H.B.M.C. wrote:

 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.

it's a solution to a genuine problem though, in that in 8th edition there was simply no reason NOT to soup and it frustrated people who wanted to run a space wolves army, or a custodes army, or a imprial guard army and not "Imperial guard with thunder wolf cavlary and custodes bike captains!"

 l0k1 wrote:

 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?

Sister terrain　requires 11"x11"empty square to deploy. In 9e that's hard. Depends on how big model obviously is but sister terrarn is pretty damn hard to deploy anywhere so you are risking 55pts to have nothing.

Necron terrain looks also fun. 3 pieces that need to stay away from terrain and need to be close to each other for additional restriction


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 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.

If you look at fluff marines shouldn't lose doctrines etc having ig det or even ig squad in same det.

But it's about balance. Only alternative is up the points if you ally. Have detachment of dg and daemon? All points go up. Blood angels, ig and knight soup? Again points go up.

No, it should just cost command points.

That solution was bang on the money. They're the currency it should cost.

This level of anti-soup is ridiculous.

All this "it's about balance" is BS, frankly. If you want perfect balance then go play chess and make sure you always play at least 2 games and only one time start as white (which has a slight advantage due to initiative). We're here for a theme and a setting so why not try to play that? This crusade to 'get balance at all costs' just erodes that theme.

I perfectly agree there should be some boon for going mono (which there is, you get a detachment for free) and that souping in allies should cost CP (which it does) and have limited synergy outside of just fulfilling battlefield roles (which it had come to do); no issues with that because it makes sense and seems fair but when the cost of souping a) doesn't make sense (as with DG and ND) and b) is so harsh to lose an important mechanic, well then it just stinks. They've given mono something, which is great, i'm happy for mono players that wanted such and I felt that was needed but not paired with so much cost/synergy reduction for allies. One needed to happen in full or partial of both, not full measures for both.

As I previously said, the core issue with soup was that power gamers had to find power builds to abuse which ruined it for everyone. GW then corrected that, which is how it should be. Few systems are perfect without edit. The solution shouldn't be to overly restrict but be dynamic to develop forward. We've taken a step back. I can only hope GW surprise me as they have, and give daemons some sort of 'ignore that penalty' rule in detachments that fully share the same mark or are undivided - as it should be.

It's meant to be a game for many to enjoy so anything that cripples a previously wrought way of play on this kind of level should be shunned and anyone with the attitude of "well I wouldn't play someone using soup" might just need to re-evaluate the fundamental importance of a game with plastic soldiers plays within one's life.

Semper wrote:
No, it should just cost command points.

That solution was bang on the money. They're the currency it should cost.

This level of anti-soup is ridiculous.

All this "it's about balance" is BS, frankly. If you want perfect balance then go play chess and make sure you always play at least 2 games and only one time start as white (which has a slight advantage due to initiative). We're here for a theme and a setting so why not try to play that? This crusade to 'get balance at all costs' just erodes that theme.

I perfectly agree there should be some boon for going mono (which there is, you get a detachment for free) and that souping in allies should cost CP (which it does) and have limited synergy outside of just fulfilling battlefield roles (which it had come to do); no issues with that because it makes sense and seems fair but when the cost of souping a) doesn't make sense (as with DG and ND) and b) is so harsh to lose an important mechanic, well then it just stinks. They've given mono something, which is great, i'm happy for mono players that wanted such and I felt that was needed but not paired with so much cost/synergy reduction for allies. One needed to happen in full or partial of both, not full measures for both.

As I previously said, the core issue with soup was that power gamers had to find power builds to abuse which ruined it for everyone. GW then corrected that, which is how it should be. Few systems are perfect without edit. The solution shouldn't be to overly restrict but be dynamic to develop forward. We've taken a step back. I can only hope GW surprise me as they have, and give daemons some sort of 'ignore that penalty' rule in detachments that fully share the same mark or are undivided - as it should be.

It's meant to be a game for many to enjoy so anything that cripples a previously wrought way of play on this kind of level should be shunned and anyone with the attitude of "well I wouldn't play someone using soup" might just need to re-evaluate the fundamental importance of a game with plastic soldiers plays within one's life.

Or they could just make the leap and dissolve the codex daemons, make death guard the "nurgle codex" and job done.

Death guard losing the mono faction bonus when a chaos daemons detachment present is the right thing to do, but only because chaos daemons shouldn't need to exist alongside.

Even in 9th, after the detachment changes, there was little to no reason to ever run DG troops over the much better daemon troops. Pure Death Guard had almost no tournament showing because there was nothing but drawbacks for playing the army as it's shown in the codex, despite the CP cost.

Up till now we had daemon troops and HQs who are superior to DG choices, horrors turning into pox walkers, GUO re-animating MBH and warp-timed Mortarions. Those things are at least as powerful as a slowly increasing -1T aura.

If you want to soup, you can still do so. But there also must be an incentive not to soup. You must chose between superior psychic powers and unit OR an army-wide rule. Right now you are just complaining that you can't have your cake and eat it.

tneva82 wrote:
If you look at fluff marines shouldn't lose doctrines etc having ig det or even ig squad in same det.

But it's about balance. Only alternative is up the points if you ally. Have detachment of dg and daemon? All points go up. Blood angels, ig and knight soup? Again points go up.

Except that last I checked, Guard were never originally part of the Space Marine army list and then got removed.

Daemons on the other hand...

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Well duh, if you are looking for ways in which something can be silly you'll find it.

Yeah, because finding the idea of Daemons in a CSM army as something that should be natural and not something that breaks the army's functionality is just so outlandish, I simply must be looking for things to complain about, right?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
If you look at fluff marines shouldn't lose doctrines etc having ig det or even ig squad in same det.

But it's about balance. Only alternative is up the points if you ally. Have detachment of dg and daemon? All points go up. Blood angels, ig and knight soup? Again points go up.

Except that last I checked, Guard were never originally part of the Space Marine army list and then got removed.

Daemons on the other hand...

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Well duh, if you are looking for ways in which something can be silly you'll find it.

Yeah, because finding the idea of Daemons in a CSM army as something that should be natural and not something that breaks the army's functionality is just so outlandish, I simply must be looking for things to complain about, right?

Why shouldn't there be a bonus for sticking to only one codex? It's been 5 editions since daemons and marines existed wholly in 1 book.

Well, a reasonable number of Nurgle Daemon units currently exist inside the Death Guard codex, but would - without keyword change - break the Contagions ability if you fielded them.

Sticking to the Codex, but losing your mono-bonus - something seems off there.

 Dysartes wrote:
Well, a reasonable number of Nurgle Daemon units currently exist inside the Death Guard codex, but would - without keyword change - break the Contagions ability if you fielded them.

Sticking to the Codex, but losing your mono-bonus - something seems off there.

Are people arguing over a hypothetical situation here? Presumably if daemons are in there they will be keyworded appropriately...

If they remove the daemons from the codex it would be a bad thing imo.

Umbros wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Well, a reasonable number of Nurgle Daemon units currently exist inside the Death Guard codex, but would - without keyword change - break the Contagions ability if you fielded them.

Sticking to the Codex, but losing your mono-bonus - something seems off there.

Are people arguing over a hypothetical situation here? Presumably if daemons are in there they will be keyworded appropriately...

If they remove the daemons from the codex it would be a bad thing imo.

I agree this is weird and something I've never liked. Roll on God dexes and give generic csm generic weaker daemons to summon maybe.

Semper wrote:
No, it should just cost command points.

That solution was bang on the money. They're the currency it should cost.
.

So how you　compensate 2 det of pure army x being　inferior to det of 2 different factions? That's true always by definition if mono doesn't get bonuses.

Note you pay same cp whether you　soup or not...So 2 detachmen's of death guard pay same cp　as dg and daemons wet is　inferior　to soup..

Of course　if you don't care about balance it's whatever　but even kindergarden kid can　see imbalance in system in your style. Obviosly you don'' want balanced game and　instead are just looking to stomp others by list power without needing tactics

So...I’m brand new to forum posting in general and been a deathguard 40k player since the start of 8th so daily new in general.

Do people come on here to argue

Hitpoints wrote:
So...I’m brand new to forum posting in general and been a deathguard 40k player since the start of 8th so daily new in general.

Do people come on here to argue

It can appear that way sometimes...

I generally come for rumours and tactics. Amongst the bickering you can pick up some neat tricks.

Hitpoints wrote:
So...I’m brand new to forum posting in general and been a deathguard 40k player since the start of 8th so daily new in general.

Do people come on here to argue

Welcome to Dakkadakka.

Though its a lot more civil than other forums, thanks to Mods stepping in where conversations derail too much

 GaroRobe wrote:

Hitpoints wrote:
So...I’m brand new to forum posting in general and been a deathguard 40k player since the start of 8th so daily new in general.

Do people come on here to argue

Welcome to Dakkadakka.

Though its a lot more civil than other forums, thanks to Mods stepping in where conversations derail too much

I mean, I mostly look at Warhammer Competitive, Bolter and Chainword and here. This one tends to be the rudest.

On DG, I think overall these are all very strong buffs and should do great for the army.

Hitpoints wrote:
So...I’m brand new to forum posting in general and been a deathguard 40k player since the start of 8th so daily new in general.

Do people come on here to argue

A forum is by definition a place to argue.

Hitpoints wrote:
So...I’m brand new to forum posting in general and been a deathguard 40k player since the start of 8th so daily new in general.

Do people come on here to argue

Honestly it depends on what sub-forums you choose to visit on here. If you go to tactics, off-topic or geek media with nary a thought with regards to your post being logical or though through, you should expect potentially one poster to call you out, especially if its a controversial topic or opinion. You'll need some measure of thick skin (this is the internet after all). But you could go to painting and modelling and basically dodge most of the combative posters. I think you'll miss a big part on the forum experience otherwise though.

 Jidmah wrote:

Hitpoints wrote:
So...I’m brand new to forum posting in general and been a deathguard 40k player since the start of 8th so daily new in general.

Do people come on here to argue

A forum is by definition a place to argue.

Eh, not really argue :"a place, meeting, or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged." but you do you.

I think DG are looking like they're going to be in a good place. I get some people don't like the DR change, but honestly they look tough enough to matter on the table, and they're strong against most of the stuff that is anti-MEQ so they'll force people to split their lists between being tailored to fight MEQ and fight DG in their TAC lists.

Semper wrote:
No, it should just cost command points.

That solution was bang on the money. They're the currency it should cost.

This level of anti-soup is ridiculous.

All this "it's about balance" is BS, frankly. If you want perfect balance then go play chess and make sure you always play at least 2 games and only one time start as white (which has a slight advantage due to initiative). We're here for a theme and a setting so why not try to play that? This crusade to 'get balance at all costs' just erodes that theme.

I perfectly agree there should be some boon for going mono (which there is, you get a detachment for free) and that souping in allies should cost CP (which it does) and have limited synergy outside of just fulfilling battlefield roles (which it had come to do); no issues with that because it makes sense and seems fair but when the cost of souping a) doesn't make sense (as with DG and ND) and b) is so harsh to lose an important mechanic, well then it just stinks. They've given mono something, which is great, i'm happy for mono players that wanted such and I felt that was needed but not paired with so much cost/synergy reduction for allies. One needed to happen in full or partial of both, not full measures for both.

As I previously said, the core issue with soup was that power gamers had to find power builds to abuse which ruined it for everyone. GW then corrected that, which is how it should be. Few systems are perfect without edit. The solution shouldn't be to overly restrict but be dynamic to develop forward. We've taken a step back. I can only hope GW surprise me as they have, and give daemons some sort of 'ignore that penalty' rule in detachments that fully share the same mark or are undivided - as it should be.

It's meant to be a game for many to enjoy so anything that cripples a previously wrought way of play on this kind of level should be shunned and anyone with the attitude of "well I wouldn't play someone using soup" might just need to re-evaluate the fundamental importance of a game with plastic soldiers plays within one's life.

If you're here for the theme and setting then play narrative? GW seem to be making a concerted effort to balance 40k as a competitive game, with that they are reducing options presumably to reduce permutations and possible outliers that can skew the game.
At the same time they seem to be looking to create a more robust narrative game where people can still play to win within a slightly looser framework. Maybe it just needs a mindset change within the player base?

Clearly the playerbase should never change expectations and should never have options removed in order to make the game more balanced and more enjoyable across the board. Obviously GW should always continue to support every model they've ever made no matter what, even if you average player is forced to kitbash three different kits just to fiels one. /sarcasm

I feel like the community does need to learn to let go. Legacy options don't need to be supported and things will have to change to improve the game. We can't keep everything the same and at the same time claim we want a more balanced game too. Balance is going to sacrifice things and accepting that sooner will make the game more enjoyable in the long run.

Thing is, I get why matched play is the default play style within the community. Narrative/open has always been so loose the sheer level of investment that needed to go into the preparation and 'social contract' to make it an enjoyable experience or at least establish what each player's expectations are from the game.
Hopefully Crusade can go some way to filling the gap where people can play to win without having to win to enjoy it.

Abaddon303 wrote:
Thing is, I get why matched play is the default play style within the community. Narrative/open has always been so loose the sheer level of investment that needed to go into the preparation and 'social contract' to make it an enjoyable experience or at least establish what each player's expectations are from the game.
Hopefully Crusade can go some way to filling the gap where people can play to win without having to win to enjoy it.

I feel Crusade is definitely making great strides in that regard. I've raken part in campaigns before with what would be defined as a "match play" crowd so there is definitely a Venn diagram there, and I feel Crusade helps you craft that story about your personal character and army which can be really attractove to most players.

Dudeface wrote:
Why shouldn't there be a bonus for sticking to only one codex? It's been 5 editions since daemons and marines existed wholly in 1 book.

I was thinking the same thing. The first Chaos Space Marines Codex was released in February 1999 (it was proceeded by Codex Chaos for 2nd Edition in 1996). Daemons were removed in Codex: Chaos Space Marines in for 4th Edition in September 2007. So going from the release of 3rd Edition (1998), daemons have not been part of Codex CSM longer than they were.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Well duh, if you are looking for ways in which something can be silly you'll find it.

Yeah, because finding the idea of Daemons in a CSM army as something that should be natural and not something that breaks the army's functionality is just so outlandish, I simply must be looking for things to complain about, right?

If my argument was wrong you wouldn't need to twist the truth so much for a rebuttal.

Arbitrary bonuses are made for armies to be used as mono forces instead of mix and maxing. When it is worth it, people still does it.

It maybe doesnt makes the most sense but theres nothing inherently bad about it. I prefer it to a system where you can mix and mad without having a real choice or where you literally just cannot do it.

Semper wrote:
No, it should just cost command points.

That solution was bang on the money. They're the currency it should cost.

I agree this would be a simple and easy way of doing it. But right now there is no CP penalty. Adding another detachment of DG costs the same CP as adding a detachment of DoN, or any other Chaos faction for that matter. I think there should also be a cost for souping multiple sub-factions; instead we can mix and match to have a detachment of shooty guys from the shooty sub-faction with a different detachment of melee guys from the melee sub-faction, and another detachment spamming a certain unit to interact with some custom bonus min-maxxed to specifically buff that unit. And it all costs the exact same CP as running multiple detachments from the same faction.

IMO, the part where detachment CP is refunded should apply to all detachments that match the warlord's faction AND sub-faction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
Arbitrary bonuses are made for armies to be used as mono forces instead of mix and maxing. When it is worth it, people still does it.

