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.

 gummyofallbears wrote:
any chance I can get a link to the leaks?

There aren't any leaks now, only pirated copyrighted material. You can find all the chaos marine stuff at Warhammer digital for a reasonable price.

It's a little more puzzling because ork artillery has the gretchin gunners simply as part of the unit. Each gun and its crew forms an individual unit, and if all the grots die, the gun goes away (but the grots can't be targeted unless they're the closest model.

With the wound allocation rules, different saves/toughness/wounds don't matter, so I've no idea what FW was thinking here.

It's not the only case of FW rules being out of synch with GW. Chaos vehicles from the index can all take a havoc launcher AND/OR combi weapon as extra options. But all the vehicles in the FW index allow you to take a havoc launcher OR combi-weapon. It's like the writers of the FW rules don't even speak to GW's rules writers. The AND/OR is significant though, because without that distinction you can't justify the larger power cost of chaos tanks compared to loyalists. The chaos Vindicator is 2 power level higher than the loyalist one and it's only difference is it can take more weapon options. Things like this annoy me from rules writers. It isn't difficult to sit down and get everyone on the same page before sending them off to write rules for individual factions.

As far as I'm aware there are no leaks for the FW index, but it costs like £15 to get the digital version. Unlike the rulebook it's a very justifiable purchase (as are all the indexes).

Loopstah wrote:

 gummyofallbears wrote:
any chance I can get a link to the leaks?

There aren't any leaks now, only pirated copyrighted material. You can find all the chaos marine stuff at Warhammer digital for a reasonable price.

The leaks were pirated copyrighted material too, it's just people could justify it to themselves

Demantiae wrote:

As far as I'm aware there are no leaks for the FW index, but it costs like £15 to get the digital version. Unlike the rulebook it's a very justifiable purchase (as are all the indexes).

The entire FW Chaos index has leaked, but yes, it's worth £15

 Latro_ wrote:

 lindsay40k wrote:
Hmm. Well, the Rapier will probably be on top of a Ruin, so it's going to have a 2+ save on turn 1 and a 1+ save (1's always fail) after that. Plasma & hordes seem like they'll be common; they're now more robust against bolters, and whereas before they took 12 plasma hits to take out of a ruin they still take 12 on low power and 6 on high. So, not too bad, and when someone uses a full plasma squad's shooting to take out one artillery piece they're not wiping out a squad of marines.

Also the Rapiers being split up means damage from Mortal Wounds and multi-shot weapons are contained - if that overcharged Plasma squad rolls well, they're still only killing one.

But yeah, the way the data sheet is written breaks them. Gonna need a common sense negotiation on this until it gets FAQ'd - three times on one datasheet :-o

Its weird because they (GW side of GW) had the valus wrath support battery rules for eldar and thats basically simple, just count the crew as part of the model... makes 100% more sense ruleswise

could of just given it 6 wounds and if its reduced to 2 it goes mental as per the daemonic rule bit to represent the crew snuffing it or something along those lines

I Think is a little confusing, but the intent is as follow:

After Deployment each Rapier+2 Crewmen become a independent unit, but you have to deploy each Guncrew (Rapier+2 Crewman) within 3" if you bought multiple.

If you read the Rule carefully i think you can see that was the intention.


Im still not completely sure if the C-Beam setup is worth it, 80 Points for One shot seem expensive, and 4 Wounds T5 3+ is not exactly tanky either. Maybe the Plasma Setup agressivly deployed as midfield guard or in the backline as (Terminator) Deepstrike deterrence is a viable option

Full list of offsite links for folks looking for uploads of Indices:

 lindsay40k wrote:
Full list of offsite links for folks looking for uploads of Indices:

Spoiler:

Thank you, Lindsay. Thank you.

So, the FW index contains several units and characters for Nurgle and Tzeentch lvoers, but they can't take them in Death Guard or Thousand Sons lists. This is exactly as it was at the end of 7th where you couldn't take anything FW if you wanted to use any detachment but combined arms. You'd think there'd be something on the unit cards, or at least a note at the front of the book to allow these units be added to the list of allowed units for hose two factions. But again we have lists that exclude FW models for arbitrary reasons.

