality is so little happens. And this comes from someone that brought down Blightlord Terminators with Chaos Cultists in Kill Team before.
I'll admit it initially feels off, but I think in actual play it will play a lot smoother and Plague Marines still feel pretty resilient compared to what some here are thinking. And I am just as invested that Death Guard work in 9th as I commission painted a whole Death Guard army for a new player that I want to have a great, fun time in 9th. I am probably more concerned his army works over any of mine at this point.
Yeah, I think people need to play test the new DG with the new DR before they jump to the conclusion that the new DG units are bad against small arms fire.
The increase from 1W to 2W is a big buff against small arms fire. Consider this, previously, a lucky las gun shot that got through your T5 and armor save would have a 2/3 chance of killing your plague marine.
Now a lucky las gun shot that gets through your T5 and armor save would have a 0% chance of killing your plague marine because its on 2W.
Our basic Plague marines already got a massive buff in resilience against small arms fire just by going to 2W.
I mean, lets take 20 shots of las guns against the new Plague marines. So, half hit, so 10 hits go through. Then only 1/3 of them wound, so 3.33 of them wound. And then 1/3 of them gets saved by the armor, so 1.11 wounds get through. Yay, congratulations, you killed ... Zero plague marine with 20 las gun shots.
With the old DR, if you are unlucky, you can fail the DR save 2/3 of the time and end up losing 1 plague marine from those 20 shots.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I think the rule is the opposite of what it should be. The idea of PMs is that they shrug off smaller arms fire and can only be reliably killed by big high-damage weapons. This makes them less vulnerable to what kills them best in the fluff, while the d1 weapons they are supposedly most resistant to are the most efficient way to kill them.
That's 100% my qualm with the rule. It doesn't make any sense that the Death Guard's trademark resilience ability only kicks in against D2+ weapons. I get that the old 5+++ had its issues but at least it impacted (or could impact) everything in the game. Felt far more appropriate thematically.
Would have been easy to adjust too. Make disgustingly resilient a 6+ but you add 1 to the roll against D1 weapons.
The pessimistic side of me thinks that GW did it this way because they wanted death guard to die to bolsters so that vanilla marines wouldn't get sad and have to actually diversify loadouts. The realistic side of me is still scratching it's head as to WHY. I cannot think of a good reason to change the rule in this way.
AngryAngel80 wrote: I vote for 21 points, 7 x 3 ftw. The faction won't be over the top good either way, take a hit for the sake of fluff GW, won't someone please think of the nurglings ?!?!?
If they were 21 ppm I would trip all over myself to put PMs on the table. But I doubt they will be only 1 point more than an Intercessor, even if an Intercessor gets a much better gun and has doctrines.
Why not though ? Even at a good bargain price you have to look at the whole faction, marines still end up better when you take into account all of their choices, ability and combos. All it would do is give DG a real winner choice for troops, I don't see any real issue with that.
The logistics of properly resolving D2+ attacks against multi model W2+ units with traditional FNP is probably enough to justify this change on the infantry.
It's a big hit to the single model entries (Vehicles, Princes, Morty) Hopefully there is more for them that takes that into account.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I think the rule is the opposite of what it should be. The idea of PMs is that they shrug off smaller arms fire and can only be reliably killed by big high-damage weapons. This makes them less vulnerable to what kills them best in the fluff, while the d1 weapons they are supposedly most resistant to are the most efficient way to kill them.
That's 100% my qualm with the rule. It doesn't make any sense that the Death Guard's trademark resilience ability only kicks in against D2+ weapons. I get that the old 5+++ had its issues but at least it impacted (or could impact) everything in the game. Felt far more appropriate thematically.
Would have been easy to adjust too. Make disgustingly resilient a 6+ but you add 1 to the roll against D1 weapons.
The pessimistic side of me thinks that GW did it this way because they wanted death guard to die to bolsters so that vanilla marines wouldn't get sad and have to actually diversify loadouts. The realistic side of me is still scratching it's head as to WHY. I cannot think of a good reason to change the rule in this way.
I mostly agree on both your points.
However, I think we'll see massed PM spam with psycher spam to try and protect us from MW in the psychic phase. Thanks to our vehicles now being absolute poop.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eldarain wrote: The logistics of properly resolving D2+ attacks against multi model W2+ units with traditional FNP is probably enough to justify this change on the infantry.
.
Yeah, because who wants any sort of dice rolling, chance and complexity in their game?
NinthMusketeer wrote: I think the rule is the opposite of what it should be. The idea of PMs is that they shrug off smaller arms fire and can only be reliably killed by big high-damage weapons. This makes them less vulnerable to what kills them best in the fluff, while the d1 weapons they are supposedly most resistant to are the most efficient way to kill them.
That's 100% my qualm with the rule. It doesn't make any sense that the Death Guard's trademark resilience ability only kicks in against D2+ weapons. I get that the old 5+++ had its issues but at least it impacted (or could impact) everything in the game. Felt far more appropriate thematically.
Would have been easy to adjust too. Make disgustingly resilient a 6+ but you add 1 to the roll against D1 weapons.
The pessimistic side of me thinks that GW did it this way because they wanted death guard to die to bolsters so that vanilla marines wouldn't get sad and have to actually diversify loadouts. The realistic side of me is still scratching it's head as to WHY. I cannot think of a good reason to change the rule in this way.
I mostly agree on both your points.
However, I think we'll see massed PM spam with psycher spam to try and protect us from MW in the psychic phase. Thanks to our vehicles now being absolute poop.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eldarain wrote: The logistics of properly resolving D2+ attacks against multi model W2+ units with traditional FNP is probably enough to justify this change on the infantry.
.
Yeah, because who wants any sort of dice rolling, chance and complexity in their game?
except plenty of people HAVE been complaining about rolling too many dice. I mean seriously are you new to these fourms?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The 5++ didn't work against Bolters, so argument is invalid there.
And you don't understand the point either. Terminators got the 5+ save because they weren't durable against things that they were meant to be able to withstand. They should be able to take the odd hit from a plasma gun or a Lascannon, so they got the 5+. They weren't having trouble with small-arms, as the 3rd-7th AP system and their 2+ save worked fine against those.
Look at what I actually wrote:
"It's also another one of those "doesn't scale well" rules, where it's meant to make them tougher, but somehow has no effect on the lowest damage weapons, which makes no sense. It'd be like saying that Terminators are dying too easily, so we'll give them a 2+ Invulnerable save, but only against weapons S9 and above."
Alright kids, settle down. I see that DG players have been in an uproar all morning debating all over the Internet whether this huge change to disgustingly resilient is amazing or whether it's a fatal nerf to the army. Let's look at the facts and math and break it down. Obviously this is all solely in a vacuum, but I've seen a lot of people vehemently arguing (incorrectly) that this change is in and of itself overall an improvement when in fact it's overall a large nerf. But does that mean you should run out and sell your Death Guard? Not so fast.
Pros:
- Obviously, -1 to damage taken is fantastic versus damage 2 weapons, which will be more common as we head into weapons changes for 9th edition.
- Plague Marines will arguably be the big winners when combined with all the other new changes. They are going to 2 wounds and are already toughness 5. There are also multiple ways for them to get a cover save and also -1 to hit. They now also are not slowed by terrain in cover. 2 wound Plague Marines with toughness 5 in cover will be very hard to shift with damage 1 weapons in most cases, even after losing a 5+++. With damage 2 being knocked down to damage 1, it's probably a great outcome.
- The change offers several advantages at a competitive level. A 5+++ was rather variable, whereas the -1 damage will be in effect 100% of the time. No more losing a round at an event because you made 0 disgustingly resilient saves. On top of that, you now burn a lot less time on your chess clock making dice rolls.