It maybe doesnt makes the most sense but theres nothing inherently bad about it. I prefer it to a system where you can mix and mad without having a real choice or where you literally just cannot do it.

Me too. I also note that while CP cost is the more straightforward method the way GW has done it is more fun for me personally. I feel like I am rewarded for sticking to my guns, instead of simply avoiding a penalty. And the reward is a cool ability rather than just CP. I can see merit in both approaches.

Deathguard, from what we’ve seen so far, seems to be following well in Gws efforts to expand fluff into gameplay. Make your army feel unique from other factions but still maintain a certain level of equilibrium regarding rule set. This is so hard to do when there’s such a plethora of games rules and fluff. The codices that have released so far have generally been on point. Sure there will always be rules that some aren’t fond of and accepting any change to an army especially if it’s your own can be quite tough.

People are also allowed to be upset with changes they don’t like. It’s how the game evolves. We can pass judgement on individual rules we’ve seen so far for solely what they are. But we can’t judge DG as a whole just yet because we still haven’t seen 75% of the codex and rules. As it stands it seems pointless judging any death guard unit against its imperial counterpart for anything more than speculation.

If what’s come out from 9th so far I don’t think we have to worry about DG being unplayable or uncompetitive, the game as a whole has much better internal core rules and individual faction rules than any of its predecessors.

Dudeface wrote:
Why shouldn't there be a bonus for sticking to only one codex? It's been 5 editions since daemons and marines existed wholly in 1 book.

 alextroy wrote:
So going from the release of 3rd Edition (1998), daemons have not been part of Codex CSM longer than they were.

Daemons are in the DG Codex. You guys remember that, right?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
If my argument was wrong you wouldn't need to twist the truth so much for a rebuttal.

I'm not even certain you addressed my argument to begin with, so...

 Jidmah wrote:
Even in 9th, after the detachment changes, there was little to no reason to ever run DG troops over the much better daemon troops. Pure Death Guard had almost no tournament showing because there was nothing but drawbacks for playing the army as it's shown in the codex, despite the CP cost.

Up till now we had daemon troops and HQs who are superior to DG choices, horrors turning into pox walkers, GUO re-animating MBH and warp-timed Mortarions. Those things are at least as powerful as a slowly increasing -1T aura.

If you want to soup, you can still do so. But there also must be an incentive not to soup. You must chose between superior psychic powers and unit OR an army-wide rule. Right now you are just complaining that you can't have your cake and eat it.

Firstly, I don't see the point in having cake and not eating it.

That aside, my concern is that there is a continuing trend of, as has been mentioned previously, GW over-reacting to complaints and that the boons you've mentioned may well not continue. Also, those mono-benefits are replacing benefits you used to get regardless then there's also an issue as you're taking away from Soup to give to mono when you can theoretically give to mono without taking from soup. For example DR has been mitigated as part of a wider palette of abilities, one being the contagion auras. The issue being, I suppose, for example is you got 95% effectiveness of the army in 8th, even when souping, whereas now you only get say 75% because a more significant ability has been cut. It would be better if you got 100% or even 90% while souping and then 120% mono. It's only ended up that way because of the changes to the army (in that they've cut DR down as part of the 'mono-package'). If it had stayed the same and they had stuck contagions on top i'd be less 'but back on my heels'. I'd still have an issue from a fluff perspective but at least in games terms it wouldn't be a straight up gut punch. I appreciate that comes in the context of the 2W rise but the points are meant to account for such.

I agree with you that there should be something good for mono but it shouldn't be at the expense of soup. The two should be balanced ways to play and at the moment I don't feel they are, I think it's going the other way in favour of mono. I hope it comes back to more the middle and I am sincerely glad that the people who do want to enjoy mono factions get some joy (I add) but it's just sad it has to punish someone elses joy and go so brazenly against the fluff.

Abaddon303 wrote:

Semper wrote:
No, it should just cost command points.

That solution was bang on the money. They're the currency it should cost.

This level of anti-soup is ridiculous.

All this "it's about balance" is BS, frankly. If you want perfect balance then go play chess and make sure you always play at least 2 games and only one time start as white (which has a slight advantage due to initiative). We're here for a theme and a setting so why not try to play that? This crusade to 'get balance at all costs' just erodes that theme.

I perfectly agree there should be some boon for going mono (which there is, you get a detachment for free) and that souping in allies should cost CP (which it does) and have limited synergy outside of just fulfilling battlefield roles (which it had come to do); no issues with that because it makes sense and seems fair but when the cost of souping a) doesn't make sense (as with DG and ND) and b) is so harsh to lose an important mechanic, well then it just stinks. They've given mono something, which is great, i'm happy for mono players that wanted such and I felt that was needed but not paired with so much cost/synergy reduction for allies. One needed to happen in full or partial of both, not full measures for both.

As I previously said, the core issue with soup was that power gamers had to find power builds to abuse which ruined it for everyone. GW then corrected that, which is how it should be. Few systems are perfect without edit. The solution shouldn't be to overly restrict but be dynamic to develop forward. We've taken a step back. I can only hope GW surprise me as they have, and give daemons some sort of 'ignore that penalty' rule in detachments that fully share the same mark or are undivided - as it should be.

It's meant to be a game for many to enjoy so anything that cripples a previously wrought way of play on this kind of level should be shunned and anyone with the attitude of "well I wouldn't play someone using soup" might just need to re-evaluate the fundamental importance of a game with plastic soldiers plays within one's life.

If you're here for the theme and setting then play narrative? GW seem to be making a concerted effort to balance 40k as a competitive game, with that they are reducing options presumably to reduce permutations and possible outliers that can skew the game.
At the same time they seem to be looking to create a more robust narrative game where people can still play to win within a slightly looser framework. Maybe it just needs a mindset change within the player base?

Quite possibly a decent point but what's easier to do? Change the mind set of millions of people or just work out a better game? I'd possibly say the latter and I don't agree these kinds of changes are that method. Clearly the actual issues with Soup were bad synergies created by poor editing most of the time and ill-thought out key words. Some of the biggest culprits were CP farmers that can't exist in the current game. Most of the worst synergies (such as using Morty and Magnus with all the daemon joy) were corrected quickly and removed on a principle that could continue...

 ClockworkZion wrote:

I feel like the community does need to learn to let go. Legacy options don't need to be supported and things will have to change to improve the game. We can't keep everything the same and at the same time claim we want a more balanced game too. Balance is going to sacrifice things and accepting that sooner will make the game more enjoyable in the long run.

I would have thought we want an enjoyable game first and foremost? If that's the case, you assume that balance at any cost is the solution or that it has to sacrifice? Genuine question btw. Again, it's taking the argument to its conclusion if you really want to go this way. We may as well all have exactly the same stratgems, unit options so on and so forth. What exactly needs to be sacrificed for this balance we're looking for? Why is soup the sacrifice and not stratagems, for example? Or why do armies have different weapons? How much do we cut off because it's the easier thing to do? What do we keep cutting off?

Dudeface wrote:
Or they could just make the leap and dissolve the codex daemons, make death guard the "nurgle codex" and job done.

Death guard losing the mono faction bonus when a chaos daemons detachment present is the right thing to do, but only because chaos daemons shouldn't need to exist alongside.

I'd love that, likely. Daemons should be within the CSM dexs in my opinion. You could still make an army out of them but, like with 3rd/3.5ed you should just be able to build daemons in like any other unit depending on the warlord's mark. If that needs to be split into 5 areas - 4 Gods and Undivided, then i'd accept that. Though I also stand by that Abaddon and BL detachments also shouldn't remove these sorts of mono-abilities, almost as if they were unaligned and undivided...

tneva82 wrote:

Semper wrote:
No, it should just cost command points.

That solution was bang on the money. They're the currency it should cost.
.

So how you　compensate 2 det of pure army x being　inferior to det of 2 different factions? That's true always by definition if mono doesn't get bonuses.

Note you pay same cp whether you　soup or not...So 2 detachmen's of death guard pay same cp　as dg and daemons wet is　inferior　to soup..

Of course　if you don't care about balance it's whatever　but even kindergarden kid can　see imbalance in system in your style. Obviosly you don'' want balanced game and　instead are just looking to stomp others by list power without needing tactics

Yes, I know you pay the same at the moment. Expand it. It costs x CP for a detachment, that cost is then furthered if the detachment is from a different book. I didn't say mono shouldn't have bonuses.

The latter comment... did you read what I wrote in full?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Why shouldn't there be a bonus for sticking to only one codex? It's been 5 editions since daemons and marines existed wholly in 1 book.

 alextroy wrote:
So going from the release of 3rd Edition (1998), daemons have not been part of Codex CSM longer than they were.

Daemons are in the DG Codex. You guys remember that, right?

If you want to call that handful of Daemon units they included in the codex as being part of the army, go right ahead. They are obviously there to allow you to summon them without owning Codex Chaos Daemons, not because they expect you to include them in your battle-forged army. I would be less surprised if they are removed from the upcoming codex than if they remain included.

Anyone seen a Blightlords schematic sheet yet?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 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.

I laughed hard on that, yeah them nurglings always stopping my plague marines from getting stuff done.." Where is my plague sprayer ? I set it right down here...NURGLINGS !!!!! "

What base size are Possessed on? 32mm? Wonder if the wound bump will have GW move them to 40mm. Can't think of a non character unit with 3 wounds that's on anything smaller than 40mm.

 Eldarain wrote:
What base size are Possessed on? 32mm? Wonder if the wound bump will have GW move them to 40mm. Can't think of a non character unit with 3 wounds that's on anything smaller than 40mm.

They’re confirmed 3 wounds?

 puma713 wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
What base size are Possessed on? 32mm? Wonder if the wound bump will have GW move them to 40mm. Can't think of a non character unit with 3 wounds that's on anything smaller than 40mm.

They’re confirmed 3 wounds?

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.*

From the "Disgustingly Resilient" preview.

I thought the initial announcement said all non Scouts were getting it.

Semper wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

I feel like the community does need to learn to let go. Legacy options don't need to be supported and things will have to change to improve the game. We can't keep everything the same and at the same time claim we want a more balanced game too. Balance is going to sacrifice things and accepting that sooner will make the game more enjoyable in the long run.

I would have thought we want an enjoyable game first and foremost? If that's the case, you assume that balance at any cost is the solution or that it has to sacrifice? Genuine question btw. Again, it's taking the argument to its conclusion if you really want to go this way. We may as well all have exactly the same stratgems, unit options so on and so forth. What exactly needs to be sacrificed for this balance we're looking for? Why is soup the sacrifice and not stratagems, for example? Or why do armies have different weapons? How much do we cut off because it's the easier thing to do? What do we keep cutting off?

Dude, the Marine codex alone has over 90 datasheets. Sometimes you have to prune the tree to keep it healthy. Don't play the slippery slope fallacy where they keep cutting things off willy nilly. Some options will need to be pruned and some rules will need to change in order to keep the game balanced and healthy.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Semper wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

I feel like the community does need to learn to let go. Legacy options don't need to be supported and things will have to change to improve the game. We can't keep everything the same and at the same time claim we want a more balanced game too. Balance is going to sacrifice things and accepting that sooner will make the game more enjoyable in the long run.

I would have thought we want an enjoyable game first and foremost? If that's the case, you assume that balance at any cost is the solution or that it has to sacrifice? Genuine question btw. Again, it's taking the argument to its conclusion if you really want to go this way. We may as well all have exactly the same stratgems, unit options so on and so forth. What exactly needs to be sacrificed for this balance we're looking for? Why is soup the sacrifice and not stratagems, for example? Or why do armies have different weapons? How much do we cut off because it's the easier thing to do? What do we keep cutting off?

Dude, the Marine codex alone has over 90 datasheets. Sometimes you have to prune the tree to keep it healthy. Don't play the slippery slope fallacy where they keep cutting things off willy nilly. Some options will need to be pruned and some rules will need to change in order to keep the game balanced and healthy.

Entire consolidation of profiles is what's needed, and I'm talking like rolling Tactical Marine options into the Intercessor profile for example.

Keep is a strong word

I'm loathe to sunset units as they represent people's hard work (why it's more difficult than video/card games)

I think you're right it would be good for the health of the game but it needs to be done somewhat even handedly. Taking a hatchet to Dark Eldar repeatedly but leaving Marine bike characters without a kit in game is just going to generate anger and resentment.

I will say that rolling mortals and daemons of the same god into the same army has worked really well for AoS. I remain disappointed they don't seem to want to do the same with 40k.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Semper wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

I feel like the community does need to learn to let go. Legacy options don't need to be supported and things will have to change to improve the game. We can't keep everything the same and at the same time claim we want a more balanced game too. Balance is going to sacrifice things and accepting that sooner will make the game more enjoyable in the long run.

I would have thought we want an enjoyable game first and foremost? If that's the case, you assume that balance at any cost is the solution or that it has to sacrifice? Genuine question btw. Again, it's taking the argument to its conclusion if you really want to go this way. We may as well all have exactly the same stratgems, unit options so on and so forth. What exactly needs to be sacrificed for this balance we're looking for? Why is soup the sacrifice and not stratagems, for example? Or why do armies have different weapons? How much do we cut off because it's the easier thing to do? What do we keep cutting off?

Dude, the Marine codex alone has over 90 datasheets. Sometimes you have to prune the tree to keep it healthy. Don't play the slippery slope fallacy where they keep cutting things off willy nilly. Some options will need to be pruned and some rules will need to change in order to keep the game balanced and healthy.

Entire consolidation of profiles is what's needed, and I'm talking like rolling Tactical Marine options into the Intercessor profile for example.

Nah. Legends the whole Firstborn line. Don't need to stop selling the kits for now, but drop the entire thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eldarain wrote:
Keep is a strong word

I'm loathe to sunset units as they represent people's hard work (why it's more difficult than video/card games)

I think you're right it would be good for the health of the game but it needs to be done somewhat even handedly. Taking a hatchet to Dark Eldar repeatedly but leaving Marine bike characters without a kit in game is just going to generate anger and resentment.

Honestly it's one of the reasons I like Legends. You can roll out those old favorites, but active support and rebalancing is off the plate which lets the game lean up a bit and run smoother.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I will say that rolling mortals and daemons of the same god into the same army has worked really well for AoS. I remain disappointed they don't seem to want to do the same with 40k.

Yeah, 5 Chaos books (one for each god, and an unaligned book for the rest) would be a good solution. They could even do three different types of detachment bonuses depending on if you are running CSM, Daemons or both.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Semper wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

I feel like the community does need to learn to let go. Legacy options don't need to be supported and things will have to change to improve the game. We can't keep everything the same and at the same time claim we want a more balanced game too. Balance is going to sacrifice things and accepting that sooner will make the game more enjoyable in the long run.

I would have thought we want an enjoyable game first and foremost? If that's the case, you assume that balance at any cost is the solution or that it has to sacrifice? Genuine question btw. Again, it's taking the argument to its conclusion if you really want to go this way. We may as well all have exactly the same stratgems, unit options so on and so forth. What exactly needs to be sacrificed for this balance we're looking for? Why is soup the sacrifice and not stratagems, for example? Or why do armies have different weapons? How much do we cut off because it's the easier thing to do? What do we keep cutting off?

Dude, the Marine codex alone has over 90 datasheets. Sometimes you have to prune the tree to keep it healthy. Don't play the slippery slope fallacy where they keep cutting things off willy nilly. Some options will need to be pruned and some rules will need to change in order to keep the game balanced and healthy.

Entire consolidation of profiles is what's needed, and I'm talking like rolling Tactical Marine options into the Intercessor profile for example.

