Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

IllumiNini wrote:As for the pretty good saves as well as the toughness characteristic of the Death Guard, I have one thing for you: High volume of fire. Even if you're - for example - hitting on 5's and wounding on 5's, do not underestimate the ability for a vast amount of shots to take down tough enemies. I think that's enough of a counter to rule them out as being OP, yes?

I could say the same thing about necrons.

But look:

Necrons are plainly too durable.

Now consider that deathguard are more durable, and cheaper, than necron immortals.

 Traditio wrote:

IllumiNini wrote:As for the pretty good saves as well as the toughness characteristic of the Death Guard, I have one thing for you: High volume of fire. Even if you're - for example - hitting on 5's and wounding on 5's, do not underestimate the ability for a vast amount of shots to take down tough enemies. I think that's enough of a counter to rule them out as being OP, yes?

I could say the same thing about necrons.

But look:

Necrons are plainly too durable.

Now consider that deathguard are more durable, and cheaper, than necron immortals.

And the Immortals have better guns, Reanimation protocols (that can be improved) and other things. Your actual point here? Or are you just going to start comparing one specific part of a model to another model and start basing it upon that.

 Traditio wrote:
assorted nonsense

You said earlier that they should have paid an extra point for these benefits.

Matt points out that they cost a point more than you thought.

Your response is - still cheese.

Really?

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
assorted nonsense

You said earlier that they should have paid an extra point for these benefits.

Matt points out that they cost a point more than you thought.

Your response is - still cheese.

Really?

I don't think that they should have paid a point more for THOSE benefits. I think that they should have paid a point more for less benefits.

17 ppm for VoTLW, T5, 3+ and 6+ FNP as well as game-long stealth at ranges greater than 18 inches, seems pretty reasonable to me.

 Traditio wrote:
If I take an iron hands CAD with a chaplain and iron hands tacticals with plasma guns, and my opponent takes an equivalent CAD with nothing but a dark apostle and death guard CSM squads with plasma guns, chances are, I lose the vast majority of the time.

No. That's not fair.

Tacticals are a mediocre unit in a codex full of great units.
Death guard are a great unit in a codex full of rubbish units.

If you choose to handicap yourself by taking only mediocre units then you will lose the majority of the time. Why is this a surprise? Stop handicapping yourself and actually compare what your codex is capable of to what the CSM codex is capable of.

Where does the stealth and a super long range come from? A relic?

 Traditio wrote:
17 ppm for VoTLW, T5, 3+ and 6+ FNP as well as game-long stealth at ranges greater than 18 inches, seems pretty reasonable to me.

1ppm undercosted for unit that cannot handle a whole range of threats in a codex that's mostly full of terrible units doesn't seem like a problem. You need to stop comparing units in a vacuum and compare codexes.

@gummyofallbears:
The meta-detachment.

Basically he's treating DG as getting their Meta Detachment bonus but not regular Marines or Necrons with their because reasons.

And here I thought we might have a sincere attempt at a thread for once... ah well.

Oh no, armies of power armored infantry? This is the OP thing?

Ah okay.

Why would their meta detachment bonus be built into their points cost? That's a ridiculous argument Traditio.

Also, stop comparing units in a vaccum. Honestly. If we are talking about meta detachment bonuses, the Iron Hand tactical squad would be riding around in a rhino or some other ridiculous bonus the IH decurion gets (I don't keep up with this stuff because I don't play these armies)

Oh noes, slightly more durable infantry with low damage and short range. How terrifying
Oh wait, not that. The opposite of terrifying.

Seriously, they aren't OP at all

IH get better FnP within range of a HQ and their vehicles get PotMS iirc for their meta detachment.

I might be missing something or getting the exact details wrong, but it's something like that.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
@gummyofallbears:
The meta-detachment.

Basically he's treating DG as getting their Meta Detachment bonus but not regular Marines or Necrons with their because reasons.

And here I thought we might have a sincere attempt at a thread for once... ah well.