- The reduction in variance is really going to shine in certain weapon-to-model matchups. Think of the new 3-wound terminators getting shot with multiple 3-damage weapons. Previously, doing the rolls one unsaved attack at a time, you would fail all 3 5+++ rolls at once on some rolls, with one attack wiping out one terminator in some cases. With a -1 damage, it flatly reduces every attack to 2 damage, causing "wasted" attacks (2 attacks for 4 wounds to kill one 3-wound terminator) 100% of the time. Therefore even though technically a 5+++ provides more durability versus 3 damage attacks than -1 damage (more on that below), in this case the -1 damage is much more helpful given that the odds of a 5++ terminator surviving through more than 2 attacks at damage 3 each is extremely low.
- Because overall the -1 to damage provides a lot less durability to the entire army (see below), I am hopeful that this means most units in the codex won't go up too much in points despite a lot of other improvements that GW has already previewed.
Cons:
- The loss of 5+++ is a mathematically a MUCH bigger loss than most people think. People are incorrectly claiming that there is no change for damage 3 weapons. That's not true. The old mechanic was stronger than a 33% increase in durability, because every wound saved once with 5+++ has the potential of being saved again with the same mechanic later. Here's a good excerpt from a great Hammer of Math Goonhammer article from September 7th:
"[O]ne must also consider that every point of damage that has to be dealt because one wound was ignored is also subject to the possibility of being ignored. This compounding effect means that the bonus is greater than the raw probability of success. [...] a 5+++ is effective 150% more wounds."
- This means that in literally every situation except for damage 2 attacks, the new -1 to damage brings less durability than the old 5+++. In the case of damage 1 attacks, you go from 150% durability to 100% durability, a huge loss of 50%. For damage 3 weapons it's slightly worse, and for damage 4 or higher it's much worse the more damage per attack. Even for damage 2 attacks, your increase to durability is only 200% versus an effective 150% with 5+++.
- As everyone immediately realized, the new -1 damage also does 0 versus mortal wounds, so again it's a drop 50% durability rather than 33% as people thought. That means against purely mortal wounds, Mortarion went from an effective 27 wounds to 18 wounds. While this would be a huge loss for any army, it is a bigger loss for Death Guard than anyone else because DG are famously high toughness and they pay for that part of their profiles. Mortal wounds of course completely ignore toughness. Not to mention that DG of course are almost army-wide 3+ and 2+ saves which mortal wounds also ignore.
- I think vehicles and especially Mortarion are by far the biggest losers, as per all of the above points. They are the highest toughness models and have the most wounds and are the most likely to get show with weapons that are 3 to 9+ damage a pop. This is especially true with the change to melta weapons being 3 + d6 damage. Previously you had an effective 50% improved resilience versus any melta shots that didn't finish off the model, with 33% on whatever attack finally finishes off the last wound (not that it matters at that point). Now you only drop 1 damage in the worst case scenario of a 9 damage attack, a less than 12% increase in durability.
Conclusion:
Despite what some people are claiming, this change is overall a massive nerf to the whole army. New 2-wound Plague Marines are (very arguably) overall slight winners in practice under the new rule when combined with other changes in the codex despite a technical drop in durability, for 3-wound models like Terminators it will depend on a number of factors, and for all other models it's probably a huge nerf.
However, there may be a lot of other changes and new options in the codex that make the situation a lot more rosy for vehicles, terminators, and characters. Most importantly, we have not yet seen points changes. Even if Mortarion lost a lot of durability with this change, we also know he went to toughness 8 with no points increase and got some new special rules. So even if for example Plagueburst Crawlers lost a lot of durability overall, perhaps that means they didn't go up in points despite bumping up to 3+ WS/BS and getting some other little boosts.
Yes, in a vacuum this change is clearly a large nerf for Death Guard but we've already seen so many changes previewed that in my opinion we can't view this change in a vacuum and we'll have to reserve final judgement until we have 100% of the information. It could well be that even if disgustingly resilient itself is worse than before, the army overall is far more powerful post-codex than pre-codex.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I think the rule is the opposite of what it should be. The idea of PMs is that they shrug off smaller arms fire and can only be reliably killed by big high-damage weapons. This makes them less vulnerable to what kills them best in the fluff, while the d1 weapons they are supposedly most resistant to are the most efficient way to kill them.
That's 100% my qualm with the rule. It doesn't make any sense that the Death Guard's trademark resilience ability only kicks in against D2+ weapons. I get that the old 5+++ had its issues but at least it impacted (or could impact) everything in the game. Felt far more appropriate thematically.
Would have been easy to adjust too. Make disgustingly resilient a 6+ but you add 1 to the roll against D1 weapons.
The pessimistic side of me thinks that GW did it this way because they wanted death guard to die to bolsters so that vanilla marines wouldn't get sad and have to actually diversify loadouts. The realistic side of me is still scratching it's head as to WHY. I cannot think of a good reason to change the rule in this way.
I mostly agree on both your points.
However, I think we'll see massed PM spam with psycher spam to try and protect us from MW in the psychic phase. Thanks to our vehicles now being absolute poop.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eldarain wrote: The logistics of properly resolving D2+ attacks against multi model W2+ units with traditional FNP is probably enough to justify this change on the infantry.
.
Yeah, because who wants any sort of dice rolling, chance and complexity in their game?
MOAR DICE ROLLING is not complexity in any way, shape, or form.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I think the rule is the opposite of what it should be. The idea of PMs is that they shrug off smaller arms fire and can only be reliably killed by big high-damage weapons. This makes them less vulnerable to what kills them best in the fluff, while the d1 weapons they are supposedly most resistant to are the most efficient way to kill them.
That's 100% my qualm with the rule. It doesn't make any sense that the Death Guard's trademark resilience ability only kicks in against D2+ weapons. I get that the old 5+++ had its issues but at least it impacted (or could impact) everything in the game. Felt far more appropriate thematically.
Would have been easy to adjust too. Make disgustingly resilient a 6+ but you add 1 to the roll against D1 weapons.
The pessimistic side of me thinks that GW did it this way because they wanted death guard to die to bolsters so that vanilla marines wouldn't get sad and have to actually diversify loadouts. The realistic side of me is still scratching it's head as to WHY. I cannot think of a good reason to change the rule in this way.
I mostly agree on both your points.
However, I think we'll see massed PM spam with psycher spam to try and protect us from MW in the psychic phase. Thanks to our vehicles now being absolute poop.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eldarain wrote: The logistics of properly resolving D2+ attacks against multi model W2+ units with traditional FNP is probably enough to justify this change on the infantry.
.
Yeah, because who wants any sort of dice rolling, chance and complexity in their game?
MOAR DICE ROLLING is not complexity in any way, shape, or form.
No, but more rules are more complexity and more strategic.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I think the rule is the opposite of what it should be. The idea of PMs is that they shrug off smaller arms fire and can only be reliably killed by big high-damage weapons. This makes them less vulnerable to what kills them best in the fluff, while the d1 weapons they are supposedly most resistant to are the most efficient way to kill them.
That's 100% my qualm with the rule. It doesn't make any sense that the Death Guard's trademark resilience ability only kicks in against D2+ weapons. I get that the old 5+++ had its issues but at least it impacted (or could impact) everything in the game. Felt far more appropriate thematically.
Would have been easy to adjust too. Make disgustingly resilient a 6+ but you add 1 to the roll against D1 weapons.
The pessimistic side of me thinks that GW did it this way because they wanted death guard to die to bolsters so that vanilla marines wouldn't get sad and have to actually diversify loadouts. The realistic side of me is still scratching it's head as to WHY. I cannot think of a good reason to change the rule in this way.