So Dark Imperium launches with a new blight drone model in the box, but the FW greater blight drone cannot be taken alongside it in a DG army. Come on guys, sort your rules out.

Demantiae wrote:
So, the FW index contains several units and characters for Nurgle and Tzeentch lvoers, but they can't take them in Death Guard or Thousand Sons lists. This is exactly as it was at the end of 7th where you couldn't take anything FW if you wanted to use any detachment but combined arms. You'd think there'd be something on the unit cards, or at least a note at the front of the book to allow these units be added to the list of allowed units for hose two factions. But again we have lists that exclude FW models for arbitrary reasons.

So Dark Imperium launches with a new blight drone model in the box, but the FW greater blight drone cannot be taken alongside it in a DG army. Come on guys, sort your rules out.

People need to read the rules more carefully and quit saying crap like this. You can certainly take them in DG or TS lists. You can even take khorne berserkers as troops in those lists. They just cant be <legion> DG or TS. That just means some units won't benefit from auras from certain characters and units marked DG or TS won't be able to ride in certain transports. That's it.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

Demantiae wrote:
So, the FW index contains several units and characters for Nurgle and Tzeentch lvoers, but they can't take them in Death Guard or Thousand Sons lists. This is exactly as it was at the end of 7th where you couldn't take anything FW if you wanted to use any detachment but combined arms. You'd think there'd be something on the unit cards, or at least a note at the front of the book to allow these units be added to the list of allowed units for hose two factions. But again we have lists that exclude FW models for arbitrary reasons.

So Dark Imperium launches with a new blight drone model in the box, but the FW greater blight drone cannot be taken alongside it in a DG army. Come on guys, sort your rules out.

People need to read the rules more carefully and quit saying crap like this. You can certainly take them in DG or TS lists. You can even take khorne berserkers as troops in those lists. They just cant be <legion> DG or TS. That just means some units won't benefit from auras from certain characters and units marked DG or TS won't be able to ride in certain transports. That's it.

I don't know about the Death Guard models, but Aetaos'rau'keres's aura definitely works with Thousand Sons since it covers all <Tzeentch> units.

Of course, you probably won't run him in a TS army anyways because I think Magnus is better and Aetaos runs a risk of sniping him. :(

Though the point that you should definitely be able to take Greater Blight Drones with the <Death Guard> tag is perfectly valid.

So this Hellforged stuff just appeared suddenly, nobody knows what it is? I assumed I skipped a FW book and missed the fluff introduction. Same for the Eyrine cults?

Arachnofiend wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

Demantiae wrote:
So, the FW index contains several units and characters for Nurgle and Tzeentch lvoers, but they can't take them in Death Guard or Thousand Sons lists. This is exactly as it was at the end of 7th where you couldn't take anything FW if you wanted to use any detachment but combined arms. You'd think there'd be something on the unit cards, or at least a note at the front of the book to allow these units be added to the list of allowed units for hose two factions. But again we have lists that exclude FW models for arbitrary reasons.

So Dark Imperium launches with a new blight drone model in the box, but the FW greater blight drone cannot be taken alongside it in a DG army. Come on guys, sort your rules out.

People need to read the rules more carefully and quit saying crap like this. You can certainly take them in DG or TS lists. You can even take khorne berserkers as troops in those lists. They just cant be <legion> DG or TS. That just means some units won't benefit from auras from certain characters and units marked DG or TS won't be able to ride in certain transports. That's it.

I don't know about the Death Guard models, but Aetaos'rau'keres's aura definitely works with Thousand Sons since it covers all <Tzeentch> units.

Of course, you probably won't run him in a TS army anyways because I think Magnus is better and Aetaos runs a risk of sniping him. :(

Though the point that you should definitely be able to take Greater Blight Drones with the <Death Guard> tag is perfectly valid.