I'm not assuming that they get their detachment bonuses. Even without that, DG still get 5+ FNP, relentless and game-long stealth at ranges greater than 18 inches.

 BBAP wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Traditio has a stupid stance, but please don't defend the Bolter as though it were any good. It was never good to begin with.

Define "good". In terms of damage per turn they're worse than say, Plasma Guns, but in comparison to most other things they're just fine. I'd kill to get Bolters on my Neophytes. Even Bolt Pistols. Anything but skanky autoguns or lasguns.

As someone experimenting with Genestealer Cults, I wouldn't even pay 1 point to upgrade to a Bolter. It is that pointless.

And really? Bolt Pistols? You're getting an extra attack regardless in melee and the extra point of strength is very marginal. And with someone in cover the AP5 is pointless (which happens a lot). Cults are a horde army doing what Orks should be doing but way better at it. Why would I EVER pay for a Bolter?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Traditio has a stupid stance, but please don't defend the Bolter as though it were any good. It was never good to begin with.

You've clearly never had the misfortune to be fielding a T3 army. Bolters are a workhorse that get maligned for not being oversized guns in an oversized edition.

I use Skitarii a lot. The extra strength doesn't make a difference and if you're using anything 5+ and above it was going to die anyway with the overall useless save. If you care that much buy some cover with Stronghold Assault.

 Traditio wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
@gummyofallbears:
The meta-detachment.

Basically he's treating DG as getting their Meta Detachment bonus but not regular Marines or Necrons with their because reasons.

And here I thought we might have a sincere attempt at a thread for once... ah well.

I'm not assuming that they get their detachment bonuses. Even without that, DG still get 5+ FNP, relentless and game-long stealth at ranges greater than 18 inches.

Dude the Stealth is from the Meta Detachment.

The basic DG bonuses are Fearless, FnP, Relentless & -1I to all models that have (free) VotLW, with the restriction of everything that can must be upgraded to be Nurgle and that you can't have anything Khorne/Tzeentch or Slaanesh or Non-Typhus Unique Characters.

Oh, and DG Psykers can roll all their powers on the Nurgle table... not that you'd probably want to most of the time.

Matt Kinsley wrote:Dude the Stealth is from the Meta Detachment.

My bad.

The basic DG bonuses are Fearless, FnP, Relentless & -1I to all models that have (free) VotLW, with the restriction of everything that can must be upgraded to be Nurgle and that you can't have anything Khorne/Tzeentch or Slaanesh or Non-Typhus Unique Characters.

Compare this to vanilla marines with chapter tactics. Fearless/VoTLW takes the place of ATSKNF. FNP is better than Iron Hands. The -1I is a nerf, but you know what? So what? Fearless is better than ATSKNF. Hands down. And with T5, good luck punching a DG.

And on top of all of that, they get relentless. Sure. You have to pay for MoN. But you were going to do that anyway. Because 3 ppm for +1 T is a bargain.

And they get a discount of a fething point. 13 ppm base vs. 14.

Tactical Marines get access to superior wargear and support options. There are more ways to balance units than just comparing one unit in a vacuum to another.

They also don't get IWND on their multi-wound models and dreads/vehicles (depending on how you interpret the draft SM FaQ).

They also don't get +1 FnP if they get it from another source. Not as big of a deal as the only way a DG marine can get an extra source of FnP is from Psychic Powers, but hey, still something.

And Warpsmiths don't get a +1 bonus to repairs.


You can't just say "They get more than IHs do!" but then ignore 3/4 of the bonuses IH get.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
They also don't get IWND on their multi-wound models and dreads/vehicles (depending on how you interpret the draft SM FaQ).

They also don't get +1 FnP if they get it from another source. Not as big of a deal as the only way a DG marine can get an extra source of FnP is from Psychic Powers, but hey, still something.

And Warpsmiths don't get a +1 bonus to repairs.


You can't just say "They get more than IHs do!" but then ignore 3/4 of the bonuses IH get.

Don't pretend anyone was using the Techmarine bonus.

It's still a bonus.