I mostly agree on both your points.
However, I think we'll see massed PM spam with psycher spam to try and protect us from MW in the psychic phase. Thanks to our vehicles now being absolute poop.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eldarain wrote: The logistics of properly resolving D2+ attacks against multi model W2+ units with traditional FNP is probably enough to justify this change on the infantry.
.
Yeah, because who wants any sort of dice rolling, chance and complexity in their game?
MOAR DICE ROLLING is not complexity in any way, shape, or form.
No, but more rules are more complexity and more strategic.
WOW someone must've missed the train wreck of what happens with MOAR RULES = MOAR COMPLEX in 7th.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I think the rule is the opposite of what it should be. The idea of PMs is that they shrug off smaller arms fire and can only be reliably killed by big high-damage weapons. This makes them less vulnerable to what kills them best in the fluff, while the d1 weapons they are supposedly most resistant to are the most efficient way to kill them.
That's 100% my qualm with the rule. It doesn't make any sense that the Death Guard's trademark resilience ability only kicks in against D2+ weapons. I get that the old 5+++ had its issues but at least it impacted (or could impact) everything in the game. Felt far more appropriate thematically.
Would have been easy to adjust too. Make disgustingly resilient a 6+ but you add 1 to the roll against D1 weapons.
The pessimistic side of me thinks that GW did it this way because they wanted death guard to die to bolsters so that vanilla marines wouldn't get sad and have to actually diversify loadouts. The realistic side of me is still scratching it's head as to WHY. I cannot think of a good reason to change the rule in this way.
I mostly agree on both your points.
However, I think we'll see massed PM spam with psycher spam to try and protect us from MW in the psychic phase. Thanks to our vehicles now being absolute poop.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eldarain wrote: The logistics of properly resolving D2+ attacks against multi model W2+ units with traditional FNP is probably enough to justify this change on the infantry.
.
Yeah, because who wants any sort of dice rolling, chance and complexity in their game?
MOAR DICE ROLLING is not complexity in any way, shape, or form.
No, but more rules are more complexity and more strategic.
WOW someone must've missed the train wreck of what happens with MOAR RULES = MOAR COMPLEX in 7th.
Things aren't always black or white. There IS a middle ground.
I don't really have a horse in this race other than being up against DG regularly at my local meta.
I have to say it seems like a slight nerf and a side grade at first glance.
BUT at this point we dont know if a FNP is on the menu via strat, relic, or trait. Also no idea what powers are available.
Also, consider these Dg will be riding in rhinos with duty eternal... And duty eternal on everything potentially. Way to many variables at this stage. GW is playing it close to the chest without a single strat.
I fully expect a 5++/6++ in an aura/targeted ability to core to be a thing..
Also.. really tough troops, good at melee riding in cheap transports with duty eternal.. Seems pretty good combo for the way 9th works atm.
Argive wrote: Seems GW has stirred the proverbial hornets nest!
I don't really have a horse in this race other than being up against DG regularly at my local meta.
I have to say it seems like a slight nerf and a side grade at first glance.
BUT at this point we dont know if a FNP is on the menu via strat, relic, or trait. Also no idea what powers are available.
Also, consider these Dg will be riding in rhinos with duty eternal... And duty eternal on everything potentially. Way to many variables at this stage. GW is playing it close to the chest without a single strat.
I fully expect a 5++/6++ in an aura/targeted ability to core to be a thing..
Also.. really tough troops, good at melee riding in cheap transports with duty eternal.. Seems pretty good combo for the way 9th works atm.
I agree on your points, but a 5+++ aura is highly unlikely. I can see a 6+++ aura for only CORE, but that is just a slap in the face.
Yes, I agree on the Rhino. I just wish our Rhinos got a slight buff. Either +2" movement or +1 toughness, but that last one is extremely unlikely.
With how GW rolls, I honestly expect a few ways for a FnP to be accessible, via aura or strat. Auras would be locked to CORE but a strat would likely have more flexibility.
Argive wrote: Seems GW has stirred the proverbial hornets nest!
I don't really have a horse in this race other than being up against DG regularly at my local meta.
I have to say it seems like a slight nerf and a side grade at first glance.
BUT at this point we dont know if a FNP is on the menu via strat, relic, or trait. Also no idea what powers are available.
Also, consider these Dg will be riding in rhinos with duty eternal... And duty eternal on everything potentially. Way to many variables at this stage. GW is playing it close to the chest without a single strat.
I fully expect a 5++/6++ in an aura/targeted ability to core to be a thing..
Also.. really tough troops, good at melee riding in cheap transports with duty eternal.. Seems pretty good combo for the way 9th works atm.
Argive wrote: Seems GW has stirred the proverbial hornets nest!
I don't really have a horse in this race other than being up against DG regularly at my local meta.
I have to say it seems like a slight nerf and a side grade at first glance.
BUT at this point we dont know if a FNP is on the menu via strat, relic, or trait. Also no idea what powers are available.
Also, consider these Dg will be riding in rhinos with duty eternal... And duty eternal on everything potentially. Way to many variables at this stage. GW is playing it close to the chest without a single strat.
I fully expect a 5++/6++ in an aura/targeted ability to core to be a thing..
Also.. really tough troops, good at melee riding in cheap transports with duty eternal.. Seems pretty good combo for the way 9th works atm.
I agree on your points, but a 5+++ aura is highly unlikely. I can see a 6+++ aura for only CORE, but that is just a slap in the face.
Yes, I agree on the Rhino. I just wish our Rhinos got a slight buff. Either +2" movement or +1 toughness, but that last one is extremely unlikely.
Argive wrote: Seems GW has stirred the proverbial hornets nest!
I don't really have a horse in this race other than being up against DG regularly at my local meta.
I have to say it seems like a slight nerf and a side grade at first glance.
BUT at this point we dont know if a FNP is on the menu via strat, relic, or trait. Also no idea what powers are available.
Also, consider these Dg will be riding in rhinos with duty eternal... And duty eternal on everything potentially. Way to many variables at this stage. GW is playing it close to the chest without a single strat.
I fully expect a 5++/6++ in an aura/targeted ability to core to be a thing..
Also.. really tough troops, good at melee riding in cheap transports with duty eternal.. Seems pretty good combo for the way 9th works atm.
I agree on your points, but a 5+++ aura is highly unlikely. I can see a 6+++ aura for only CORE, but that is just a slap in the face.
Yes, I agree on the Rhino. I just wish our Rhinos got a slight buff. Either +2" movement or +1 toughness, but that last one is extremely unlikely.
-1D isn't a buff?
-1D on Rhinos isn't making enough of a diff. It's gonna die just as easily.
Argive wrote: Seems GW has stirred the proverbial hornets nest!
I don't really have a horse in this race other than being up against DG regularly at my local meta.
I have to say it seems like a slight nerf and a side grade at first glance.
BUT at this point we dont know if a FNP is on the menu via strat, relic, or trait. Also no idea what powers are available.
Also, consider these Dg will be riding in rhinos with duty eternal... And duty eternal on everything potentially. Way to many variables at this stage. GW is playing it close to the chest without a single strat.
I fully expect a 5++/6++ in an aura/targeted ability to core to be a thing..
Also.. really tough troops, good at melee riding in cheap transports with duty eternal.. Seems pretty good combo for the way 9th works atm.
.... just a slap in the face..
Why?
Because we get scraps of what we used to have. That's why it's a proverbial slap in the face.
Argive wrote: Seems GW has stirred the proverbial hornets nest!
I don't really have a horse in this race other than being up against DG regularly at my local meta.