Nah. Legends the whole Firstborn line. Don't need to stop selling the kits for now, but drop the entire thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eldarain wrote:
Keep is a strong word

I'm loathe to sunset units as they represent people's hard work (why it's more difficult than video/card games)

I think you're right it would be good for the health of the game but it needs to be done somewhat even handedly. Taking a hatchet to Dark Eldar repeatedly but leaving Marine bike characters without a kit in game is just going to generate anger and resentment.

Honestly it's one of the reasons I like Legends. You can roll out those old favorites, but active support and rebalancing is off the plate which lets the game lean up a bit and run smoother.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I will say that rolling mortals and daemons of the same god into the same army has worked really well for AoS. I remain disappointed they don't seem to want to do the same with 40k.

Yeah, 5 Chaos books (one for each god, and an unaligned book for the rest) would be a good solution. They could even do three different types of detachment bonuses depending on if you are running CSM, Daemons or both.

I'd rather not deal with that kind of whining, and it isn't like an Intercessor taking a Grav Cannon is gonna be broken or anything.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I'd rather not deal with that kind of whining, and it isn't like an Intercessor taking a Grav Cannon is gonna be broken or anything.

People are going to whine anyways. Ripping the bandage off is better than letting the game fester or forcing people who aren't using Firstborn to convert models just to use options they don't otherwise have access to.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I'd rather not deal with that kind of whining, and it isn't like an Intercessor taking a Grav Cannon is gonna be broken or anything.

People are going to whine anyways. Ripping the bandage off is better than letting the game fester or forcing people who aren't using Firstborn to convert models just to use options they don't otherwise have access to.

Eh, people have been managing to use Primaris to represent their First Born just fine with minor work, and you can always just stick the manlet Marine in the squad with his supposed bodyguards.

It's a non-issue.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I'd rather not deal with that kind of whining, and it isn't like an Intercessor taking a Grav Cannon is gonna be broken or anything.

People are going to whine anyways. Ripping the bandage off is better than letting the game fester or forcing people who aren't using Firstborn to convert models just to use options they don't otherwise have access to.

Eh, people have been managing to use Primaris to represent their First Born just fine with minor work, and you can always just stick the manlet Marine in the squad with his supposed bodyguards.

It's a non-issue.

Affects line of sight.

We know the Firstborn are slowly being phased out. Just shunt the entire thing to legends, move the kits to direct only and stop hampering the game with a dead model line just because it'll make some people upset when the same company has removed whole unit options out of codexes for far less.

Heck, they used to double dip units in Dark Eldar but removed the elite Kabalite and Wych options despite the fact they were selling double those kits thanks to the double dip. Marine players don't deserve special treatment, and I say that as someone whose Marine faction is Black Templars who have 0 Primaris options.

 alextroy wrote:
If you want to call that handful of Daemon units they included in the codex as being part of the army, go right ahead.

You're saying that something in the Codex isn't part of the army? You realise how daft that sounds.

 alextroy wrote:
They are obviously there to allow you to summon them without owning Codex Chaos Daemons, not because they expect you to include them in your battle-forged army.

That which is presented without evidence...

 alextroy wrote:
I would be less surprised if they are removed from the upcoming codex than if they remain included.

I don't disagree. My issue is that if they stay, they shouldn't cause your army to lose it's special rules. Nothing in your own Codex should prevent you from using your Codex as it is written. By all means include rules that discourage soup lists, but Nurgle daemons in a Deathguard army isn't soup when they're in the fething Codex to begin with.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I'd rather not deal with that kind of whining, and it isn't like an Intercessor taking a Grav Cannon is gonna be broken or anything.

People are going to whine anyways. Ripping the bandage off is better than letting the game fester or forcing people who aren't using Firstborn to convert models just to use options they don't otherwise have access to.

Eh, people have been managing to use Primaris to represent their First Born just fine with minor work, and you can always just stick the manlet Marine in the squad with his supposed bodyguards.

It's a non-issue.

Affects line of sight.

We know the Firstborn are slowly being phased out. Just shunt the entire thing to legends, move the kits to direct only and stop hampering the game with a dead model line just because it'll make some people upset when the same company has removed whole unit options out of codexes for far less.

Heck, they used to double dip units in Dark Eldar but removed the elite Kabalite and Wych options despite the fact they were selling double those kits thanks to the double dip. Marine players don't deserve special treatment, and I say that as someone whose Marine faction is Black Templars who have 0 Primaris options.

Honestly the size difference isn't that terrible that I wouldn't let my opponent use their Manlets as Primaris. The LOS argument just isn't very good for that miniscule a difference.

It's enough of one to matter for competetive play.

Legends would let narrative and casual play to still run Firstborn while not shackling the balance of the game as a whole to them.

Marines don't deserve to be special. We've seen units whose models where sold up to the release of a codex be permanently dumped and never returned. We've seen options taken away when they've existed for editions before that. It's time to stop acting like Marines need to be some sacred cow not held to the same rules every other codex is held to.

Legends is already better than most expected for the Firstborn anyways. Far better treatment than other armies got.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Why shouldn't there be a bonus for sticking to only one codex? It's been 5 editions since daemons and marines existed wholly in 1 book.

 alextroy wrote:
So going from the release of 3rd Edition (1998), daemons have not been part of Codex CSM longer than they were.

Daemons are in the DG Codex. You guys remember that, right?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
If my argument was wrong you wouldn't need to twist the truth so much for a rebuttal.

I'm not even certain you addressed my argument to begin with, so...

As I stated earlier, it's horrid that the daemons exist separately in the first place now, give us god books.

Short term, the daemons in the book now also break your faction rules, which is equally stupid, but even if they didn't you still would have no daemons strats, traits or relics etc. You still need to rely on the daemons codex to use them to their fullest.

I can't remember, is there a paragraph spelling out they're included for summoning?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I will say that rolling mortals and daemons of the same god into the same army has worked really well for AoS. I remain disappointed they don't seem to want to do the same with 40k.

Same. A joint army like in AoS just feel more like a proper army compared to the mini-thing they are going for in 40k.

Can we please keep this talk to actual Deathguard rumors ?

Keep the salty " I hate firstborn marines because I have bad taste wahhh" Arguments to their own threads eh ?

I love firstborn marines and think primaris are a dumb cash grab with poop back story, but I don't put that into every thread with power armor just to be heard.

None of that has anything at all to do with Deathguard rumors, please, think of the darn nurglings.

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
Keep the salty " I hate firstborn marines because I have bad taste wahhh" Arguments to their own threads eh ?

Put away your projection. No one said they hate Firstborn. No need to make up hills to die on.

Honestly with DG delayed and GW's articles on them likely run their course, unless we get a round two this week we're likely treading water at the moment.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Why shouldn't there be a bonus for sticking to only one codex? It's been 5 editions since daemons and marines existed wholly in 1 book.

 alextroy wrote:
So going from the release of 3rd Edition (1998), daemons have not been part of Codex CSM longer than they were.

Daemons are in the DG Codex. You guys remember that, right?

Yes, for summoning, and nothing else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
My issue is that if they stay, they shouldn't cause your army to lose it's special rules. Nothing in your own Codex should prevent you from using your Codex as it is written. By all means include rules that discourage soup lists, but Nurgle daemons in a Deathguard army isn't soup when they're in the fething Codex to begin with.

Noting prevents you from using daemons in the same army or even in the same detachment. The only thing that happened is that you now get to decide between from benefiting the great synergy dameons have with DG and the contagions of nurgle.

And it's also worth noting that Necrons, Space Marines and Sisters also lose their army-wide traits if they mix different chapters, dynasties or orders, this really is no different.

 ClockworkZion wrote:


Legends would let narrative and casual play to still run Firstborn while not shackling the balance of the game as a whole to them.

Legends is fully matched-play legal.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
Keep the salty " I hate firstborn marines because I have bad taste wahhh" Arguments to their own threads eh ?

Put away your projection. No one said they hate Firstborn. No need to make up hills to die on.

Honestly with DG delayed and GW's articles on them likely run their course, unless we get a round two this week we're likely treading water at the moment.

All kind of discussion about loyalists that is not involving death guard is explicitly off-topic for this thread and therefore violating the forum rules.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:


Legends would let narrative and casual play to still run Firstborn while not shackling the balance of the game as a whole to them.

Legends is fully matched-play legal.

But not all tournaments will allow Legends, thus removing them from comp balance discussion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
Keep the salty " I hate firstborn marines because I have bad taste wahhh" Arguments to their own threads eh ?

Put away your projection. No one said they hate Firstborn. No need to make up hills to die on.

Honestly with DG delayed and GW's articles on them likely run their course, unless we get a round two this week we're likely treading water at the moment.

All kind of discussion about loyalists that is not involving death guard is explicitly off-topic for this thread and therefore violating the forum rules.

And that is a fair point. Making up claims about people "hating Firstborn" to then try and dunk on Primaris is not.

On a more topical note: do we know if Plague Companies will still be a thing?

 ClockworkZion wrote:
On a more topical note: do we know if Plague Companies will still be a thing?

Very likely. The FW book and legends have introduced a <Plague Company> placeholder, and Mortarion's list of warlord traits he can pick from after the game has started have the same name as the seven warlord traits associated with the plague fleets in War of the Spider.

 ClockworkZion wrote:


But not all tournaments will allow Legends, thus removing them from comp balance discussion.

Sure. And by the same measure, tournaments could decide to not allow first-born marines (or super-heavies, or Forge World, or Psykers, or whatever) and achieve the same effect.

Tournaments disallowing Legends proves that you don't need GW to make that call.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:


But not all tournaments will allow Legends, thus removing them from comp balance discussion.

Sure. And by the same measure, tournaments could decide to not allow first-born marines (or super-heavies, or Forge World, or Psykers, or whatever) and achieve the same effect.

Tournaments disallowing Legends proves that you don't need GW to make that call.

You're missing the point that the game would still be balanced around the assumption by GW that Firstborn would still be in the book, so it doesn't fix the balance. Chunking them out instead would go a long way to sorting that issue because then the game isn't being balanced around them.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

You're missing the point that the game would still be balanced around the assumption by GW that Firstborn would still be in the book, so it doesn't fix the balance. Chunking them out instead would go a long way to sorting that issue because then the game isn't being balanced around them.

The game is not balanced one way or another. Even within the GW product range, 40K isn't the game they write for balanced competitive play. They have stuff like Underworlds and some such for that.

40K is the "get all your toys out for a sunday-afternoon"-product. It's their Minecraft, not their League of Legends, their DnD, not their MtG, the Pacific Crest Trail, not the 200 metre sprint.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

You're missing the point that the game would still be balanced around the assumption by GW that Firstborn would still be in the book, so it doesn't fix the balance. Chunking them out instead would go a long way to sorting that issue because then the game isn't being balanced around them.

The game is not balanced one way or another. Even within the GW product range, 40K isn't the game they write for balanced competitive play. They have stuff like Underworlds and some such for that.

40K is the "get all your toys out for a sunday-afternoon"-product. It's their Minecraft, not their League of Legends, their DnD, not their MtG, the Pacific Crest Trail, not the 200 metre sprint.

As yes the "40k isn't balanced so they shouldn't bother" argument.You lost that in 8th when GW started making real steps to close loopholes and balance the game. 9th even more so as they've shown more efforts in the last few months to fix the game than most will give them credit for.

It's time to stop beating that dead horse.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

As yes the "40k isn't balanced so they shouldn't bother" argument.You lost that in 8th when GW started making real steps to close loopholes and balance the game. 9th even more so as they've shown more efforts in the last few months to fix the game than most will give them credit for.

It's time to stop beating that dead horse.

Lol. If anything, the argument started in 8th. Historically, game balance has never been a fraction as bad as it was in late 8th after Marines 2.0.

You could've made the argument that GW cared about balance in 3rd, 4th (when they actually had a semi-competitive chess-guy writing rules), 5th and 6th, but 8th basically threw the idea out of the window (which makes sense, as they did diversify more into other games like, as said above, Warhammer Underworlds or Kill Team Arena, etc.. designed for competitive play from the ground up).

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Semper wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

I feel like the community does need to learn to let go. Legacy options don't need to be supported and things will have to change to improve the game. We can't keep everything the same and at the same time claim we want a more balanced game too. Balance is going to sacrifice things and accepting that sooner will make the game more enjoyable in the long run.

I would have thought we want an enjoyable game first and foremost? If that's the case, you assume that balance at any cost is the solution or that it has to sacrifice? Genuine question btw. Again, it's taking the argument to its conclusion if you really want to go this way. We may as well all have exactly the same stratgems, unit options so on and so forth. What exactly needs to be sacrificed for this balance we're looking for? Why is soup the sacrifice and not stratagems, for example? Or why do armies have different weapons? How much do we cut off because it's the easier thing to do? What do we keep cutting off?

Dude, the Marine codex alone has over 90 datasheets. Sometimes you have to prune the tree to keep it healthy. Don't play the slippery slope fallacy where they keep cutting things off willy nilly. Some options will need to be pruned and some rules will need to change in order to keep the game balanced and healthy.

You kind of skipped over all my questions there, mate. I am asking you what should be cut; what is this "some" you speak of? And why? I've already acknowledged that tailoring was needed and i've explicitly explained how I feel it should be. I have pointed out things that have been cut/tailored. I could, and perhaps I would be right to, assume you think the main marine codex would be a good target, judging by your example. If so, why are you here challenging complaints that the changes to the DG codex are unjust?

(Edited spelling here and there and clarified point further)

Semper wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Semper wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

I feel like the community does need to learn to let go. Legacy options don't need to be supported and things will have to change to improve the game. We can't keep everything the same and at the same time claim we want a more balanced game too. Balance is going to sacrifice things and accepting that sooner will make the game more enjoyable in the long run.

I would have thought we want an enjoyable game first and foremost? If that's the case, you assume that balance at any cost is the solution or that it has to sacrifice? Genuine question btw. Again, it's taking the argument to its conclusion if you really want to go this way. We may as well all have exactly the same stratgems, unit options so on and so forth. What exactly needs to be sacrificed for this balance we're looking for? Why is soup the sacrifice and not stratagems, for example? Or why do armies have different weapons? How much do we cut off because it's the easier thing to do? What do we keep cutting off?

Dude, the Marine codex alone has over 90 datasheets. Sometimes you have to prune the tree to keep it healthy. Don't play the slippery slope fallacy where they keep cutting things off willy nilly. Some options will need to be pruned and some rules will need to change in order to keep the game balanced and healthy.

You kind of skipped over all my questions there, mate. I am asking you what should be cut; what is this "some" you speak of? And why? I've already acknowledged that some things needed tailoring and have pointed out things that have been cut/tailored. I could, and perhaps I would be right to, assume you think the main marine codex would be a good target, judging by your example. If so, why are you here challenging complaints that the changes to the DG codex are unjust?

(Edited spelling here and there and clarified point further)

How am I skipping it when I've been very clear about it in previous posts: the entire Firstborn line. Anything without the "Primaris" Keyword. Take it all out.

And the point is that changes need to happen to keep the game balanced. DG are gaining a bunch of rules on top of the Plague Company rules and the change to DR benefits the Plague Marine over the daemon engines or the cultists, which is a good change for the book.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

As yes the "40k isn't balanced so they shouldn't bother" argument.You lost that in 8th when GW started making real steps to close loopholes and balance the game. 9th even more so as they've shown more efforts in the last few months to fix the game than most will give them credit for.

It's time to stop beating that dead horse.