The including the tag bit is perfectly valid. The GBD should have the DG faction keyword, but that wasn't what he was arguing. He was apparently under the false impression he couldn't take it in a DG army.
Oh, and TS and DG infantry can be transported in the chaos drop pods: " <faction> Or <Mark of chaos> infantry"

 Gordon Shumway wrote:


The including the tag bit is perfectly valid. The GBD should have the DG faction keyword, but that wasn't what he was arguing. He was apparently under the false impression he couldn't take it in a DG army.
Oh, and TS and DG infantry can be transported in the chaos drop pods: " <faction> Or <Mark of chaos> infantry"

You can't take a GBD in a DG army. You can take a GBD in a Nurgle marked Heretic Astartes army, but not a DG one. DG are restricted to specific units, which does not include the GBD. This means the GBD can get no buffs from anything DG. So it is not DG. It might be painted to look DG, and it can be taken alongside DG in a separate detachment as [Legion: Death Guard Beta] but it can never be DG, and never be buffed by DG HQ's. Nobody said you couldn't take them in the same army, what was said was they couldn't be taken in a DG army. A DG army is a very specific thing that excludes the GBD from the special DG buffs that are the reason you picked the DG legion keyword in the first place. Sure you can call them all [Legion: Green Marines] and take whatever you want, but people are picking the DG sub-faction because they want the rules that are attached to them. It's a pretty weak oversight that GW and FW couldn't spend 5 minutes looking at these dataslates to realise this issue was going to crop up.

The same problem existed in 7th. You could pick whatever OP detachments you wanted, but you could rarely stick FW units in there because the rules are written by GW as if they're completely oblivious to the models of their sub-company that resides in the same frickin building. I get that GW want to contain their rules to the models that they produce themselves, but FW models are official, they're like a mod for the game that can be used if you want or ignored if you prefer. So I get that GW can't write into their lists access to FW units, but FW rules books should include exceptions to GW's rules. A simple page stating that specific units can be included in DG or TS lists is enough. One page, 5 minutes work.

The Legions book that made chaos worth playing again was great and all, but if you had FW units you had to choose between detachments that made the faction playable or playing the gimped CA detachment just to field your cool models. It's a choice that we shouldn't be making in this edition. I'm loving how viable chaos is now and some of the FW units are great, but if this issue isn't nipped in the bud now it's gonna get out of control once the Khorne and Slaanesh lists are out, and once the other legions start to get similar unit restriction lists. In a couple years time we could be right back where we were in 7th - play with workable, competitive rules, or play the nice models. And when loyalists get Contemptors in their GW index but chaos has to go to FW that starts to become excluded from lists then we have an issue.

All that needs to be done is as and when Nurgle (or whatever) models get rules, they get a simple note in their data sheet saying 'this may have the Death Guard (or whatever) Faction keyword'.

They don't need to have Death Guard as a faction keyword, because that would stop BL and all the others from having them. They're not like Zhufor, a unique individual design.

This seems to be a FW writer's mistake arising from a common sense assumption that DG et al would retain their open 'must have or be allowed Nurgle' criteria from TL, as opposed to a prescriptive closed list of allowed models - that will clearly be worked around by every DG player who stocked up on Havocs & Obliterators & Bikers when TL heavily encouraged them.

Fortunately, we don't as yet have a specific bonus for building a DG Detachment, right? So we can just say 'this is a Nurgle Detachment, with DG DM guys, and also Guardians of Death Havocs & greater blight drones, and also a Deathguarding Host plague hulk'?

Demantiae wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:


The including the tag bit is perfectly valid. The GBD should have the DG faction keyword, but that wasn't what he was arguing. He was apparently under the false impression he couldn't take it in a DG army.
Oh, and TS and DG infantry can be transported in the chaos drop pods: " <faction> Or <Mark of chaos> infantry"

You can't take a GBD in a DG army. You can take a GBD in a Nurgle marked Heretic Astartes army, but not a DG one. DG are restricted to specific units, which does not include the GBD. This means the GBD can get no buffs from anything DG. So it is not DG. It might be painted to look DG, and it can be taken alongside DG in a separate detachment as [Legion: Death Guard Beta] but it can never be DG, and never be buffed by DG HQ's. Nobody said you couldn't take them in the same army, what was said was they couldn't be taken in a DG army. A DG army is a very specific thing that excludes the GBD from the special DG buffs that are the reason you picked the DG legion keyword in the first place. Sure you can call them all [Legion: Green Marines] and take whatever you want, but people are picking the DG sub-faction because they want the rules that are attached to them. It's a pretty weak oversight that GW and FW couldn't spend 5 minutes looking at these dataslates to realise this issue was going to crop up.