I have to say it seems like a slight nerf and a side grade at first glance.
BUT at this point we dont know if a FNP is on the menu via strat, relic, or trait. Also no idea what powers are available.
Also, consider these Dg will be riding in rhinos with duty eternal... And duty eternal on everything potentially. Way to many variables at this stage. GW is playing it close to the chest without a single strat.
I fully expect a 5++/6++ in an aura/targeted ability to core to be a thing..
Also.. really tough troops, good at melee riding in cheap transports with duty eternal.. Seems pretty good combo for the way 9th works atm.
I agree on your points, but a 5+++ aura is highly unlikely. I can see a 6+++ aura for only CORE, but that is just a slap in the face.
Yes, I agree on the Rhino. I just wish our Rhinos got a slight buff. Either +2" movement or +1 toughness, but that last one is extremely unlikely.
-1D isn't a buff?
-1D on Rhinos isn't making enough of a diff. It's gonna die just as easily.
We have no idea if PMs or other units will be better or worse. We don't have all the new rules, we don't have the point costs. We can debate if the new rule is worse or better, but that has only a flimsy connection to a given unit being worse or better, because point changes are a thing.
But we CAN agree that this new rule does the exact opposite of what it is ostensibly supposed to. That's what bugs me.
puma713 wrote: Nice summary by someone over on the DGFB page:;
Alright kids, settle down. ...
Quite frankly, I don't think anyone starting a post with this sentence is going to have the maturity to write something I care enough to read.
I wrote it. It's fine if you don't read it; plenty of people did and enjoyed it. We'll be happy to have the discussion without you.
If your post really is helpful (obviously I don't know) then it is a dam shame you chose to shoot your own credibility in the first four words and rebuild from there.
That post comes to the same conclusions that most of the people here already had come to.
Infantry became better with the changes.
Big stuff became worse (durability wise).
Honestly I like the fact that the heavy stuff is getting more killy and less though. Seeing DG parking lots just moving onto objectives made for boring games.
Now DG have the most durable infantry in the game to properly operate on the field, while they bring vehicles to get the heavy firepower, which is what vehicles should be for.
NinthMusketeer wrote: If your post really is helpful (obviously I don't know) then it is a dam shame you chose to shoot your own credibility in the first four words and rebuild from there.
This is a style over substance fallacy writ large. If you'd spent all the time you took going on about their tone reading the post instead, then maybe you could have a productive conversation about it.
NinthMusketeer wrote: If your post really is helpful (obviously I don't know) then it is a dam shame you chose to shoot your own credibility in the first four words and rebuild from there.
This is a style over substance fallacy writ large. If you'd spent all the time you took going on about their tone reading the post instead, then maybe you could have a productive conversation about it.
In other words: Just read it!
Well, I did. Spoletta was right; it was saying things we already knew. And it found an excessively long way to say it, plus chucking in a few disingenuous bits and math mistakes to boot. There is no information or conclusion in there that was not already well established 3 pages ago.
The proof will be in the pudding of the releases tomorrow of info, and point costs when we get those. The strats and such may help as well but without seeing how it all flows together it will be hard to say this won't over all still be good or at least highly workable.
It does kinda feel like it sucks a bit right now, but that may just be knee jerk reaction from change. I will say if they didn't bake in FNP for pox walkers, unless this is all great after that they are crap which makes me sad as I love me some zombies.
Why are people assuming rhinos are getting fnp? Nothing has suggested this.
In fact the only mention of any vehicles getting it specifically mentioned Daemon engines only which already have it.
Doohicky wrote: Why are people assuming rhinos are getting fnp? Nothing has suggested this.
In fact the only mention of any vehicles getting it specifically mentioned Daemon engines only which already have it.
Because they're confirmed rolling it out to other units that previously didn't have it and most books these days apply the army rules to the army, not just infantry, bikes and dreads as per current DG.
You could well be right that it doesn't apply to rhinos but I feel there's more suggestion it will.
Spoletta wrote: That post comes to the same conclusions that most of the people here already had come to.
Infantry became better with the changes.
Big stuff became worse (durability wise).
Honestly I like the fact that the heavy stuff is getting more killy and less though. Seeing DG parking lots just moving onto objectives made for boring games.
Now DG have the most durable infantry in the game to properly operate on the field, while they bring vehicles to get the heavy firepower, which is what vehicles should be for.
Something that's been coming with recent codexes is defenses against big damage weapons are getting weaker while stuff gets extra protection vs low damage weapons.
Necron quantum shield went from practically no effect to dam1-2 weapons and autoignore damage 7+(or 6 with stratagem), marine dreads got -1 damage that's now DR which gives bigger benefit the smaller damage is resulting in 24% damage reduction vs d6 damage, 33% vs d3 damage etc.
Well with core rules favouring vehicles and monsters codexes need to help infantry out anyway
Well, I did. Spoletta was right; it was saying things we already knew. And it found an excessively long way to say it, plus chucking in a few disingenuous bits and math mistakes to boot. There is no information or conclusion in there that was not already well established 3 pages ago.
That's why I called it a summary. Because many readers won't go back and read 3-4 pages worth of discussion.
Jidmah wrote: Oh, and they aren't tactical marines either.
Interesting claim, given earlier in the thread you stated:
Jidmah wrote: Tactical marines and plague marines were the same unit though, and if plague marines were anywhere near "perfectly balanced", they would show up in lists more and not be replaced by nurgle daemons by everyone. Their main use right now is the grenade combo, which I'm absolutely sure will go away.
Apparently this is Schrodinger's comparison, where units both are and are not the same...
* * *
Moving on - I think it is safe to say that Poxwalkers, Plaguebearers and Nurglings (plus anything that interacted with the old DR) will see some form of change. Whether that's FNP for Pox, a second wound for Plaguebearers, or the removal of the DR restriction for Nurglings, I don't know, but there will be some change.
It's an interesting observation from Morty's datasheet that Contagions of Nurgle may cover pgs 62-63 - there is possibility they're just on 63, with DR on 62, given all the Plague Weapons mention referring to pg 62 for their rules. We also know that Warlord traits seem to cover pages 41-43, and that the psychic powers are on pg 51.
Looking at the various previewed special rules, there's no mention of Inexorable Advance or Malicious Volleys on his datasheet - he should have the former, even if the latter has no benefit. Deadly Pathogens not being mentioned makes sense, though I do wonder if he or Typhus are legal targets for those upgrades. DR is obviously there, though not explained in full, and Remorseless doesn't fit for a few reasons.
I can see it as possible that CoN is a catch-all rule like Angels of Death, covering IA, MV and whatever the Contagion abilities are - and maybe even HA and DTtFE - but it'll be interesting to see, one way or another.
So an aura that applies -1 to Toughness scores with a radius that increases in every round. It appears(so far) that Death Guard will not be receiving any Angels of Death-esque rules.
It does push Death Guard into wanting to be close up and personal, especially early on.
Also, with this final reveal I am sticking to my gun that Plague Marines are going to be 21 points.
So the contagion ability is an expanding -1 Toughness aura. Shrug, it is ok but DG are too slow to make this super useful. It makes me feel like the blood angel’s fat and less loved younger brother. The BA are very fast and -1 to wound everything in combat.
So an aura that applies -1 to Toughness scores with a radius that increases in every round. It appears(so far) that Death Guard will not be receiving any Angels of Death-esque rules.
It does push Death Guard into wanting to be close up and personal, especially early on.
Also, with this final reveal I am sticking to my gun that Plague Marines are going to be 21 points.
Notice that the Contagions text seems to indicate that Nurgle's Gift is not the only Contagion in the book.