Lol. If anything, the argument started in 8th. Historically, game balance has never been a fraction as bad as it was in late 8th after Marines 2.0.

You could've made the argument that GW cared about balance in 3rd, 4th (when they actually had a semi-competitive chess-guy writing rules), 5th and 6th, but 8th basically threw the idea out of the window (which makes sense, as they did diversify more into other games like, as said above, Warhammer Underworlds or Kill Team Arena, etc.. designed for competitive play from the ground up).

Well, this is simply false.

Except for that short window between IH release and the first nerf (around 2 weeks?) where there some egregious things going on, the rest of the edition both pre and post SM2.0 dex enjoyed a much better balance than the whole of 6th and 7th.

Currently, we are living in the most balanced 40k environment in my memory.

Actually, I was little confused and disappointed about new rules (especially DR), but now I cant wait on spreading contagion on the battlefield - nice and fluffy, I like it

Is this thread about Death Guard?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Is this thread about Death Guard?

It's a 40k thread, it's the same as all 40k threads, it ends up as a whine about marines in some capacity.

Dudeface wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Is this thread about Death Guard?

It's a 40k thread, it's the same as all 40k threads, it ends up as a whine about marines in some capacity.

I was trying to use Marines as an example of why pruning rules and making adjustments to the game is good for the game (to point at why I don't think the DR change is bad for the army or the game) but it brought out the Firstborn Defense Brigade instead. Oops.

I was listening to HonestWargamer yesterday and I think he had a solid point that the DR change supports the Plague Marines and Terminators over the Daemon Engines and Cultists which is incredibly good as it serves to keep the army focused more on the infantry it should be focused on.

It also makes DG innately skew in any meta where loyalists are running roughshod since they aren't countered by the weapons the loyalists are.

Another thing that crossed my mind was that if the zombies get a FnP they'll benefit strongly from the DR since it means D2 weapons will only proc a single FnP save each.

Dudeface wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Is this thread about Death Guard?

It's a 40k thread, it's the same as all 40k threads, it ends up as a whine about marines in some capacity.

Death Guard are Chaos MARINES - worth remembering.

A comparison with the also recently released Marines seems logical?

I don't play Death Guard, but I have a couple of armies of them that were waiting for something like this.

I do think it was needed, based on the 8th book coming out like an afterthought and no work on it, except for last minute writing to shore up for the models.

Spoletta wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

As yes the "40k isn't balanced so they shouldn't bother" argument.You lost that in 8th when GW started making real steps to close loopholes and balance the game. 9th even more so as they've shown more efforts in the last few months to fix the game than most will give them credit for.

It's time to stop beating that dead horse.

Lol. If anything, the argument started in 8th. Historically, game balance has never been a fraction as bad as it was in late 8th after Marines 2.0.

You could've made the argument that GW cared about balance in 3rd, 4th (when they actually had a semi-competitive chess-guy writing rules), 5th and 6th, but 8th basically threw the idea out of the window (which makes sense, as they did diversify more into other games like, as said above, Warhammer Underworlds or Kill Team Arena, etc.. designed for competitive play from the ground up).

Well, this is simply false.

Except for that short window between IH release and the first nerf (around 2 weeks?) where there some egregious things going on, the rest of the edition both pre and post SM2.0 dex enjoyed a much better balance than the whole of 6th and 7th.

Currently, we are living in the most balanced 40k environment in my memory.

Which just show how bad your memory is. Marines　have　been top dogs since their 2.0 codex came and 9e codex　gave huge buffs.

Balance has been　going downhill as gw goes nuttier and nuttier and dropped all pretense of caring about balance. Not that they ever cared and just changed imbalance to change model　purchases. Now it's just on overdrive

 Mr Morden wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Is this thread about Death Guard?

It's a 40k thread, it's the same as all 40k threads, it ends up as a whine about marines in some capacity.

Death Guard are Chaos MARINES - worth remembering.

A comparison with the also recently released Marines seems logical?

Yes, but the discussion on the contents and balance of Codex: Space Marines is clearly off-topic and has absolutely no place in this thread, as stated in the first post.

Balance has been　going downhill as gw goes nuttier and nuttier and dropped all pretense of caring about balance. Not that they ever cared and just changed imbalance to change model　purchases. Now it's just on overdrive

As someone who has been playing since 2nd edition I can attest to the idea that the game is currently better balanced than it has ever been - because if people remember there was a long time between codexes and no frequent point updates or FAQs.. Have there been pitfalls on the road? Yep, wouldn't be GW without them, but balance is getting much better these days.

The big problem GW tends to face is that they fall in love with a paradigm change, but then take their sweet time rolling out the new paradigm change while probably discovering a new paradigm while doing so.

Just hope they keep the PM units ability to be just 7. Thats it, crap rules or not Im having 3 potentially 4 PM squads.

 Jidmah wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
Keep the salty " I hate firstborn marines because I have bad taste wahhh" Arguments to their own threads eh ?

Put away your projection. No one said they hate Firstborn. No need to make up hills to die on.

Honestly with DG delayed and GW's articles on them likely run their course, unless we get a round two this week we're likely treading water at the moment.

All kind of discussion about loyalists that is not involving death guard is explicitly off-topic for this thread and therefore violating the forum rules.

Thank you, I thought so as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seriously though, take debate of loyalist marines or their bloat or likes dislikes with them else where. Make a thread in the general, I'll bitch with the best of them there, this is for DG rumors, rules and news of the new codex and release for when it'll show up.

Let's try and keep it clean, as odd an idea as that may be for Nurgle.

I will say. Despite my eternal cynicism this has been a rather impressive beginning of edition rollout of books.

I'm trying to be optimistic that they'll do well with the Chaos Marines release and Death Guard getting the 9th treatment (especially the removal of the asinine Infantry, Bikes, Dreads garbage) is a great sign.

 NAVARRO wrote:
Just hope they keep the PM units ability to be just 7. Thats it, crap rules or not Im having 3 potentially 4 PM squads.

Just wishlisting basically, but it would be cool if there was a Sacred Number rule where if a unit was exactly 7 models, it counted as 5 for the purposes of Blast and coherency.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Semper wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Semper wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

I feel like the community does need to learn to let go. Legacy options don't need to be supported and things will have to change to improve the game. We can't keep everything the same and at the same time claim we want a more balanced game too. Balance is going to sacrifice things and accepting that sooner will make the game more enjoyable in the long run.

I would have thought we want an enjoyable game first and foremost? If that's the case, you assume that balance at any cost is the solution or that it has to sacrifice? Genuine question btw. Again, it's taking the argument to its conclusion if you really want to go this way. We may as well all have exactly the same stratgems, unit options so on and so forth. What exactly needs to be sacrificed for this balance we're looking for? Why is soup the sacrifice and not stratagems, for example? Or why do armies have different weapons? How much do we cut off because it's the easier thing to do? What do we keep cutting off?

Dude, the Marine codex alone has over 90 datasheets. Sometimes you have to prune the tree to keep it healthy. Don't play the slippery slope fallacy where they keep cutting things off willy nilly. Some options will need to be pruned and some rules will need to change in order to keep the game balanced and healthy.

You kind of skipped over all my questions there, mate. I am asking you what should be cut; what is this "some" you speak of? And why? I've already acknowledged that some things needed tailoring and have pointed out things that have been cut/tailored. I could, and perhaps I would be right to, assume you think the main marine codex would be a good target, judging by your example. If so, why are you here challenging complaints that the changes to the DG codex are unjust?

(Edited spelling here and there and clarified point further)

How am I skipping it when I've been very clear about it in previous posts: the entire Firstborn line. Anything without the "Primaris" Keyword. Take it all out.

And the point is that changes need to happen to keep the game balanced. DG are gaining a bunch of rules on top of the Plague Company rules and the change to DR benefits the Plague Marine over the daemon engines or the cultists, which is a good change for the book.

So, why then did you even reply to my complaints about them cutting synergy with daemons of nurgle or hurting having soup more when your core complaint is to do with first born and non-primaris marines? It doesn't seem like you're extending that to first born CSM (as otherwise you'd want PM to go too). Seems like there actually isn't conflict between our ideas. Ace. Glad we could clear that up.

 Eldarain wrote:
I will say. Despite my eternal cynicism this has been a rather impressive beginning of edition rollout of books.

I'm trying to be optimistic that they'll do well with the Chaos Marines release and Death Guard getting the 9th treatment (especially the removal of the asinine Infantry, Bikes, Dreads garbage) is a great sign.

Yeah I think the rules we've seen so far really fit the Death Guard well. I hope they handle the rules for the other Legions this well.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
Just wishlisting basically, but it would be cool if there was a Sacred Number rule where if a unit was exactly 7 models, it counted as 5 for the purposes of Blast and coherency.

I wish Sacred Numbers meant something. But I'd rather Marks meant something first.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
Just wishlisting basically, but it would be cool if there was a Sacred Number rule where if a unit was exactly 7 models, it counted as 5 for the purposes of Blast and coherency.

I wish Sacred Numbers meant something. But I'd rather Marks meant something first.

Yeah having numbers and marks be relevant to stuff would be cool.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
Just wishlisting basically, but it would be cool if there was a Sacred Number rule where if a unit was exactly 7 models, it counted as 5 for the purposes of Blast and coherency.

I wish Sacred Numbers meant something. But I'd rather Marks meant something first.

If they do make marks mean something again, then they should be sure to make Undivided actually do something. Every Legion doesn't worship the Chaos Gods.

So Contagions yeh.................. like actual real rules..............................nah lets not talk about that lets whine away and ruin this thread.

Seriously focus on what the threads about.

Definitely think the Contagions mean the terrain piece is probably the first auto include one for 40K. The Necron one is okay but needs a Cryptek to be at its best.

Whereas this is 9" aura from turn one.

 TwilightSparkles wrote:
Definitely think the Contagions mean the terrain piece is probably the first auto include one for 40K. The Necron one is okay but needs a Cryptek to be at its best.

Whereas this is 9" aura from turn one.

I think you are jumping the gun here for a number of reasons.

1. We don't know points
2. We don't know how tough it is to kill, that sort of is tied in with how much it is points wise.
3. Terrain is not easy to find a place to deploy that is 3" from all other terrain. It could end up having no where to be placed and that means you lose your points.

It certainly has potential, but we can't say yet

Blightlords

Sure would be cool if the Reaper AC was D2.

Nothing unexpected there, just need to wait and see whether they've kept the 4++ or not

 Marshal Loss wrote:
Nothing unexpected there, just need to wait and see whether they've kept the 4++ or not

Well, their movement is 5". I'd say they're going the way of the Loyalists to a 2+/5++ just like their Relic Terminator Armor.

 puma713 wrote:

 Marshal Loss wrote:
Nothing unexpected there, just need to wait and see whether they've kept the 4++ or not

Well, their movement is 5". I'd say they're going the way of the Loyalists to a 2+/5++ just like their Relic Terminator Armor.

Well yeah, thus why keeping a 4++ is a subject of discussion in the first place. A relatively safe assumption but not confirmed yet

I doubt you'll see a 4++ on those.

I wonder if the flail will keep its damage and attack shenanigans.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Sure would be cool if the Reaper AC was D2.

Yeah, seems like a pretty big miss there. I'm hoping when the Soulreaper cannon rolls around for Thousand Sons it's damage 2.

I don't mind varying heavy weapons being D1, it's specifically that this variant of Autocannon is D1 for whatever reason.

Anyone see anything to confirm whether we will get out ETB kits back in some form? Really sucks to lose them, especially Felthius. Seems like a good time to bring them back in new ways (bundled ETB death guard vs ETB primaris if nothing else).

axotl wrote:
Anyone see anything to confirm whether we will get out ETB kits back in some form? Really sucks to lose them, especially Felthius. Seems like a good time to bring them back in new ways (bundled ETB death guard vs ETB primaris if nothing else).

Death Guard Combat Patrol box?

It's pretty clear that they axed the ETB kits which were too cost-efficient. Unless you liked the models, there was little reason to buy the expensive all-options box of blightlords or plague marines or even deathshrouds when you could get the ETB sets and convert the few additional special weapons that actually saw play.

 Jidmah wrote:
It's pretty clear that they axed the ETB kits which were too cost-efficient. Unless you liked the models, there was little reason to buy the expensive all-options box of blightlords or plague marines or even deathshrouds when you could get the ETB sets and convert the few additional special weapons that actually saw play.

I know I went hack, maim, kill conversion crazy with the multiple ETB Death Guard I obtained through Conquest purchases.

As did I.
One multi part kit and three ETB provided a lot of variation

Ugh, so many special rules.

Nurglitch wrote:
Ugh, so many special rules.

Indeed.

And EC and WE legion players are still waiting...

mortar_crew wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:
Ugh, so many special rules.

Indeed.

And EC and WE legion players are still waiting...

For Thousand Sons and Death Guard to be rolled back into the main Legions codex so GW doesn't try to justify selling multiple books at their absurd pricing point?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

mortar_crew wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:
Ugh, so many special rules.

Indeed.

And EC and WE legion players are still waiting...

For Thousand Sons and Death Guard to be rolled back into the main Legions codex so GW doesn't try to justify selling multiple books at their absurd pricing point?

More the "Can we have our own overpriced codex and new range of miniatures at last?" kind of thing...

But I disgress, this is a DG thread, because DG has a (granted, delayed a bit) new version of their codex...

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

mortar_crew wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:
Ugh, so many special rules.

Indeed.

And EC and WE legion players are still waiting...

For Thousand Sons and Death Guard to be rolled back into the main Legions codex so GW doesn't try to justify selling multiple books at their absurd pricing point?

Games Workshop is a publishing company that happens to also sell miniatures.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

mortar_crew wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:
Ugh, so many special rules.

Indeed.

And EC and WE legion players are still waiting...

For Thousand Sons and Death Guard to be rolled back into the main Legions codex so GW doesn't try to justify selling multiple books at their absurd pricing point?

You mean kind of like how they rolled all the marines into one codex and then sell all the chapters an additional codex for their stuff, oh sorry not a codex, a " supplement " my bad. I think we know that even if they rolled DG and TS back into the main book it would do nothing to cut down on the number of books they put out, in fact I think it would do the opposite and just lead to even more books pumped out and just calling them supplements but really no one is going to play the faction without the book that has all their flavor and power inside it.

The price point IS a bit steep on books, but at the same time I'd rather pay the price we have now for what we get now than the price we had in the 90s for what we got the 90s. Especially bearing in mind that $20 then is over $30 now because inflation is a thing. We are paying double-ish the price for WAY more than double the content. Until you factor in psychic awakening, I hope they don't do that again.

3 wound Blightlords...

There's a difference between knowing it's coming and seeing it for the first time.

Please don't let them go nuts with the points.

 techsoldaten wrote:
3 wound Blightlords...

There's a difference between knowing it's coming and seeing it for the first time.

Please don't let them go nuts with the points.

I'm just hoping my Aquilon Custodes can keep them at bay. For my other armies? Looks like Long Fangs rocking lascannons are going to be MVP's.

 techsoldaten wrote:
3 wound Blightlords...

There's a difference between knowing it's coming and seeing it for the first time.

Please don't let them go nuts with the points.

Deathwing Terminators are 33ppm with sword and bolter, I don't think blightlords will be much more than that.

mortar_crew wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:
Ugh, so many special rules.

Indeed.

And EC and WE legion players are still waiting...

so is EVERY other non Marine sub faction but hey....

Assuming DG terminators go to 5++ save as expected I would be interested to see if they are actually more or less durable in new edition.