Should we ignore Relentless then? Because the +1 fnp from other soruces and +1 techmarine bonus are probably equally as useful as Relentless.

If he's going to count Relentless as a big bonus, I can count the Tech and +1 FNP as bonuses. Fair is fair.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
It's still a bonus.

Should we ignore Relentless then? Because the +1 fnp from other soruces and +1 techmarine bonus are probably equally as useful as Relentless.

Bullgak. Relentless on CSM squads is huge, for two reasons:

1. Now it actually makes sense to put a heavy weapon on a 10 man CSM squad, assuming DG.

2. DG havocs can move and shoot at full BS now. That's huge.

But what heavy weapon are you feasibly going to put in them? The Autocannon?

An additional Melta or Plasma gun is much better than a lone Autocannon.


Smashfether getting 2+ FNP and his personal bike squad getting FnP(4+) are also huge in comparison, as can auto-repairing Techmarines in the right circumstances.

 Traditio wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
It's still a bonus.

Should we ignore Relentless then? Because the +1 fnp from other soruces and +1 techmarine bonus are probably equally as useful as Relentless.

Bullgak. Relentless on CSM squads is huge, for two reasons:

1. Now it actually makes sense to put a heavy weapon on a 10 man CSM squad, assuming DG.

2. DG havocs can move and shoot at full BS now. That's huge.

Yay, they can move and shoot autocannons, lascannons and missile launchers. Big whoop.

Did you just look at one choice from the new legion list and decide "I'm going to call them OP" without comparing them to more than just Necron Immortals. Unless you actually meant Deathguard were "Officially Playable" instead of "Overpowered", because quite frankly I know of at least a dozen players that would still destroy them with ease.

 Traditio wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
It's still a bonus.

Should we ignore Relentless then? Because the +1 fnp from other soruces and +1 techmarine bonus are probably equally as useful as Relentless.

Bullgak. Relentless on CSM squads is huge, for two reasons:

1. Now it actually makes sense to put a heavy weapon on a 10 man CSM squad, assuming DG.

2. DG havocs can move and shoot at full BS now. That's huge.

If they had access to Grav or drop pods then that might be a problem. Move and fire a missile launcher or autocannon? Who cares?

Being able to plasmagun then charge is probably the best use of relentless in this instance.

Can Death Guard take Grav Weaponry?
No?
Then Stop Complaining
Iron Hands get 6+ FNP and IWND to ALL CHARACTERS AND VEHICLES

For Example, My Tacticals get FNP 5+ Which Applies to Joined Characters

Am i complaining?
No i am Not

CSM needed this a LONG time ago, and its time they get what they deserved

oh noez one relentless plazmagun nerf the op cheeze

A marine player (or even necron...coff decurion coff coff) complaining about other army and trying a comparison??? It makes lose value to the whole argument.

And it being a no sense argument doesnt helps. Try compare csm to vainilla is nearly an insult hahaha. Say csm is better is a madness. Vainilla have so maaaaaaaaaaaaaaany stuff csm not that I will no stop mentioning them.


Also I didn't miss the fact you "nicely" compared two units only mentioning ONE "attribute" and conveniently set aside the global set. Is like say that a DM is way better and more op than a WK becuase the DM has more iniciative.......

Please...

what is next? orks being more op than vainilla because the meganobz have 2 wounds instead one like the termis?

DG FNP can still be took out by S10 and force weapons while Necron RP in Decurion with Cryptek post FAQ still get a 4+ against anything but D-weapons and stomps. Additionally, most Necronunits are way cheaper than CSM.
Yeah, the DG rules seem strong, but not better than free transports, grav, wraithknights, Tau and RP.
I really don't get these "ermagherd cheese!" threads.
If anything the Traitor Legions book brought CSM out of bottom tier. Now I really hope DE, Orks and Tyranids receive a similar treatment next year and we might approach something like balance in 40K. But I guess, people were saying the same at the beginning of 7th edition - and then GW released the Necroncodex .

Chaos long deserved a boost....

They seriously needed some help and death guard are meant to be tough as hell.

That's there thing... There durable.