So an aura that applies -1 to Toughness scores with a radius that increases in every round. It appears(so far) that Death Guard will not be receiving any Angels of Death-esque rules.
It does push Death Guard into wanting to be close up and personal, especially early on.
Also, with this final reveal I am sticking to my gun that Plague Marines are going to be 21 points.
Notice that the Contagions text seems to indicate that Nurgle's Gift is not the only Contagion in the book.
"This unit gains the following ability" I.e. not select one of the following suggests thats it, don't get your hopes up.
So an aura that applies -1 to Toughness scores with a radius that increases in every round. It appears(so far) that Death Guard will not be receiving any Angels of Death-esque rules.
It does push Death Guard into wanting to be close up and personal, especially early on.
Also, with this final reveal I am sticking to my gun that Plague Marines are going to be 21 points.
Notice that the Contagions text seems to indicate that Nurgle's Gift is not the only Contagion in the book.
"This unit gains the following ability" I.e. not select one of the following suggests thats it, don't get your hopes up.
The whole box about Contagion Abilities seems to indicate otherwise. The language suggests that Nurgle's Gift isn't the only (Contagion). Otherwise, why have an entire block about Contagion Abilities, and qualify Nurgle's Gift as a (Contagion)?
Honestly I like it. Makes enemy melee more skittish about coming in range, makes DG better vs T7-8 since they can hit S6 and 8 pretty easy and might give Rhinos a places as a cheap troop hauler that casts an aura after dropping off it's cargo making the cargo's shooting stronger.
The whole box about Contagion Abilities seems to indicate otherwise. The language suggests that Nurgle's Gift isn't the only (Contagion). Otherwise, why have an entire block about Contagion Abilities, and qualify Nurgle's Gift as a (Contagion)?
Mortarion's datasheet seems to use the same wording. There are some named Plagues that are Warlord Trait equivalents apparently, maybe they are counted as Contagions?
ClockworkZion wrote: Honestly I like it. Makes enemy melee more skittish about coming in range, makes DG better vs T7-8 since they can hit S6 and 8 pretty easy and might give Rhinos a places as a cheap troop hauler that casts an aura after dropping off it's cargo making the cargo's shooting stronger.
But you lose access to all Allies for this rule and DG is SLOW as hell without making use of few Nurgle Daemon units (*cough* Nurglings)
Totally not convinced
So an aura that applies -1 to Toughness scores with a radius that increases in every round. It appears(so far) that Death Guard will not be receiving any Angels of Death-esque rules.
It does push Death Guard into wanting to be close up and personal, especially early on.
Also, with this final reveal I am sticking to my gun that Plague Marines are going to be 21 points.
Notice that the Contagions text seems to indicate that Nurgle's Gift is not the only Contagion in the book.
"This unit gains the following ability" I.e. not select one of the following suggests thats it, don't get your hopes up.
It may be particular characters or units having other Contagions in lieu of the default Nurgle's Gift, or maybe subfactions will unlock them. I have to agree though that the wording practically screams that Nurgle's Gift isn't the only one.
ClockworkZion wrote: Honestly I like it. Makes enemy melee more skittish about coming in range, makes DG better vs T7-8 since they can hit S6 and 8 pretty easy and might give Rhinos a places as a cheap troop hauler that casts an aura after dropping off it's cargo making the cargo's shooting stronger.
But you lose access to all Allies for this rule and DG is SLOW as hell without making use of few Nurgle Daemon units (*cough* Nurglings)
Totally not convinced
I just mentioned Rhino Rush which would increase the army's overall movement.
Bloat drones move 10" and carry assault weapons, one of which Autohits and both happen to be the new sweet spot of S6. Can probably easily be getting them within 3" of whatever you want to get wounds through on in turn two.
They are going to be very useful with the new codex.
Disappointed that Contagions is mono-DG. I guess there is a chance that Nurglings are in the book as a selection, but my confidence level is low on that.
Being able to deploy the terrain piece right into the middle of the board with a 9" aura straight off the bat could be interesting. Certainly would help the DG clear off units as they advance the first couple of turns.
Abaddon303 wrote: Bloat drones move 10" and carry assault weapons, one of which Autohits and both happen to be the new sweet spot of S6. Can probably easily be getting them within 3" of whatever you want to get wounds through on in turn two.
They are going to be very useful with the new codex.
Blight haulers look good too. Park stuff to tag multiple units and you buff the rest of the army shooting those targets too.
It says excluding Unaligned units. Does anyone know what that means? Would a nurgle daemon ben unaligned as it's not a legion? Surely that could and hopefully does make sense? Or could it just mean units in the codex that don't have the DG key word (perhaps Poxwalkers won't). I'd say the synergy side depends on that word's breadth.
Seems like Morty's -1T range increased and that there may be other benefits with it all. I'm guessing the old Lord of Contagion mortal wound radius will also be one of these contagions.
Semper wrote: It says excluding Unaligned units. Does anyone know what that means? Would a nurgle daemon ben unaligned as it's not a legion? Surely that could and hopefully does make sense? Or could it just mean units in the codex that don't have the DG key word (perhaps Poxwalkers won't). I'd say the synergy side depends on that word's breadth.
Seems like Morty's -1T range increased and that there may be other benefits with it all. I'm guessing the old Lord of Contagion mortal wound radius will also be one of these contagions.
No. Unaligned is usually the generic fortifications and some obscure stuff from Blackstone Fortress, etc.. It says so on the datasheet.
Abaddon303 wrote: Bloat drones move 10" and carry assault weapons, one of which Autohits and both happen to be the new sweet spot of S6. Can probably easily be getting them within 3" of whatever you want to get wounds through on in turn two.
They are going to be very useful with the new codex.
Blight haulers look good too. Park stuff to tag multiple units and you buff the rest of the army shooting those targets too.
Yeah I can see Blight Haulers moving to within 3" of enemy units on turn 2 as a sort of marker light for the rest of the army. That seems pretty neat.
puma713 wrote: Disappointed that Contagions is mono-DG. I guess there is a chance that Nurglings are in the book as a selection, but my confidence level is low on that.
It was rather clear that it would be mono-DG, wasn't it?
Now the question is, does VotLW remain or not?
I'm fairly convinced that it will not. I assume that most CP=Damage stratagems will go away.
I like the contagions but it does feel top heavy if you get what I mean.
It's rarely useful turn 1 and but is crazy powerful later turns when things tend to be close to each other.
It does mean that if DG get to objectives then other armies will be reluctant to get in close until they are sure a charge will clear out the DG unit.
Foul Blightspawn(If they still keep their rules) will be very useful now to stop mass charges.
Overall DG are very powerful in CC. No denying that, but I think their weakness is certainly anything that can skirt around and shooit them down. Unless DG can catch something in CC then outside of Daemon engines they don't have good enough firepower.
This is very much a case of wait and see what the points are. It could be very important
DttFE being gone and hateful assault being rolled into the profile I'm fine with (Assuming the latter doesn't add points)
I am not a fan of any rules that target a specific army type, even though DttFE helped me many times. Other examples which are fluffy but completely unbalanced include the Vengence for cadia strat and the anti daemon smites of GKs.
ClockworkZion wrote: Honestly I like it. Makes enemy melee more skittish about coming in range, makes DG better vs T7-8 since they can hit S6 and 8 pretty easy and might give Rhinos a places as a cheap troop hauler that casts an aura after dropping off it's cargo making the cargo's shooting stronger.
But you lose access to all Allies for this rule and DG is SLOW as hell without making use of few Nurgle Daemon units (*cough* Nurglings)
Totally not convinced
Jidmah wrote: Mortarion has no unknown rules left and if he doesn't want the Emperor dead, no one does
Could be an army wide rule instead of a datasheet one. They could even keyword lock it. We don't have proof it's gone yet.