We have

2 wounds, 4++, 5+++
vs
3 wounds, 5++, -1 damage

I think they may be slightly more durable against low to no AP, but less durable against mortal wounds and most high AP weapons

 Mr Morden wrote:

mortar_crew wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:
Ugh, so many special rules.

Indeed.

And EC and WE legion players are still waiting...

so is EVERY other non Marine sub faction but hey....

True, I sure hope Codex (not supplement) Bor'Kan is worth the wait.

Doohicky wrote:
Assuming DG terminators go to 5++ save as expected I would be interested to see if they are actually more or less durable in new edition.

We have

2 wounds, 4++, 5+++
vs
3 wounds, 5++, -1 damage

I think they may be slightly more durable against low to no AP, but less durable against mortal wounds and most high AP weapons

Outside of edge cases, 2 wounds and 5+++ is roughly the same as 3 wounds, so they essentially now have a -1 damage on top to protect them from d3, 2 damage and 3 damage weapons.
So for 1 damage, they now just always get their average rolls.
Against 2 damage weapons -1 damage is great, but they would suck at killing 3W models anyways
Against 3 damage weapons they are now much more resilient than before

So the 5++ only really matters against AP-3 and up with high damage rolls(d6, 3+d3, d6+2) or when people try to kill them with non-overcharged plasma. Weapons like shuriken cannons might be slightly better at killing them as well.

Effectively forcing opponents to point heavy anti-tank weapons at them has great synergy with our daemon engines, so it's pretty good I guess?

Deathshroud:



+1WS
+1A
5" move
12" pistol range
2D on scythes instead of d3
-1S (doesn't matter with -1T aura)

Summary provided by Sarges on B&C

 Jidmah wrote:
Effectively forcing opponents to point heavy anti-tank weapons at them has great synergy with our daemon engines, so it's pretty good I guess?

Going to get into points, but you might just not bother with the demon engines.

DG seem to be shaping up as "melta or bust" for having a vaguely efficient way of killing them. Which, points depending - might not be that meta warping if their own damage is very low, but I'm not sure this will be the case.

I guess special weapons could all be very expensive - but the SM/Necron books wouldn't lead you to expecting it.

 NAVARRO wrote:
Just hope they keep the PM units ability to be just 7. Thats it, crap rules or not Im having 3 potentially 4 PM squads.

totally agree that not having the ability to take 7 strong units was a fluff fail.. 5 or 10? nope.. I want 7 models.. and when I did play the one game this year with this army, I was able to get my opponent to agree to a cost reduction for the 7 ..

However, I am gonna go with 7 squads of 7 guys.. then 7 "other squads" of 7.. Blightlord Terminators, Possessed, etc...

Cool changes, though it's likely that Creeping Blight will no longer work for them.
The gauntlets are going to be mean if Motarion's Chosen Sons keep their stratagems.

The stats feel decent for an elite of the elite unit.

You can take 7 in a squad at the moment, why would you expect that to be changed is there any precedent for that?

I just play 7 PM in my games anyways. I just like the extra bodies to keep my objectives/special weapons safe.

Not sure those stat changes are going to really make much difference to deathshroud. 1" extra movement isn't enough to make them useable. It'll be more interesting to see if cataphracti has indeed gone and they lose the 1/2 advance rule might make them more viable.
Either that or some sort of deepstrike shenanigan strategem that allows them to drop in closer than 9" if they land near a character or something?

Abaddon303 wrote:
You can take 7 in a squad at the moment, why would you expect that to be changed is there any precedent for that?

6 max, not 7. It won't be changed

edit: thought you were talking about Deathshroud, my bad - sorry!

 Jidmah wrote:
I just play 7 PM in my games anyways. I just like the extra bodies to keep my objectives/special weapons safe.

Same, always units of 7 for my Plaguemarines. It's going to be tougher to do that now with higher points, but I sure as hell will try. And units of 7 will be very hard to counter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marshal Loss wrote:

Abaddon303 wrote:
You can take 7 in a squad at the moment, why would you expect that to be changed is there any precedent for that?

6 max, not 7. It won't be changed

Oh you mean for deathshroud, sorry, didn't catch that.

Would be nice, but I do the units of 3 instead as a homage to the flylord symbol instead

Doohicky wrote:
Would be nice, but I do the units of 3 instead as a homage to the flylord symbol instead

7 Flylord symbols on 7 models would be more fluffy.

With Deathshroud - given their movement, I'm thinking they are the unit that now just deepstrikes onto an objective. Doesn't matter if they can move, they're just very hard to remove with the new DR.

Nurglitch wrote:
Ugh, so many special rules.

Hey, at least Death Guard don't have to track Contagion Points or the stages of the Cycle of Corruption.

Abaddon303 wrote:
Not sure those stat changes are going to really make much difference to deathshroud. 1" extra movement isn't enough to make them useable. It'll be more interesting to see if cataphracti has indeed gone and they lose the 1/2 advance rule might make them more viable.
Either that or some sort of deepstrike shenanigan strategem that allows them to drop in closer than 9" if they land near a character or something?

I had some decent success running them in a LR with DR and 5++. At the very least, it worked much better than running Mortarion for the same costs.
5" instead of 4" combined with 12" gauntlets also means that you are a lot less likely to be a sitting duck and do nothing if you don't succeed your charge from deep strike.

Abaddon303 wrote:
Not sure those stat changes are going to really make much difference to deathshroud. 1" extra movement isn't enough to make them useable. It'll be more interesting to see if cataphracti has indeed gone and they lose the 1/2 advance rule might make them more viable.
Either that or some sort of deepstrike shenanigan strategem that allows them to drop in closer than 9" if they land near a character or something?

If cataphractii does still exist would DG inexorable advance rules not negate the 1/2 advance rule anyway? It's no longer an issue either way

I'm still not sure on the point of Deathshroud when viewed from perspective of the whole codex, outside of their ability to just be a sponge for Morty in case you don't get turn one. They're interesting in a fluffy game but every time i've used them, i've just found them utterly underwhelming in every respect unless I built the army around them to give them the right buffs. If they turn up late in a close game, they could be clutch via toughness and hitting power I suppose.

They still should probably have 4 wounds each, maybe, and they desperately need to keep that 4++.

The problem with Deathshroud terminators has always been getting into combat. But they delete anything they do get into combat with.
Absolute monsters.
I've had them get lucky and take out a knight in a single round before (They had some aura and psychic support).

Of course I have also had them deepstrike, do nothing and die hahah

Doohicky wrote:
The problem with Deathshroud terminators has always been getting into combat. But they delete anything they do get into combat with.
Absolute monsters.
I've had them get lucky and take out a knight in a single round before (They had some aura and psychic support).

Of course I have also had them deepstrike, do nothing and die hahah

Haha, yeah. I've sadly had more experience of the latter than the former. The only time I had them do well is when I literally built around them but that kind doesn't hold up in 9th.

Still. I've fingers crossed there will be some strats and powers to support them better.

Me and a few friends were going to go to the 2021 Warhammer World Doubles tournament before Covid wrecked all that.

My List was Morty, Malignant Plaguecaster, 2 x 3 Deathshroud and a Foul blightspawn. (Paired with a Slaneesh themed Chaos 900pts
The one practice game I got to play before lockdown they were actually great. But as you say, that was a list geared towards them. Protect Morty until he hit lines and otherwise just be distraction.

 porkuslime wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:
Just hope they keep the PM units ability to be just 7. Thats it, crap rules or not Im having 3 potentially 4 PM squads.

totally agree that not having the ability to take 7 strong units was a fluff fail.. 5 or 10? nope.. I want 7 models.. and when I did play the one game this year with this army, I was able to get my opponent to agree to a cost reduction for the 7 ..

However, I am gonna go with 7 squads of 7 guys.. then 7 "other squads" of 7.. Blightlord Terminators, Possessed, etc...

When have they not been able to take? Can take 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 but not 7? How was that rule phrased?

tneva82 wrote:

 porkuslime wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:
Just hope they keep the PM units ability to be just 7. Thats it, crap rules or not Im having 3 potentially 4 PM squads.

totally agree that not having the ability to take 7 strong units was a fluff fail.. 5 or 10? nope.. I want 7 models.. and when I did play the one game this year with this army, I was able to get my opponent to agree to a cost reduction for the 7 ..

However, I am gonna go with 7 squads of 7 guys.. then 7 "other squads" of 7.. Blightlord Terminators, Possessed, etc...

When have they not been able to take? Can take 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 but not 7? How was that rule phrased?

There's nothing that stops you from taking units of 7.

However, if you play power levels, you have a strong disincentive to take 7 because you are paying for 10.

If you are playing a points list, do what you want. I think the post is saying he wishes the standard unit size was 7.

 techsoldaten wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 porkuslime wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:
Just hope they keep the PM units ability to be just 7. Thats it, crap rules or not Im having 3 potentially 4 PM squads.

totally agree that not having the ability to take 7 strong units was a fluff fail.. 5 or 10? nope.. I want 7 models.. and when I did play the one game this year with this army, I was able to get my opponent to agree to a cost reduction for the 7 ..

However, I am gonna go with 7 squads of 7 guys.. then 7 "other squads" of 7.. Blightlord Terminators, Possessed, etc...

When have they not been able to take? Can take 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 but not 7? How was that rule phrased?

There's nothing that stops you from taking units of 7.

However, if you play power levels, you have a strong disincentive to take 7 because you are paying for 10.

If you are playing a points list, do what you want. I think the post is saying he wishes the standard unit size was 7.

Correct. under the Power Level rules, you get X marines for a certain PL, then +5 more for another bump in Power Level..

I wish it had been possible under Power Levels, to get God Number of troops.. not just for Nurgle, but 8, 9 or however many Slaanesh uses on a given day

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:
Ugh, so many special rules.

Hey, at least Death Guard don't have to track Contagion Points or the stages of the Cycle of Corruption.

Ugh, ain't that the truth.

Not 100% new codex related but dreads are back.

"The Imperial Armour Compendium updated 222 datasheets for the new edition of Warhammer 40,000. This FAQ article has been prepared by the Warhammer 40,000 Studio to answer your questions on the book, including whether Death Guard and Thousand Sons can take Contemptor and Leviathan Dreadnoughts – they can! They’ve also created another document for the Forge World units that were added to Warhammer Legends."

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/12/17/new-faqs-for-warhammer-40000-and-board-games/

 techsoldaten wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 porkuslime wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:
Just hope they keep the PM units ability to be just 7. Thats it, crap rules or not Im having 3 potentially 4 PM squads.

totally agree that not having the ability to take 7 strong units was a fluff fail.. 5 or 10? nope.. I want 7 models.. and when I did play the one game this year with this army, I was able to get my opponent to agree to a cost reduction for the 7 ..

However, I am gonna go with 7 squads of 7 guys.. then 7 "other squads" of 7.. Blightlord Terminators, Possessed, etc...

When have they not been able to take? Can take 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 but not 7? How was that rule phrased?

There's nothing that stops you from taking units of 7.

However, if you play power levels, you have a strong disincentive to take 7 because you are paying for 10.

If you are playing a points list, do what you want. I think the post is saying he wishes the standard unit size was 7.

The current datasheet does let you do a unit of 7, though.

5 PM for 7 power, +2 marines for +3 PL, +5 for +6 PL (or 10 or 15 for etc). It isn't a good deal, but the current codex _is_ set up to do exactly 7 plague marines.

Holly feth they fixed the Minions of chaos rule.


and pretty much nothing else for R&H in legends.
Well done GW
even when you do something good you still fail.

wojtekwroc wrote:
Not 100% new codex related but dreads are back.

"The Imperial Armour Compendium updated 222 datasheets for the new edition of Warhammer 40,000. This FAQ article has been prepared by the Warhammer 40,000 Studio to answer your questions on the book, including whether Death Guard and Thousand Sons can take Contemptor and Leviathan Dreadnoughts – they can! They’ve also created another document for the Forge World units that were added to Warhammer Legends."

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/12/17/new-faqs-for-warhammer-40000-and-board-games/

Notice the ADDITION of bubotic astartes not replacement of heretic astartes.

Also interesting that tzeentch get Arcana Astartes. Has that been seen before? Probably I just never noticed it

My hope to include assault drills to my DGs is back baby!

Doohicky wrote:

wojtekwroc wrote:
Not 100% new codex related but dreads are back.

"The Imperial Armour Compendium updated 222 datasheets for the new edition of Warhammer 40,000. This FAQ article has been prepared by the Warhammer 40,000 Studio to answer your questions on the book, including whether Death Guard and Thousand Sons can take Contemptor and Leviathan Dreadnoughts – they can! They’ve also created another document for the Forge World units that were added to Warhammer Legends."

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/12/17/new-faqs-for-warhammer-40000-and-board-games/

Notice the ADDITION of bubotic astartes not replacement of heretic astartes.

Also interesting that tzeentch get Arcana Astartes. Has that been seen before? Probably I just never noticed it

It's almost like gw realizes that Death Guard are HERETIC ASTARTES. So we'll probably still see some cross-legion synergies. Good to see they've clarified that they can take Legion vehicles, though they still have to deal with the terribly implemented Martial Legacy rule. Might be worth it if they can still give them DR.

R&H rules still a mess, though they've fixed the keywords.

I have one heretical idea:

what if... our drones is now -1W and they lost dmg table because of option to have them in 3 men squad

What benefit would that have though?

for example to play 9 of them

EDIT: it means 9x6 36' S6 -3 2 with reroll 1 on wound...

Drones are still unlikely to cost less than 120 points, and spending way over 1000 points for this doesn't seem like a good deal.

I'm guessing they made drones 9W for the same reason they made Contemptors 9W: Because it makes them better. No deteriorating stats is an excellent trade for -1 wound.

I also appreciate MBH and drones having the same statline, so I don't have to check every time.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:


R&H rules still a mess, though they've fixed the keywords.

Not really. They have rules that refer to the <CHAOS COVENANT> keyword that doesn't exist anywhere.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:


R&H rules still a mess, though they've fixed the keywords.

Not really. They have rules that refer to the <CHAOS COVENANT> keyword that doesn't exist anywhere.

Atleast they can now hold objectives

I hear holding objectives is good, I read it, in a book.

So after seeing many of that new data sheets and the leaked rules I thought I would make so some predictions on points. We still do t know a few factors such as if the DG terminators keep their 4++. I will assume in numbers they stay at 4++. I used some analysis from the first born marines getting 2Ws and the IG codex to assess the points costs going from a 4+ BS to a 3+ BS. I also predicted several nerfs such as arch contaminatior, loss of the 4++ on daemon engines, and no more DTFE. All my points predictions are without any weapon upgrades and min sized units.

Projected points range within +/- 5pts :


PBC- 180pts
MBH- 120pts
Plague Marines- 110pts
Deathshroud-170pts (this is hard because they historically overprice these for some reason they shouldn’t cost as much as 5x BGVs)
Blightlords- 250
Bloatdrone with mower 135pts
Bloatdrone with HBL 145pts
Bloatdrone with spitters 145pts (BS/WS helped everything but the spitters)
Typhus- 165pts

If the points don’t go up too much on Deathshrouds they sound pretty tasty now. Going from S8 to S7 hurts against T 8, 7, and 4 targets a bit, but hitting on 2s, +1 A, and flat 2 damage seem to more than make up for it.

broxus wrote:
So after seeing many of that new data sheets and the leaked rules I thought I would make so some predictions on points. We still do t know a few factors such as if the DG terminators keep their 4++. I will assume in numbers they stay at 4++. I used some analysis from the first born marines getting 2Ws and the IG codex to assess the points costs going from a 4+ BS to a 3+ BS. I also predicted several nerfs such as arch contaminatior, loss of the 4++ on daemon engines, and no more DTFE. All my points predictions are without any weapon upgrades and min sized units.