Army wide rules are also on datasheets in 9th. It's not in the faction rules (inexorable advance), it's not in the doctrine (contagions) and it's not on the datasheet. Which simply means he doesn't have it anymore and got an extra attack to compensate.
Jidmah wrote: Mortarion has no unknown rules left and if he doesn't want the Emperor dead, no one does
Could be an army wide rule instead of a datasheet one. They could even keyword lock it. We don't have proof it's gone yet.
Army wide rules are also on datasheets in 9th. It's not in the faction rules (inexorable advance), it's not in the doctrine (contagions) and it's not on the datasheet. Which simply means he doesn't have it anymore and got an extra attack to compensate.
So the real question is if the rest of the DG will be getting it or not.
EDIT: I know it's possible it'll be gone. I'm just not jumping on the doom train. Too busy jumping on the Dark Eldar train and already annoyed by how ineffectual Incubi will be against DG.
Jidmah wrote: Mortarion has no unknown rules left and if he doesn't want the Emperor dead, no one does
"Inexorable Advance is a Detachment ability, which means that it applies to units in Battle-forged Death Guard Detachments."
Inexorable advance isn't going to be listed on sheets, but applies to detachments. Previously it was army wide. So we really have no idea what is or isn't going to similarly apply there with regards to DTTFE, Hateful Assault, etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm feeling confident that CSM and Cult Marines are being made into pseudo Primaris equivalents and DEFINITELY NOT tactical marine equivalents. Tacs are getting slowly dustbinned. So the extra attack is for equivalency and I'm of the opinion that Hateful Assault will be a detachment rule.
Inexoriable Advance is the legion trait, which is written in a way that you lose it when you mix daemons and DG in one detachment. It's also already a collection of abilities, and there is no reason for them to have a second one. We also have confirmation that Malicious Volleys will be on the datasheets, so there is no reason for Hateful Blows to not be on Mortarions datasheet.
But this isn't the first time people are ignoring overwhelming evidence because there is a sliver of a chance left that they might be right anyways, so you do you.
ClockworkZion wrote: Honestly I like it. Makes enemy melee more skittish about coming in range, makes DG better vs T7-8 since they can hit S6 and 8 pretty easy and might give Rhinos a places as a cheap troop hauler that casts an aura after dropping off it's cargo making the cargo's shooting stronger.
But you lose access to all Allies for this rule and DG is SLOW as hell without making use of few Nurgle Daemon units (*cough* Nurglings)
Totally not convinced
There has to be some penalty for taking allies.
There is. You pay CP for them. There doesn't need to be any more.
It's GW's usual over correction. Soup was an issue in the previous edition because, as usual, people have to find that one or two power builds and abuse it and then everyone has to have a huge cry about it because... well i'm not sure (this is why we can't have nice things). Now using allies removes army benefits and costs CP which has made it pointless? I'd like to use it but even in a fun game, why would I intentionally hamstring myself? It can sometimes be fun to set up an uphill battle but it shouldn't really be that for these sorts of things.
Unless the new Dexs really give us some sort of mix up that it better than an army wide -1T and worth at least 2CP. I'm immensely disappointed by that as I don't see how Nurgle daemons, for example, would stop the Death Guard having contagions? (I'm not sure how Khorne daemons would other than Nurgle purposefully spiting his warriors, but that aside). I'm still holding on hope that there will be a special rule to let Daemons of the same god not nullify CSM doctrine level abilities. As CSM having access to Daemons but only through being overly-penalised like that is just stupid.
Jidmah wrote: Inexoriable Advance is the legion trait, which is written in a way that you lose it when you mix daemons and DG in one detachment. It's also already a collection of abilities, and there is no reason for them to have a second one. We also have confirmation that Malicious Volleys will be on the datasheets, so there is no reason for Hateful Blows to not be on Mortarions datasheet.
But this isn't the first time people are ignoring overwhelming evidence because there is a sliver of a chance left that they might be right anyways, so you do you.
You can also choose to be super salty about what isn't true yet. It's "a" detachment ability, possibly not the only one. It's not a legion trait anymore, despite having been one previously.
Where is Malicious Volleys mentioned as being on data sheets?
I can see where people are coming from on both sides, I think the only reason that we might still see Hateful Assault as detachment ability is because it would apply to almost every unit in the codex, where as Malicious Volleys only applies to two non-vehicle datasheets, and potentially a couple generic characters if we still have them.
It doesn't apply to dreadnoughts or bikes anymore meaning that having it as a detachment ability would be odd. Makes sense to me that it's on datasheets if ~5 units out of the codex will benefit, especially since only 2 would be DG specific (technically 1 as PM can be taken by standard CSM).
That's just my 2 cents though. Also, Cult legions are supposed to be veterans right, or mainly comprised of such? Standard marine vets have 2A base plus SA, so it's not too far fetched to say that DG might get it. Especially since we've only seen the datasheet of a Primarch and a FW daemon engine for reference (Beyond the stat line and weapon profile).
In conclusion, I think ts a 40/60 chance that we see it, but I see no overwhelming evidence either way.
Jidmah wrote: Inexoriable Advance is the legion trait, which is written in a way that you lose it when you mix daemons and DG in one detachment. It's also already a collection of abilities, and there is no reason for them to have a second one. We also have confirmation that Malicious Volleys will be on the datasheets, so there is no reason for Hateful Blows to not be on Mortarions datasheet.
But this isn't the first time people are ignoring overwhelming evidence because there is a sliver of a chance left that they might be right anyways, so you do you.
"Overwhelming evidence" = one datasheet who may have traded it for always having that extra attack bonus and a lack of being mentioned in articles talking about new and changed rules.
Jidmah wrote: Inexoriable Advance is the legion trait, which is written in a way that you lose it when you mix daemons and DG in one detachment. It's also already a collection of abilities, and there is no reason for them to have a second one. We also have confirmation that Malicious Volleys will be on the datasheets, so there is no reason for Hateful Blows to not be on Mortarions datasheet.
But this isn't the first time people are ignoring overwhelming evidence because there is a sliver of a chance left that they might be right anyways, so you do you.
"Overwhelming evidence" = one datasheet who may have traded it for always having that extra attack bonus and a lack of being mentioned in articles talking about new and changed rules.
Not to mention, Inexorable advance having multiple abilities is the same as chapter tactics that have multiple abilities, and given that marines also have Angels of Death, an ability that has a collection of abilities, it's well within reason to speculate that Hateful Assault is a detachment ability. This, in addition to my previous points.
PoorGravitasHandling wrote: You can also choose to be super salty about what isn't true yet. It's "a" detachment ability, possibly not the only one. It's not a legion trait anymore, despite having been one previously.
I wasn't aware that applying logic and being realistic is considered being salty Hateful blows has been transformed into a flat +1A unless GW suddenly made it a detachment trait for no reason whatsoever, breaking not only with the previous edition, but also with the implementation of shock assault.
PoorGravitasHandling wrote: You can also choose to be super salty about what isn't true yet. It's "a" detachment ability, possibly not the only one. It's not a legion trait anymore, despite having been one previously.
I wasn't aware that applying logic and being realistic is considered being salty Hateful blows has been transformed into a flat +1A unless GW suddenly made it a detachment trait for no reason whatsoever, breaking not only with the previous edition, but also with the implementation of shock assault.