Projected points range within +/- 5pts :


PBC- 180pts
MBH- 120pts
Plague Marines- 110pts
Deathshroud-170pts (this is hard because they historically overprice these for some reason they shouldn’t cost as much as 5x BGVs)
Blightlords- 250
Bloatdrone with mower 135pts
Bloatdrone with HBL 145pts
Bloatdrone with spitters 145pts (BS/WS helped everything but the spitters)
Typhus- 165pts

I think you have terminators at too many points, keep in mind that loyalist terminators have come down to 33 points with storm bolter and melee weapon included, even death wing knights are only 47. Blightlords schould probably be around 40 and deathshrouds at slightly less, assuming they keep their 4++.
Everything else seem about right, though I think you could shave off another 10 points off the drone since it lost is plague probe and one wound. Right now the only difference to a MBH is having FLY instead of all the rules MBH get.

I agree that likely the blightlords and deathshroud are too expensive. However, as I stated GW loves to over cost them. If you compare them BGV and space marine terminators then their costs seem silly. I would like to see the blightlords cost around 225pts (10 more than BGV) and death shroud cost around 150pts (15 more than BGV)

Bloat drones now get a WS and BS of 3+ which will increase their points. However, with the DR nerf and them not being core should help balance the costs. I doubt the cost will go below what I put.

What makes you think that a blightlord is worth 12 more points than a deathwing terminator?
Honest question.

Also, all variants of the drone but the heavy blightlauncher (which was trash tier before) were nerfed, why should they increase in points?
Just for clarity: flesh mower got -1 strength, plague probe went from d3 to 1 damage, -1 wound and DR was nerfed

 Jidmah wrote:
What makes you think that a blightlord is worth 12 more points than a deathwing terminator?
Honest question.

Also, all variants of the drone but the heavy blightlauncher (which was trash tier before) were nerfed, why should they increase in points?
Just for clarity: flesh mower got -1 strength, plague probe went from d3 to 1 damage, -1 wound and DR was nerfed

These are the points I project they are going to be., not the points I think they should be. GW for some reason always over points death guard terminators. Also, drones getting BS/WS 3+ is a pretty big buff which means they are going to go up slightly in points. I weighed the nerfs and buffs to calculate. That is the reason they went up only around 10pts instead of 25pts.

Do we have a release date for the new book, other than "early next year" ?

Nope, sorry.
Assuming the rumor about the codices lying on the bottom of the ocean is true, they probably have to re-print everything on short notice during another pandemic peak, and printing companies usually have their slots blocked far in advance.

In addition, currently Europe is blocking most of the traffic to the UK, in fear of their COVID-19 mutation spreading to the continent, so that might delay it even further.

However, I assure you that as soon as I hear anything, I will update the thread title

 Jidmah wrote:
Nope, sorry.
Assuming the rumor about the codices lying on the bottom of the ocean is true, they probably have to re-print everything on short notice during another pandemic peak, and printing companies usually have their slots blocked far in advance.

In addition, currently Europe is blocking most of the traffic to the UK, in fear of their COVID-19 mutation spreading to the continent, so that might delay it even further.

However, I assure you that as soon as I hear anything, I will update the thread title

Thank you very much!

So now the codex drops are being given to the under water players first ? Damn you Atlantis !!!!

Seriously though what is the rumor of the books being on the bottom of the sea ? I didn't hear that one.

I know when I was last in my local GW - Black Library preview day - the manager was mentioning something about a container ship losing most of its cargo, possibly including the books for the DG launch.

Those fishes are going to be wondering why there are no rules for falcons in the book.

I though Death Guard was delayed by the plague, but it was apparently the Deepkin all along?

Damn you Deepkin !!! Elves are the worst, in space or below the waves, always making stuff harder.

What do we thing the good blight drone choices will be stats wise with the nerfs, points notwithstanding of course..
Luckily I never got round to building my other two as it may vary now.

Danny76 wrote:
What do we thing the good blight drone choices will be stats wise with the nerfs, points notwithstanding of course..
Luckily I never got round to building my other two as it may vary now.

Hard to say without knowing the points but the heavy blight launcher just looks great now for killing marines. I had already been operating under the thinking it was gonna be good due to the 3+ BS and fixed 2 damage but having just checked the datasheet again I hadn't even realised it's now -3AP!

You'll be pretty consistently killing 3 maybe 4 primaris per turn if you can get the -1T lined up and you can still charge and do a little damage with the probe then shoot in combat.

All three options look good but I like how you're almost guaranteed to find a decent target from the very first round with the HBL rather than needing to get close with the other two options

I can appreciate the metaphorical irony of Death Guard being delayed due to a global pandemic.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I can appreciate the metaphorical irony of Death Guard being delayed due to a global pandemic.

The main reason for them being delayed seems to be due to bad weather though.

 Jidmah wrote:
Nope, sorry.
Assuming the rumor about the codices lying on the bottom of the ocean is true, they probably have to re-print everything on short notice during another pandemic peak, and printing companies usually have their slots blocked far in advance.

In addition, currently Europe is blocking most of the traffic to the UK, in fear of their COVID-19 mutation spreading to the continent, so that might delay it even further.

However, I assure you that as soon as I hear anything, I will update the thread title

Would be interesting to know how UK printed books can lie in bottom of ocean. Much more likely it's the terrain piece which are cast in china that's causing delay.

tneva82 wrote:
Would be interesting to know how UK printed books can lie in bottom of ocean. Much more likely it's the terrain piece which are cast in china that's causing delay.

We already established that books are printed both in the UK and in China.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Abaddon303 wrote:

Danny76 wrote:
What do we thing the good blight drone choices will be stats wise with the nerfs, points notwithstanding of course..
Luckily I never got round to building my other two as it may vary now.

Hard to say without knowing the points but the heavy blight launcher just looks great now for killing marines. I had already been operating under the thinking it was gonna be good due to the 3+ BS and fixed 2 damage but having just checked the datasheet again I hadn't even realised it's now -3AP!

You'll be pretty consistently killing 3 maybe 4 primaris per turn if you can get the -1T lined up and you can still charge and do a little damage with the probe then shoot in combat.

All three options look good but I like how you're almost guaranteed to find a decent target from the very first round with the HBL rather than needing to get close with the other two options

Agree with this. Especially on a platform with fly, you can easily jump onto terrain to get good LoS and make use of that 36" range. Spitters were already mediocre when 9th took away their ability to fall back and shoot, the nerfed plague probe only makes them worse. I'd wage that they won't see a lot of play anymore.
The fleshmower looks decent though, the loss of strength is offset by the -1T and 3+ WS turns them up to daemon prince level in combat. They also seem to be good super-spreaders for contagions aura, in turn 3 a pair of drones might give large parts of your opponent's army -1T against your shooting.
The biggest problem is probably deciding what to put into our fast attack slots

So I’m being told the GW rep has said we can’t place any new orders for several weeks. They’re just going to try and fill all the delayed orders and get all their shipping caught up.

 AduroT wrote:
So I’m being told the GW rep has said we can’t place any new orders for several weeks. They’re just going to try and fill all the delayed orders and get all their shipping caught up.

Heard the same thing locally. They also mentioned that they are not expecting any actual releases until the end of January, to give time for Manufacturing to catch up.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/12/23/an-update-on-warhammer-releases-in-2021/

Rather than weekly, you’ll see new releases every fortnight, with the first pre-orders of 2021 on the 16th of January.

If you’re a Warhammer 40,000 fan, you’ll see a new codex or expansion every month in January, February, and March starting with the Death Guard – Nurgle, bless ’em, they have waited a long time…

So, best case pre-orders will be up on the 16th, worst case on the 30th of January.

Means I will be ordering codex online as here in NI the GW store is closed until feb due to our lockdown rules.

Suppose that gives me a chance to look over codex and decide what I am going to buy for the DG coin (They are holding them as not open). I know it will be some vehicles and maybe the new Lord...

We have a long time to wait then unfortunately.
Something i noticed today that I don't think I've seen much mention of. The datasheet for the greater blight drone shows it's putrid explosion now works like mortarions and only hurts non Nurgle units.
I wonder if that will carry over to the FBD and MBH? Always seemed a little odd that an explosion of disease would hurt the disciples of Nurgle.
As an aside, what are people's thoughts on the greater blight drone? Obviously we don't know points for the FBD yet but general consensus is that they will likely rise.
But even if they don't rise in price, the GBD seems really good value when it's like you end up with half a spitter drone and half a blight launcher drone with the exact same profile except boosted to a 14" move as opposed to 10".
Or could we be about to see a point reduction on the FBDs?

Abaddon303 wrote:
We have a long time to wait then unfortunately.
Something i noticed today that I don't think I've seen much mention of. The datasheet for the greater blight drone shows it's putrid explosion now works like mortarions and only hurts non Nurgle units.
I wonder if that will carry over to the FBD and MBH? Always seemed a little odd that an explosion of disease would hurt the disciples of Nurgle.
As an aside, what are people's thoughts on the greater blight drone? Obviously we don't know points for the FBD yet but general consensus is that they will likely rise.
But even if they don't rise in price, the GBD seems really good value when it's like you end up with half a spitter drone and half a blight launcher drone with the exact same profile except boosted to a 14" move as opposed to 10".
Or could we be about to see a point reduction on the FBDs?

Very interesting this may bode very well for our points updates. Umm wait is it missing an invulnerable save? Are he DG daemon engines losing invulnerable saves?

No one of its abilities is 'daemonic' and references the codex datasheet which is the 5++

tneva82 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Nope, sorry.
Assuming the rumor about the codices lying on the bottom of the ocean is true, they probably have to re-print everything on short notice during another pandemic peak, and printing companies usually have their slots blocked far in advance.

In addition, currently Europe is blocking most of the traffic to the UK, in fear of their COVID-19 mutation spreading to the continent, so that might delay it even further.

However, I assure you that as soon as I hear anything, I will update the thread title

Would be interesting to know how UK printed books can lie in bottom of ocean. Much more likely it's the terrain piece which are cast in china that's causing delay.

Even if it is printed in the UK, other countries would need copies, and the UK is an island. They may treat other countries as second class, but GW wouldn't release just the UK copies anyways if say the stock of books going to the US was sunk.

broxus wrote:
So after seeing many of that new data sheets and the leaked rules I thought I would make so some predictions on points. We still do t know a few factors such as if the DG terminators keep their 4++. I will assume in numbers they stay at 4++. I used some analysis from the first born marines getting 2Ws and the IG codex to assess the points costs going from a 4+ BS to a 3+ BS. I also predicted several nerfs such as arch contaminatior, loss of the 4++ on daemon engines, and no more DTFE. All my points predictions are without any weapon upgrades and min sized units.

Projected points range within +/- 5pts :


PBC- 180pts
MBH- 120pts
Plague Marines- 110pts
Deathshroud-170pts (this is hard because they historically overprice these for some reason they shouldn’t cost as much as 5x BGVs)
Blightlords- 250
Bloatdrone with mower 135pts
Bloatdrone with HBL 145pts
Bloatdrone with spitters 145pts (BS/WS helped everything but the spitters)
Typhus- 165pts

Didn't loyalist Marines and Necrons get very few points adjustments with their 9th Ed codices? There were also a bunch of weird points changes in the 8th->9th transition that, in retrospect, were predicated on 9th Ed rules changes (eg heavy bolters and multi-meltas). So far the evidence seems to suggest that the 8th->9th points updates were basically previews of their upcoming codex values.

At this point I would assume that, aside from adjustments stemming from the Marines themselves getting an extra wound, there won't be any major points changes.

 Jidmah wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/12/23/an-update-on-warhammer-releases-in-2021/

Nurgle, bless ’em, they have waited a long time…

Uh huh. Suuuuuuuure they have.

This is where you can actually hear the Emperor's Children and World Eaters players roll their eyes.

 catbarf wrote:

broxus wrote:
So after seeing many of that new data sheets and the leaked rules I thought I would make so some predictions on points. We still do t know a few factors such as if the DG terminators keep their 4++. I will assume in numbers they stay at 4++. I used some analysis from the first born marines getting 2Ws and the IG codex to assess the points costs going from a 4+ BS to a 3+ BS. I also predicted several nerfs such as arch contaminatior, loss of the 4++ on daemon engines, and no more DTFE. All my points predictions are without any weapon upgrades and min sized units.

Projected points range within +/- 5pts :


PBC- 180pts
MBH- 120pts
Plague Marines- 110pts
Deathshroud-170pts (this is hard because they historically overprice these for some reason they shouldn’t cost as much as 5x BGVs)
Blightlords- 250
Bloatdrone with mower 135pts
Bloatdrone with HBL 145pts
Bloatdrone with spitters 145pts (BS/WS helped everything but the spitters)
Typhus- 165pts

Didn't loyalist Marines and Necrons get very few points adjustments with their 9th Ed codices? There were also a bunch of weird points changes in the 8th->9th transition that, in retrospect, were predicated on 9th Ed rules changes (eg heavy bolters and multi-meltas). So far the evidence seems to suggest that the 8th->9th points updates were basically previews of their upcoming codex values.

At this point I would assume that, aside from adjustments stemming from the Marines themselves getting an extra wound, there won't be any major points changes.

Can't speak for Space Marines, but nearly every single unit in the 9th edition Necrons got new point values in the Codex, I can't think of any units offhand that were the same in CA2020 and in the Codex.

 Sasori wrote:
Can't speak for Space Marines, but nearly every single unit in the 9th edition Necrons got point adjustments from CA2020.

As in, the codex values were different from CA2020? If so then clearly I wasn't paying enough attention, my bad.

 catbarf wrote:

 Sasori wrote:
Can't speak for Space Marines, but nearly every single unit in the 9th edition Necrons got point adjustments from CA2020.

As in, the codex values were different from CA2020? If so then clearly I wasn't paying enough attention, my bad.

yes, significantly so in many instances. I've edited my post to make it a bit more clear, I can see how my wording can be confusing.

Bob Lorgar wrote:
Uh huh. Suuuuuuuure they have.

This is where you can actually hear the Emperor's Children and World Eaters players roll their eyes.

Be careful what you whish for. Getting your own codex also means absolutely zero support and updates or any participation in any of the campaigns for over 3 years. Oh, and you lose halve your model range when the new edition comes around.

I feel literally zero sadness for DG. They’re really not in a bad spot even currently.

I DO actually feel bad for Tau. I was gonna say I feel bad for eldar but soup is a thing even if you don’t choose to partake.

Tau are straight up hot garbage that can literally not compete in 9th missions. We have no idea when they might get a new codex, and it’s looking like it won’t be soon.

Quasistellar wrote:
I feel literally zero sadness for DG. They’re really not in a bad spot even currently.

I DO actually feel bad for Tau. I was gonna say I feel bad for eldar but soup is a thing even if you don’t choose to partake.

Tau are straight up hot garbage that can literally not compete in 9th missions. We have no idea when they might get a new codex, and it’s looking like it won’t be soon.

I just have zero tau how to fix tau in 9th. Shooting armies of all types are not doing well in this edition.


That being said, DG have the oldest codex in 40K. Just for variety reasons they needed updating. They got their codex at the beginning of 8th.

 Jidmah wrote:

Bob Lorgar wrote:
Uh huh. Suuuuuuuure they have.

This is where you can actually hear the Emperor's Children and World Eaters players roll their eyes.

Be careful what you whish for. Getting your own codex also means absolutely zero support and updates or any participation in any of the campaigns for over 3 years. Oh, and you lose halve your model range when the new edition comes around.

Since we have exactly three and only three kits anymore (Lord of Battles, Kharn, and Berzerkers) and our only infantry kit is about 22 years old now, I think us World Eaters passed "absolutely zero support" a long, long, long time ago. I would kill for the "absolutely zero support" either the Death Guard or Thousand Sons have had. And the Emperor's Children are in an even worse state. As far as I'm concerned, no Death Guard player has any right to complain about anything at all for at least the next decade.

 Jidmah wrote:

Bob Lorgar wrote:
Uh huh. Suuuuuuuure they have.

This is where you can actually hear the Emperor's Children and World Eaters players roll their eyes.

Be careful what you whish for. Getting your own codex also means absolutely zero support and updates or any participation in any of the campaigns for over 3 years. Oh, and you lose halve your model range when the new edition comes around.

You act like that isn't a straight upgrade from how normal CSM are treated lol.

 Jidmah wrote:

Bob Lorgar wrote:
Uh huh. Suuuuuuuure they have.

This is where you can actually hear the Emperor's Children and World Eaters players roll their eyes.

Be careful what you whish for. Getting your own codex also means absolutely zero support and updates or any participation in any of the campaigns for over 3 years. Oh, and you lose halve your model range when the new edition comes around.

What an absurd statement. Good luck finding a DG player unhappy with their treatment over the last 3.5 years

Bob Lorgar wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Bob Lorgar wrote:
Uh huh. Suuuuuuuure they have.

This is where you can actually hear the Emperor's Children and World Eaters players roll their eyes.

Be careful what you whish for. Getting your own codex also means absolutely zero support and updates or any participation in any of the campaigns for over 3 years. Oh, and you lose halve your model range when the new edition comes around.

Since we have exactly three and only three kits anymore (Lord of Battles, Kharn, and Berzerkers) and our only infantry kit is about 22 years old now, I think us World Eaters passed "absolutely zero support" a long, long, long time ago. I would kill for the "absolutely zero support" either the Death Guard or Thousand Sons have had. And the Emperor's Children are in an even worse state. As far as I'm concerned, no Death Guard player has any right to complain about anything at all for at least the next decade.

Two codices, two campaign books, multiple new model releases and some updated models is not zero support, sorry.

Between the codex release in September 2017 and War of the Spider in June 2020 the only things DG received were bolter discipline and hateful assault.

Not to mention the hole notion of "DG don't deserve..." is just childish behavior.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marshal Loss wrote:
What an absurd statement. Good luck finding a DG player unhappy with their treatment over the last 3.5 years

Yeah, how absurd.
Do you remember how happy DG players were when pox walkers were nerfed into the ground because of chaos soup?
Do you remember how happy DG players were to get absolutely nothing out of Vigilus despite being a major party in the conflict those books were describing?
Do you remember how happy DG players were when none of the Shadowspear units were made available to them, while all of the marine units were made available to every snowflake chapter?
Do you remember how happy DG players were when the only faction with less stratagems was assassins?

Yes, war of the spider was totally awesome, but it was released 1 month before the end of the edition, and up until then, getting rolled back into Codex:CSM and losing all their warlord traits, stratagems and psychic powers in exchange for getting the generic stuff would have been all upside to them.

 Jidmah wrote:
Yeah, how absurd.

Don't be so painfully obtuse. None of the points you listed come anywhere close to eclipsing what DG have received since being fleshed out as a book independent of vanilla CSM. Implying that EC or WE fans would lose anything of tangible value as a result of similar treatment is patently absurd.

Bob Lorgar wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/12/23/an-update-on-warhammer-releases-in-2021/

Nurgle, bless ’em, they have waited a long time…

Uh huh. Suuuuuuuure they have.

This is where you can actually hear the Emperor's Children and World Eaters players roll their eyes.

Strange, I don't recall those factions having a Codex release month announced, and then postponed for... reasons.

Oh, wait, they're still in the main CSM book, and enjoying the... well... "benefits" of such a position.

How're those Greater Possessed and Venomcrawlers doing for you, Bob?

That's fething hilarious. I own most of a DG army without even trying to collect it. GW literally giving away a full and expansive range of contemporary models almost for free. Can hardly get away from them. Quite right Jidmah, quite right. How can any World Eater player even think about comparing their releases to DG when they have this absolute beauty to base their army on?


You are correct Sir.We need more DG first and foremost, and only then should we start maybe thinking about possibly chucking WE collectors a bone (though in all honestly I think they have too much already and we should probably just delete the Berzerker kit rather than update it).

DG and WE support somewhat comparable. lol

Jidmah is probably right about World Eaters and Emperor's Children losing some things if they got their own codexes though. Although they would probably gain their own terminators, daemon engines and the like, they would also probably lose many of the "vanilla" CSM units. So probably no Havocs for World Eaters, and no Raptors (and possibly Warp Talons) for either, along with many of the Undivided daemon engines, just like Death Guard. It's up to World Eaters and Emperor's Children players whether or not that's a good trade off or not.

Personally, I hope we do see a return to the way gw handled the Legions in 3.5 and Traitor Legions, where everyone can't have everything, and get away from the bland grey paste gw has made the Legions for most of the game since the release of the horrid 4th edition CSM codex.

I do have to laugh at the idea that CSM got two codexes in 8th though. Calling C:CSM "2" a new codex is like calling a 97 Corolla with a new pair of fuzzy dice a new car. Gw actually telling CSM players who already owned the original 8th edition CSM codex not to buy it says it all....

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Jidmah is probably right about World Eaters and Emperor's Children losing some things if they got their own codexes though.

Of course. We all know that's going to happen when/if one or more of these factions is put into their own book. Doesn't make it any less absurd to say that EC or WE players should be "careful what they wish for" though. The downsides he lists as the price paid by the Death Guard for their vast model range + codex ("oh no, I wasn't in Vigilus!!11") sound perfectly reasonable to me. As an EC player I'd happily lose access to everything DG lost if that were the price for a dedicated model range + codex, and I cannot for the life of me imagine any EC or WE player anywhere who'd say "oh well I might lose my (insert unit here), I don't want to receive the DG treatment".

May be (just may be...) most of World Eaters and Emperor's Children players would like to have models
which are not decades old for their cult troops?

I know I do.

Not one plastic kit for regular Noise marines. (No the special edition one is not a squad)
The above kit for Khorne berserkers.

That sums up things pretty well for me.

I for one does not care about list options for competitive play this much,
I just do care about models I can use or not.

There are so much DG models out there I cannot remember them all.

Maybe it’s just me, but I much prefer the smaller unit roster in armies. Doing up a Death Guard army now, and it’s certainly a lot easier knowing what to get due to the smaller roster. Fast Attack is Myphitic Blight Haulers or Foetid Blight Drones, Heavy Support is Plagueburst Crawlers.
As opposed to my Primaris Blood Angels, where I have too many choices to try and stuff all the units I like in to my lists.

Maybe, we should keep this on topic and not make it a rant on how other chaos factions aren't treated as well as Death guard ?

Death guard gained things and lost them, other sub factions would be great to get their own books as well as new models to replace super dated ones.

That said, why are you all bashing on DG for that ? It isn't DG eating up all these release windows and keeping all the other chaos forces down. It's a little childish to spite DG for getting some attention just because your fav faction isn't it getting it when its hardly the fault of DG you don't get new models or even your own new book.

Unless I'm missing all of these numerous new kits that have been releasing for DG month on month since they dropped in early 8th till currently.

Death Guard lost WAY more than they gained.

 Marshal Loss wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Jidmah is probably right about World Eaters and Emperor's Children losing some things if they got their own codexes though.

Of course. We all know that's going to happen when/if one or more of these factions is put into their own book. Doesn't make it any less absurd to say that EC or WE players should be "careful what they wish for" though. The downsides he lists as the price paid by the Death Guard for their vast model range + codex ("oh no, I wasn't in Vigilus!!11") sound perfectly reasonable to me. As an EC player I'd happily lose access to everything DG lost if that were the price for a dedicated model range + codex, and I cannot for the life of me imagine any EC or WE player anywhere who'd say "oh well I might lose my (insert unit here), I don't want to receive the DG treatment".

Oh really? You must have missed all the pre-8th DG players rightfully complaining about essentially getting their entire army invalidated. If you are an EC/WE player right now, take a good look at you collection and then imagine how everything but the most basic CSM units (rhino, predators, helbrutes, chaos lords), your cult troops which you will want to re-buy anyways and d3 daemon engines will be illegal to play.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Marshal Loss wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Jidmah is probably right about World Eaters and Emperor's Children losing some things if they got their own codexes though.

Of course. We all know that's going to happen when/if one or more of these factions is put into their own book. Doesn't make it any less absurd to say that EC or WE players should be "careful what they wish for" though. The downsides he lists as the price paid by the Death Guard for their vast model range + codex ("oh no, I wasn't in Vigilus!!11") sound perfectly reasonable to me. As an EC player I'd happily lose access to everything DG lost if that were the price for a dedicated model range + codex, and I cannot for the life of me imagine any EC or WE player anywhere who'd say "oh well I might lose my (insert unit here), I don't want to receive the DG treatment".

Oh really? You must have missed all the pre-8th DG players rightfully complaining about essentially getting their entire army invalidated. If you are an EC/WE player right now, take a good look at you collection and then imagine how everything but the most basic CSM units (rhino, predators, helbrutes, chaos lords), your cult troops which you will want to re-buy anyways and d3 daemon engines will be illegal to play.

I find that to be very hyperbolic. I've been playing DG since the end of 5th. I could play everything in 8th without a problem due to soup, it's harder in 9th due to CP costs but still not illegal. We even got Rapiers back as totally normal DG unit.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Death Guard lost WAY more than they gained.

Sorry, but even as one of the most cynical, anti-GW, bitter posters here that's just sounds silly even to me.

What exactly did they lose? Access to Bikers?

Becoming a standalone army ensures dedicated Death Guard releases and support well into the future, rather than just Chaos Space Marine units with +1 Toughness. They received a suite of uniquely DG-only characters, units and vehicles, as well as the accompanying rules and nevermind Morty.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Death Guard lost WAY more than they gained.

Hilarious.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Marshal Loss wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Jidmah is probably right about World Eaters and Emperor's Children losing some things if they got their own codexes though.

Of course. We all know that's going to happen when/if one or more of these factions is put into their own book. Doesn't make it any less absurd to say that EC or WE players should be "careful what they wish for" though. The downsides he lists as the price paid by the Death Guard for their vast model range + codex ("oh no, I wasn't in Vigilus!!11") sound perfectly reasonable to me. As an EC player I'd happily lose access to everything DG lost if that were the price for a dedicated model range + codex, and I cannot for the life of me imagine any EC or WE player anywhere who'd say "oh well I might lose my (insert unit here), I don't want to receive the DG treatment".

Oh really? You must have missed all the pre-8th DG players rightfully complaining about essentially getting their entire army invalidated. If you are an EC/WE player right now, take a good look at you collection and then imagine how everything but the most basic CSM units (rhino, predators, helbrutes, chaos lords), your cult troops which you will want to re-buy anyways and d3 daemon engines will be illegal to play.

Yeah, really. Entire army invalidated? Don't be ridiculous. Many of the units (e.g. Bikers, Raptors, Warp Talons) weren't fluffy DG units to begin with; a bunch of tournament players moaning because they could no longer use T6 bikers isn't worth listening to. Those of us playing since 3rd edition are no strangers to such restrictions - or have you conveniently forgotten about that? Others (e.g. Terminators) were given direct replacements, and with a little converting could be made viable anyway. Sure, DG lost access to a few characters, Obliterators, and a handful of Daemon Engines. In exchange they gained access to a wider range of HQ choices than they lost access to, non-Nurgle SCs aside, and a range of Nurgle-specific daemon engines. Still want to use your old models? Play them as Purge in an allied detachment. Hell, more people have been playing Nurgle soup in tournaments than mono DG since 8th came out.

I'm not saying DG don't deserve attention, but the mental gymnastics attempting to say that DG players are somehow hard done by after all they have received since 8th dropped? Cry me a river.

"All they have received since 8th dropped"?

By all means, please do provide a list of everything they've gotten after the codex. Don't worry, it won't be much effort.

Just for the record, I said "be careful what you wish for", not "hope it doesn't happen". Go search this forum, many previous DG players clearly weren't happy about no longer being able to play their bikes, heldrakes, havocs(who even had sculpts), dinobots, vindicators, obliterators or warpsmiths. I'm fairly sure this would be the same for EC and WE players, especially when it comes to things like lord discordants, obliterators, havocs or possessed going away.

You also got the whole thing backwards. It's the EC and WE guys whining about how they have gotten nothing while DG were showered in greatness.
WE and EC got a lot new and good stuff over the course of 8th, more than almost every other army, but somehow all these new units, redone models, specialist detachments, relics, warlord traits, stratagems, daemon weapons, a battle box and BSF releases don't count because they aren't exclusive to their sub-faction.
So claiming that they have had it so much worse DG (who got exactly 0 things between codex and war of the spider), while benefiting from all the things CSM got plus the legion specific updates from faith and fury is nothing but hypocrisy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I find that to be very hyperbolic. I've been playing DG since the end of 5th. I could play everything in 8th without a problem due to soup, it's harder in 9th due to CP costs but still not illegal. We even got Rapiers back as totally normal DG unit.

Well, with the new codex, you will also be losing your unique DG army trait for playing your old units. This would be the same for every legion gaining their own codex.

 Jidmah wrote:
"All they have received since 8th dropped"?

By all means, please do provide a list of everything they've gotten after the codex. Don't worry, it won't be much effort.

You do know their full army release post-DI came after 8th dropped, right? Months after, in fact. I honestly can't tell if you're being deliberately obtuse.

 Jidmah wrote:

You also got the whole thing backwards. It's the EC and WE guys whining about how they have gotten nothing while DG were showered in greatness.
WE and EC got a lot new and good stuff over the course of 8th, more than almost every other army, but somehow all these new units, redone models, specialist detachments, relics, warlord traits, stratagems, daemon weapons, a battle box and BSF releases don't count because they aren't exclusive to their sub-faction.
So claiming that they have had it so much worse DG (who got exactly 0 things between codex and war of the spider), while benefiting from all the things CSM got plus the legion specific updates from faith and fury is nothing but hypocrisy.

Ignoring the fact that I've only seen a single person on this thread complaining - hardly representative at all - you appear to be a tad confused. People want models. It's really that simple. EC and WE players can't enjoy their army's potential because they are stuck with either no kits whatsoever or a 20+ year old zerker kit. The F&F flavour was nice, certainly, although I'd also point out that it came over 2 years into 8th (late 2019) and not long before DG got WoTS (mid 2020, and likely only this late because of the pandemic). You're also glossing over how EC/WE getting new stratagems/warlord traits/relics simply puts them on par with DG in terms of content received, who already had these things in their own codex, and got further fleshed out in WoTS.

 Jidmah wrote:
So claiming that they have had it so much worse DG (who got exactly 0 things between codex and war of the spider), while benefiting from all the things CSM got plus the legion specific updates from faith and fury is nothing but hypocrisy.