You make a very valid point, but Hateful Assault moving away from Shock Assault isn't too far of a stretch considering Malicious Volleys is different than Bolter Discipline in that in no longer includes bikers like Bolter Discipline does. That very well could be because DG have no bikers, but that would also mean that, unless the rule changes for normal CSM, those bikers lose Malicious volleys. So different placement of the rules verus the rules themselves being different seems like less of change
ClockworkZion wrote: "Overwhelming evidence" = one datasheet who may have traded it for always having that extra attack bonus and a lack of being mentioned in articles talking about new and changed rules.
FFS is there even a single person in this thread that has any interest in having a proper discussion?
Evidence for hateful blows being gone: - All datasheets have received +1A - Equivalent loyalist rule is NOT a detachment trait - No army has more than one detachment rule unless it has custom traits - Multiple detachment effects are always combined into one trait - It's missing from Mortarion's datasheet - It's not part of inexorable advance - It's not part of contagions of nurgle - It's not part of remorseless - Not mentioned in any of the previews even once
Evidence for hateful blows remaining: - "Most improved units" preview said plague marines got an extra attack - Hope
This thread:
Spoiler:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kharne the Befriender wrote: You make a very valid point, but Hateful Assault moving away from Shock Assault isn't too far of a stretch considering Malicious Volleys is different than Bolter Discipline in that in no longer includes bikers like Bolter Discipline does. That very well could be because DG have no bikers, but that would also mean that, unless the rule changes for normal CSM, those bikers lose Malicious volleys. So different placement of the rules verus the rules themselves being different seems like less of change
The death guard version of hateful volleys has always been missing bikes.
Is this a DG hellbrute or some sort of conversion? It looks familiar. but not something ive seen being sold recently.
Spoiler:
It's a regular helbrute with a nurgle icon attached to its chest that might be from the chaos rhino or land raider kits. The nurgling holding onto its chest is from the space marines heros models, I don't know where the one on the base is from.
ClockworkZion wrote: "Overwhelming evidence" = one datasheet who may have traded it for always having that extra attack bonus and a lack of being mentioned in articles talking about new and changed rules.
FFS is there even a single person in this thread that has any interest in having a proper discussion?
Evidence for hateful blows being gone:
- All datasheets have received +1A
- Equivalent loyalist rule is NOT a detachment trait
- No army has more than one detachment rule
- Outside Multiple detachment effects are always combined into one trait
- It's missing from Mortarion's datasheet
- It's not part of inexorable advance
- It's not part of contagions of nurgle
- It's not part of remorseless
- Not mentioned in any of the previews even once
Evidence for hateful blows remaining:
- "Most improved units" preview said plague marines got an extra attack
- Hope
This thread:
Spoiler:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kharne the Befriender wrote: You make a very valid point, but Hateful Assault moving away from Shock Assault isn't too far of a stretch considering Malicious Volleys is different than Bolter Discipline in that in no longer includes bikers like Bolter Discipline does. That very well could be because DG have no bikers, but that would also mean that, unless the rule changes for normal CSM, those bikers lose Malicious volleys. So different placement of the rules verus the rules themselves being different seems like less of change
The death guard version of hateful volleys has always been missing bikes.
I had completely missed that Plague Marines got buffed attacks. Probably because it was buried in an article from nearly two weeks ago.
And you're making sweeping claims about detachment rules, unless you've seen the full codex already. GW has shifted gears between books before.
And as it has been pointed out before: these rule previews have ONLY been about new or changed rules. We don't know what rules where flat out removed yet.
Kharne the Befriender wrote: You make a very valid point, but Hateful Assault moving away from Shock Assault isn't too far of a stretch considering Malicious Volleys is different than Bolter Discipline in that in no longer includes bikers like Bolter Discipline does. That very well could be because DG have no bikers, but that would also mean that, unless the rule changes for normal CSM, those bikers lose Malicious volleys. So different placement of the rules verus the rules themselves being different seems like less of change
The death guard version of hateful volleys has always been missing bikes.
I was not aware, then yeah, it does seem the majority of evidence points to no Hateful Assault. Hopefully we get a WL trait or relic, maybe even a strat, to compensate.
But PM still seem good without it, and we might be on par with marines for rules:
Marines have:
-Angels of Death (4: Combat Doctrines, ATSKNF, Bolter Discipline, Shock Assault)
-Chapter Tactic
-Potential Super Doctrine
ClockworkZion wrote: I had completely missed that Plague Marines got buffed attacks. Probably because it was buried in an article from nearly two weeks ago.
There is a thorough summary in the first post. I know this has gone out of style, but I've always been a huge fan of not having to sift through the entire thread for info.
And you're making sweeping claims about detachment rules, unless you've seen the full codex already. GW has shifted gears between books before.
And as it has been pointed out before: these rule previews have ONLY been about new or changed rules. We don't know what rules where flat out removed yet.
These two contradict each other. Either it wasn't shown because it remained unchanged, then it should have been on Mortarion's datasheet. Plus, they've also shown volleys and plague weapons.
Or it was changed, then it should have been shown.
I think a more apt comparison would be against primaris marines (Let's say an Intercessors and PMs)
In common they both have:
-Ws/Bs 3+, S4, 2A, 2W, Ld7/8, Sv3+
-Bolter Discipline/Malicious Volleys
-ATSKNF/Remorseless
-Chapter Tactics/Inexorable Advance (Hard to compare them given the innumerable CT combos and such)
-Sergeant with varying loadout
Primaris Intercessor has:
-1" better movement
-Shock assault
-Combat Doctrines
-Super Doctrine
-More standard loadout optionss
-Better stats on standard guns
Plague Marine has
-+1T
-Contagions of Nurgle
-Disgustingly Resilient
-Better melee weapons and melee loadouts
-Potential for more attacks (Vectors)
-Special weapons
1. Special/Melee weapons are paid for, they are not free. The cost of having them should be in the weapon, not the base model (Bar the knives of course)
2. Base, with what we know now, Intercessors have more attacks in CC due to shock assault.
Vectors which is only applicable when paying extra points and losing all range attacks brings it equal.
PMs have more options, but they have to pay a lot for those options. If you wanted to create a CC squad with the points you are mooting it would be 28-30pts per man with no ranged attacks (Going with axes).
3. Lots of what you listed for PMs is only worthwhile in CC.
I honestly think 21-22 points each would be a good cost, 23 at a push.
Doohicky wrote: On another note, I don't PMs should be costing more because they can mix CC and ranged weapons.
Maybe I am naive, but I only ever see them run as Shooty or CC, it's never a mix.
I would be just as happy to have one version be CC options only and one version be ranged only.
It's not like DG have much in the way of options for troops
People also forget that even with a bump in CC and options, Plague Marines aren't exactly the speediest units on the table. Very few were picking much of CC except maybe the flails in 8th.
Doohicky wrote: On another note, I don't PMs should be costing more because they can mix CC and ranged weapons.
Maybe I am naive, but I only ever see them run as Shooty or CC, it's never a mix.
I would be just as happy to have one version be CC options only and one version be ranged only.
It's not like DG have much in the way of options for troops
People also forget that even with a bump in CC and options, Plague Marines aren't exactly the speediest units on the table. Very few were picking much of CC except maybe the flails in 8th.
I mean I know they're slower than normal marine but is 1" really that much slower if you factornin advances or using transports?
Plenty of the fast attack options are quick enough and assumingly packing the toughness aura etc to tie an enemy up.
I like the contagions rules, to me it hits that perfect zone of fluffy, useful, and practical. I like that there is a benefit for running mono-DG, and I really like that the benefit is such that there is a tough choice to be made between the advantages of a daemon detachment or the contagions.
ClockworkZion wrote: "Overwhelming evidence" = one datasheet who may have traded it for always having that extra attack bonus and a lack of being mentioned in articles talking about new and changed rules.