Yes, saying that two subfactions with a single 20+ year old plastic troops choice between them are worse off than an army that got 20+ new plastic sets is hypocritical. The idea that DG being a part of the main CSM book would leave them in a better position is laughable.

I'll TLDR it for you to make it more manageable: EC & WE are far worse off than DG and you won't find a single player who wouldn't leap at the chance to receive the DG treatment, even if it means losing access to a few kits. DG players are not hard done by; pointing this out isn't a targeted attack on DG players. Hope this helps.

 Jidmah wrote:
Go search this forum, many previous DG players clearly weren't happy about no longer being able to play their bikes, heldrakes, havocs(who even had sculpts), dinobots, vindicators, obliterators or warpsmiths. I'm fairly sure this would be the same for EC and WE players, especially when it comes to things like lord discordants, obliterators, havocs or possessed going away.
.

People always have kneejerk reactions to major releases. It happens. Notice that no DG players (except yourself, apparently) bother even noting their inability to use bikes today. I'm sure there will be a handful of complainers if EC/WE lose access to some units, but the pros far outweigh the cons. Saying "be careful what you wish for" is as absurd now as it was when you originally posted it.

Anyway, per the post below, I'm not going to indulge your poorly-thought through contrarianism/victim complex any longer as it's irrelevant to the thread. Have a great Christmas.

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
Maybe, we should keep this on topic and not make it a rant on how other chaos factions aren't treated as well as Death guard ?

Death guard gained things and lost them, other sub factions would be great to get their own books as well as new models to replace super dated ones.

That said, why are you all bashing on DG for that ? It isn't DG eating up all these release windows and keeping all the other chaos forces down. It's a little childish to spite DG for getting some attention just because your fav faction isn't it getting it when its hardly the fault of DG you don't get new models or even your own new book.

Unless I'm missing all of these numerous new kits that have been releasing for DG month on month since they dropped in early 8th till currently.

I agree. Let's keep the rumor thread to Death Guard rumors and not pile on faction salt and spite here.

Come on guys keep your rants about your other factions not having enough love... and lets just agree on the basic concept that no matter what faction you collect you will always want more!
Point being this is a death guard thread for DG rants...

Right Im curious to see if the Plague marines will be the back bone of DG armies and not the drone spam or other similar heresy. I have a new unit this Christmas with the Space marines Heroes series3 and want to see how many points is that going to set me back. At this point not even concerned with optimal loadouts just the rule of cool for me please XD

My god Dakka loves an argument...

Abaddon303 wrote:
My god Dakka loves an argument...

Bitter rivalries between followers of the various chaos gods, with only mutual admiration for the amazing Abbadon model.

Seems legit, actually.

 Arbitrator wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Death Guard lost WAY more than they gained.

Sorry, but even as one of the most cynical, anti-GW, bitter posters here that's just sounds silly even to me.

What exactly did they lose? Access to Bikers?

Becoming a standalone army ensures dedicated Death Guard releases and support well into the future, rather than just Chaos Space Marine units with +1 Toughness. They received a suite of uniquely DG-only characters, units and vehicles, as well as the accompanying rules and nevermind Morty.

They lost their Raptors, Heldrakes, Obliterators, Havocs, Bikers, Mutilators, Chosen equivalent, Warpsmith, a new slew of units like the Greater Possessed, and FUN FACT TIME for you is they had all those things with the 7th Legion Codex.

Also most of those "DG Only" stuff are garbage with no purpose in game or are just worse versions of what already exist. Imagine the fact there are TWO separate characters that buff grenades, all for a fething gimmick! Oh, and and purpose for each of those Daemon engines were already held by the Forgefiend, Maulerfiend, and Heldrake, on top of the Drone already having a FW version to begin with.
The lengths people go to defend GW with separate codices for subfactions is pure masochism.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marshal Loss wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Death Guard lost WAY more than they gained.

Hilarious.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Marshal Loss wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Jidmah is probably right about World Eaters and Emperor's Children losing some things if they got their own codexes though.

Of course. We all know that's going to happen when/if one or more of these factions is put into their own book. Doesn't make it any less absurd to say that EC or WE players should be "careful what they wish for" though. The downsides he lists as the price paid by the Death Guard for their vast model range + codex ("oh no, I wasn't in Vigilus!!11") sound perfectly reasonable to me. As an EC player I'd happily lose access to everything DG lost if that were the price for a dedicated model range + codex, and I cannot for the life of me imagine any EC or WE player anywhere who'd say "oh well I might lose my (insert unit here), I don't want to receive the DG treatment".

Oh really? You must have missed all the pre-8th DG players rightfully complaining about essentially getting their entire army invalidated. If you are an EC/WE player right now, take a good look at you collection and then imagine how everything but the most basic CSM units (rhino, predators, helbrutes, chaos lords), your cult troops which you will want to re-buy anyways and d3 daemon engines will be illegal to play.

Yeah, really. Entire army invalidated? Don't be ridiculous. Many of the units (e.g. Bikers, Raptors, Warp Talons) weren't fluffy DG units to begin with; a bunch of tournament players moaning because they could no longer use T6 bikers isn't worth listening to. Those of us playing since 3rd edition are no strangers to such restrictions - or have you conveniently forgotten about that? Others (e.g. Terminators) were given direct replacements, and with a little converting could be made viable anyway. Sure, DG lost access to a few characters, Obliterators, and a handful of Daemon Engines. In exchange they gained access to a wider range of HQ choices than they lost access to, non-Nurgle SCs aside, and a range of Nurgle-specific daemon engines. Still want to use your old models? Play them as Purge in an allied detachment. Hell, more people have been playing Nurgle soup in tournaments than mono DG since 8th came out.

I'm not saying DG don't deserve attention, but the mental gymnastics attempting to say that DG players are somehow hard done by after all they have received since 8th dropped? Cry me a river.

Weren't fluffy in what sense? Mortarion hasn't done anything to lead the Death Guard for thousands of years, and you expect them to still say "Wow these Jump Packs are a no-no"?

Also wider range of HQ units? You mean the two Sorcerer models that act the same? Or the Terminator Lord that doesn't have the Lord aura unless you spend CP on it? Utterly pathetic.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Weren't fluffy in what sense? Mortarion hasn't done anything to lead the Death Guard for thousands of years, and you expect them to still say "Wow these Jump Packs are a no-no"?

Yeah, because the Legion shaped over the course of centuries by their Primarch in cultural/social/military terms - a father figure whom they literally worship as a preternatural saviour - is going to turn their back on his combat doctrine. Read Wraight's Lords of Silence for an illustration, or the short story Unification, which is probably an even better example. This is well-established lore - your regular tantrums over it don't make it any less true. DG not using e.g. jump or bike units is part of their theme.

In case you hadn't caught on, the 40k universe is a big place. Codexes (& rules in general) provide a snapshot which allow players to translate a theme onto the tabletop. Snapshots of this kind are always going to be approximations at best. Anybody who has ever read a 40k novel will inevitably spot characters or units that they can't 100% recreate on the tabletop. That has always been the case. I'm sure somewhere in 40k there are a few Death Guard Legionnaires struggling to get themselves off the ground with a jump pack. It's just not a trademark or typical DG unit, it doesn't fit the theme of the DG, and so isn't an option. I hope this thought brings you some comfort.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Also wider range of HQ units? You mean the two Sorcerer models that act the same? Or the Terminator Lord that doesn't have the Lord aura unless you spend CP on it?

I meant characters across both HQ & Elite slots, although I wasn't wrong re: HQ choices either. DG gained access to more characters than they lost. From the 6th/7th codex to 8th they lost Warpsmiths & Dark Apostles but gained Lords of Contagion + Malignant Plaguecasters + Noxious Blightbringers + Foul Blightspawns + Biologus Putrifiers + Plague Surgeons + Tallymen. Now in 9th we also get the Lord of Virulence. In case you were struggling, the number they gained is bigger than the number they lost.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Utterly pathetic.

I just wish they'd get better names. 'Plague Surgeon' is probably the best of the bunch.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
I just wish they'd get better names. 'Plague Surgeon' is probably the best of the bunch.

Tallyman also works well... for the others, it's pretty telling when your entire gaming group calls them "Caster with the stink cloud", "Biology Professor", "Bell Guy" and "Puke-achu" (German: Pikotzu) instead of their official names.

I meant characters across both HQ & Elite slots, although I wasn't wrong re: HQ choices either. DG gained access to more characters than they lost. From the 6th/7th codex to 8th they lost Warpsmiths & Dark Apostles but gained Lords of Contagion + Malignant Plaguecasters + Noxious Blightbringers + Foul Blightspawns + Biologus Putrifiers + Plague Surgeons + Tallymen. Now in 9th we also get the Lord of Virulence. In case you were struggling, the number they gained is bigger than the number they lost.

Most outdone by having a Daemon Prince on the board.

I really hope the DG characters get some better abilities and usefulness. I have all the characters painted but very little reason to use them on the table.

 Eldarsif wrote:

I meant characters across both HQ & Elite slots, although I wasn't wrong re: HQ choices either. DG gained access to more characters than they lost. From the 6th/7th codex to 8th they lost Warpsmiths & Dark Apostles but gained Lords of Contagion + Malignant Plaguecasters + Noxious Blightbringers + Foul Blightspawns + Biologus Putrifiers + Plague Surgeons + Tallymen. Now in 9th we also get the Lord of Virulence. In case you were struggling, the number they gained is bigger than the number they lost.

Most outdone by having a Daemon Prince on the board.

I really hope the DG characters get some better abilities and usefulness. I have all the characters painted but very little reason to use them on the table.

True. I'm cautiously optimistic that GW incorporate some of the abilities they received as stratagems in WoTS into their actual datasheets, which would solve quite a few issues. Would love a reason to run some of our minor characters

I'm hoping they add some undivided units into DG like the disco lord or havocs.

I like that the Death Guard specifically don't have certain things. It gives them more identity and it creates a sensical balance with the army-specific options they gain. Otherwise they would be CSM+extra. I wish loyalist marine armies followed that trend.

For me, I never understood why DG did not get Obliterators.. I mean, come on.. they are techno-VIRUS INFECTED .. which is Papa Nurgles wheelhouse..

That particular one does confuse me as well. And I'm pretty sure there was a fluff snippet about Pet & Morty working together on a new strain, even.

I have 6 beautifully converted, sculpted, and painted Death Guard Obliterators. Makes me super sad that they screwed DG out of those units with the 8th ed codex.

Anyway, I am burned out waiting for the codex and real news. Waiting almost three and a half years for a modern update is rough with an unexpected 5-6 week delay added on top at the last minute. I really wish they would just release the digital version or something. At this point I really want to see the entire thing.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I like that the Death Guard specifically don't have certain things. It gives them more identity and it creates a sensical balance with the army-specific options they gain. Otherwise they would be CSM+extra. I wish loyalist marine armies followed that trend.

I agree, and they used to. Other than Grey Knights there is very little reason to do marine on marine soup anymore.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Death Guard Obliterators really do make a lot of sense both fluff wise and visually.

I played a 2k pt game against Blood Angels with all the new rules and reveals. Since I didn’t know how much the points for DG would increase I only played 1800pts. I played a Demon Prince, LoC, 2x PBC, 2x MBH, 2x bloat drones with fleshmowers, 3x PM with two blight launchers each, unit of Blightlords with flail, and a unit of three Deathshroud. I didn’t use any strategems, relics, or traits that I thought would be changed. They were all very vanilla stuff. Additionally I didn’t play DTTFE and only used hateful assault which I expect will be in the codex. Here are my lessons:

IA: Our new chapter trait, well honestly sucks. I really miss being able to not take any modifiers to my blight launchers and bolters are still meh (hopefully there are some strategems). Trying to shoot units out of cover with at 2+ save is almost pointless. In fact, all our small arms lack the volume and AP of our SM brothers. The only real highlight is that our MBH are very nasty shooting in combat. That is the good part or IA.

Contagions of Nurgle: a very nice ability I hope there are more options. It really only seems to make a difference against T4 units mostly. It did come up occasionally with other things, but I’m curious what else they may have.

Plague Marines: Are much more resilient than they were before. The damage 2 weapons only being D1 really helps them survive. It did feel weird that bolter shots no longer got DR. They are better for sure. Additionally, they are much more deadly in close combat with the -1 AP on their plague knives, contagions ability, and extra attack. I assume they will keep a strategem like trench fighters so I used it and they are almost as deadly as BA assault marines charging and can clear objectives.

Deathshroud: (I kept them as a 4++) These guys after 5 turns actually were able to kill a unit of intercessors. The biggest problem is they lack any mobility or ways to make charges easier out of deepstrike and get shot to bits. The STR 3 no AP flamers were meh and think did a wound. They are still just too slow to be useful.

Blightlords: (I kept them as a 4++) I didn’t use aura of rust, but the biggest problem with these guys is the same as above. They really cant even go toe to toe with a unit of blade guard veterans. They only have have D1 weapons which is problematic and are very slow. The flail is the only saving grace in combat. If they nerf it I don’t seeing these being very viable.

Lord of Contagion: This guy seems to be very tough. I also gave him the trait/relic that allows him to get back a 1HP each turn and reduce Str of units within 3” assumed he now had the reroll ones for core units ability and lost his silly Mortal Wound ability. He was a beat stick with his 3 damage weapon which clears BGVs and other units. Super slow but he can hang back and go jump in a fight.

DP: Still super expensive not sure if he is worth it with wings 200pts is steep. I think I would rather have Tyhpus or something.

MBH: Yea these guys did very well. They are very solid in shooting and combat. Love the IA rules allowing the melta and missiles really hurt unit that charge into them. I expect they keep the -1 to hit and the 7” cover save aura, but lost the tri-lobe skill.

PBC: THe new entropy cannons are very nasty and the mortars did some serious work picking off hiding units. The D3+3 (assumed plague weapon) is very good. I love the BS3 on these and not making them core. It makes it so you don't feel like you have to keep them in a parking lot.

Fleshmowers: Really didn’t do too much for me, but were a big distraction. I don’t think these will see a huge points increase. THey remind me a Furioso Dreadnaught that is a big distraction to allow your force to move up.

The game ended up being very close, but ended in a DG victory on turn 5 when the BA player was tabled. The book depending on points and strategems could be very good. The terminators really need a way to get into combat more reliably and it would be nice to see a Nurgle transhuman ability that makes it so that a unit can be more resilient when you need it.

All good stuff to hear, well not good for what under performs but over all just good news with what we know and how it works without knowing the full story. I guess the points and strats are going to really make or break us.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I like that the Death Guard specifically don't have certain things. It gives them more identity and it creates a sensical balance with the army-specific options they gain. Otherwise they would be CSM+extra. I wish loyalist marine armies followed that trend.

True, but in the case of giving them access to the Disco Lord(and if they keep the Ironclot Furnace), DG could possibly be better poised to push the daemon engine spam than vanilla CSM.

Lore-wise the lord discordant is out of question for DG, so don't get your hopes up.

 l0k1 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I like that the Death Guard specifically don't have certain things. It gives them more identity and it creates a sensical balance with the army-specific options they gain. Otherwise they would be CSM+extra. I wish loyalist marine armies followed that trend.

True, but in the case of giving them access to the Disco Lord(and if they keep the Ironclot Furnace), DG could possibly be better poised to push the daemon engine spam than vanilla CSM.

We already know that the Lord of Virulence is going to be our "daemon engine guy". I don't think DG are going to gain access to the Lord Discordant.

I just wish they would bring back Oblits for them. I'd be pretty pleased personally speaking.