FFS is there even a single person in this thread that has any interest in having a proper discussion?
Evidence for hateful blows being gone:
- All datasheets have received +1A
- Equivalent loyalist rule is NOT a detachment trait
- No army has more than one detachment rule unless it has custom traits
- Multiple detachment effects are always combined into one trait
- It's missing from Mortarion's datasheet
- It's not part of inexorable advance
- It's not part of contagions of nurgle
- It's not part of remorseless
- Not mentioned in any of the previews even once
Evidence for hateful blows remaining:
- "Most improved units" preview said plague marines got an extra attack
- Hope
This thread:
Spoiler:
So my take on this, and I admit I am making some assumptions is that if you compare the Death Guard rules to Space Marines:
Space Marines
Chapter Tactics
Angels of Death (umbrella rule containing the following)
.Know no Fear
.Bolter Discipline
.Shock Assault
.Doctrines (mono faction restricted) turn based boost of AP
So the two match almost perfectly. Today's preview was called contagions of nurgle but the actual -1T ability is called Nurgles Gift and was referred to as a contagion ability. The way it was written suggested it's not the only contagion ability either.
We know malicious volleys and remorseless exist and we haven't yet seen them on a datasheet, admittedly the only datasheet we've seen is Morty's and most of what I am putting under the umbrella doesn't affect him. DTTFE may even fall under Contagions of Nurgle too.
If there is no umbrella rule like Angels of Death then on almost every datasheet they are going to have to print the following abilities:
Disgustingly Resilient
Remorseless
Malicious Volleys
Contagions of Nurgle
Hateful Assault?
DTTFE?
Even if the last two are no longer a thing, four abilities seems excessive on every datasheet.
So I don't agree that there is overwhelming evidence to suggest Hateful Assault is gone.
puma713 wrote: Disappointed that Contagions is mono-DG. I guess there is a chance that Nurglings are in the book as a selection, but my confidence level is low on that.
Well of course it's mono-DG. Everyone knows that Nurgle Daemons don't spread contagion and, in fact, stop Plague Marines from spreading contagion whenever they show up.
Anyone else notice at the bottom of today's article it mentions that the Death Guard terrain piece can be deployed 12inches away from enemies, and treats the Contagions as turn 4? It might actually be worth using depending on points, especially as a LOS blockers or dropping on an important objective.
l0k1 wrote: Anyone else notice at the bottom of today's article it mentions that the Death Guard terrain piece can be deployed 12inches away from enemies, and treats the Contagions as turn 4? It might actually be worth using depending on points, especially as a LOS blockers or dropping on an important objective.
Is there not an issue with fortifications that they can't be placed close to terrain? I only have my app handy so can't check and never used them before.
Yes. The Battle Forged rules for Fortifications make them functionally unusable.
Warhammer 40,000 CORE BOOK Indomitus Version 1.1 FAQ wrote:Page 247
Add the following sub-section:
FORTIFICATIONS
Units with the Fortifications Battlefield Role are terrain features that are part of your army. Unless otherwise stated, when setting Fortifications up on the battlefield, they cannot be set up within 3" of any other terrain feature that is not part of its own datasheet (excluding hills, page 260). If it is not possible to set up a Fortification as a result, it cannot be deployed and counts as having been destroyed. Fortifications can never be placed into Strategic Reserves (pg 256).
puma713 wrote: Disappointed that Contagions is mono-DG. I guess there is a chance that Nurglings are in the book as a selection, but my confidence level is low on that.
Well of course it's mono-DG. Everyone knows that Nurgle Daemons don't spread contagion and, in fact, stop Plague Marines from spreading contagion whenever they show up.
Don't forget that if Nurgle's daemons have to fight Death Guard for some reason, Nurgle will happily weaken his children.
I guess its good to see an offensive buff for DG, but its an extra special fluff mess.
To be fair, the way Daemons have been handled in terms of benefits with the Legions has been utter fething garbage since 8th and I didn't expect this to change.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: To be fair, the way Daemons have been handled in terms of benefits with the Legions has been utter fething garbage since 8th and I didn't expect this to change.
It's been garbage since they were split off from Chaos proper due to corporate mandate in 4th Ed.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: To be fair, the way Daemons have been handled in terms of benefits with the Legions has been utter fething garbage since 8th and I didn't expect this to change.
It's been garbage since they were split off from Chaos proper due to corporate mandate in 4th Ed.
I think base daemons for summoning or using compared to the whole Daemons codex was fair for the 8th codices. The problem was punishing you of course for using them.
alextroy wrote: Yes. The Battle Forged rules for Fortifications make them functionally unusable.
Warhammer 40,000 CORE BOOK Indomitus Version 1.1 FAQ wrote:Page 247
Add the following sub-section:
FORTIFICATIONS
Units with the Fortifications Battlefield Role are terrain features that are part of your army. Unless otherwise stated, when setting Fortifications up on the battlefield, they cannot be set up within 3" of any other terrain feature that is not part of its own datasheet (excluding hills, page 260). If it is not possible to set up a Fortification as a result, it cannot be deployed and counts as having been destroyed. Fortifications can never be placed into Strategic Reserves (pg 256).
Maybe I'm missing something, but how does this make it unusable? It can't be within 3" of other terrain. Ok that'll depend on terrain placement during setup. It's a part of your army insinuates that it must be deployed in your deployment zone. Ok, unless it has a rule stating otherwise, which it might considering the article said it can be deployed 12" away from enemy units,worst case you deloy it in on your side of the table to make it harder on enemy units trying to drop in on your side. Fortifications can't be in Strategic Reserves. So what am I missing?
There are rarely any places on the battlefield where there is no terrain within 3" of a rather large model. We have explicitly created a house-rule to set up fortifications before regular terrain because large terrain pieces like the nocolith crown, the skyshield landing pad, imperial bastion or the fortress of redemption will almost always self-destruct or deployed in some corner.
puma713 wrote: Disappointed that Contagions is mono-DG. I guess there is a chance that Nurglings are in the book as a selection, but my confidence level is low on that.
Well of course it's mono-DG. Everyone knows that Nurgle Daemons don't spread contagion and, in fact, stop Plague Marines from spreading contagion whenever they show up.
Presumably the warp empowerment that would go into empowering their plagues is used to bind daemons into service instead.
puma713 wrote: Disappointed that Contagions is mono-DG. I guess there is a chance that Nurglings are in the book as a selection, but my confidence level is low on that.
Well of course it's mono-DG. Everyone knows that Nurgle Daemons don't spread contagion and, in fact, stop Plague Marines from spreading contagion whenever they show up.
Don't forget that if Nurgle's daemons have to fight Death Guard for some reason, Nurgle will happily weaken his children.
I guess its good to see an offensive buff for DG, but its an extra special fluff mess.
I agree; the effect should be on all models (friendly or enemy) in range but not affect Nurgle. That is how many abilities in AoS work and it's great.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Presumably the warp empowerment that would go into empowering their plagues is used to bind daemons into service instead.
Ya-huh.
I'm pointing out that rules that make your army forget who they are and lose special rules when allying with units from your own god doesn't make any sense. It's like the old days when CSM squads would forget which Chaos God the served when the Icon Bearer died, only on an army-wide scale.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Presumably the warp empowerment that would go into empowering their plagues is used to bind daemons into service instead.
Ya-huh.
I'm pointing out that rules that make your army forget who they are and lose special rules when allying with units from your own god doesn't make any sense. It's like the old days when CSM squads would forget which Chaos God the served when the Icon Bearer died, only on an army-wide scale.
It's absurd.
Well duh, if you are looking for ways in which something can be silly you'll find it.