The same problem existed in 7th. You could pick whatever OP detachments you wanted, but you could rarely stick FW units in there because the rules are written by GW as if they're completely oblivious to the models of their sub-company that resides in the same frickin building. I get that GW want to contain their rules to the models that they produce themselves, but FW models are official, they're like a mod for the game that can be used if you want or ignored if you prefer. So I get that GW can't write into their lists access to FW units, but FW rules books should include exceptions to GW's rules. A simple page stating that specific units can be included in DG or TS lists is enough. One page, 5 minutes work.

The Legions book that made chaos worth playing again was great and all, but if you had FW units you had to choose between detachments that made the faction playable or playing the gimped CA detachment just to field your cool models. It's a choice that we shouldn't be making in this edition. I'm loving how viable chaos is now and some of the FW units are great, but if this issue isn't nipped in the bud now it's gonna get out of control once the Khorne and Slaanesh lists are out, and once the other legions start to get similar unit restriction lists. In a couple years time we could be right back where we were in 7th - play with workable, competitive rules, or play the nice models. And when loyalists get Contemptors in their GW index but chaos has to go to FW that starts to become excluded from lists then we have an issue.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there really is no such thing as a DG army. You can specifically only take models that are allowed to use the DG keyword, but does that even matter other than for buffs and transporting? I find it very wonky and kind of dumb, but it seems clear that the whole concept of "I'm playing an X army" where X = one specific keyword is now an outdated and pointless concept.

It does matter because if you want to take anything from the starter set in your army it has to be Death Guard. You can play Plague Marines in any legion list but all those other models - Typhus, Lord of Contagion, Poxwalkers etc, all have to be Death Guard, there's no entry in the vanilla legions section. So you can either play a nurgle marine army with vanilla plague marines and FW units or you can play the starter set models with no FW models.

No nurgle marine/Death Guard player is going to play that army without the DG legion keyword, because they're losing anything that makes a nurgle army unique.

FW dropped the ball on this. For all the talk on improving the rules and freeing up the players to play fluffy and characterful lists we're still stuck with the same silly rules issues and oversights that really shouldn't be present in a game of this popularity.

Of course many players and many tables will just ignore such tings and allow the GBD to be taken in a pure DG list, but when you find yourself in a competitive environment and the letter oft he law must be applied then you're losing out to sloppy rules design. Same thing goes if your meta bans FW and you can't bring your contemptor dread but your loyalist mate can because his entry is in the Gw index and not the FW one. And the only difference being that GW don't have a kit with spikey bits in it to make the model chaos but FW happens to have a half-mutated 30k Word Bearers model, so that means all chaos contemptors must use that model and are banned in a non-FW meta. It's dumb. You can field the same model with some spikes and greenstuff added with zero problems, but it might still be banned because GW doesn't produce a specific kit for it. Just stop producing chaos specific kits already and launch a chaos conversion box that can convert all loyalist vehicles to chaos ones. Would save so much on their overheads to just do that and we can have half these FW units in the GW index instead, just like loyalists. FW has set the precedent as half these relic vehicles don't have anything to represent their armaments, you'll have to convert them yourself, so if they can have rules for Chaos Achilles where nothing is produced to represent the gun (I'm looking at grabbing a Decimator Soulburner Petard for mine) and your're expected to convert it to fit, then why can't the contemptor be in the GW index and you're expected to convert that too? Pick a policy and stick to it GW....

Hopefully they can rectify this stuff soon before we end up in the same place we always end up with GW. Be the game we want, not the same game we end up tolerating at time.

Demantiae wrote:
It does matter because if you want to take anything from the starter set in your army it has to be Death Guard. You can play Plague Marines in any legion list but all those other models - Typhus, Lord of Contagion, Poxwalkers etc, all have to be Death Guard, there's no entry in the vanilla legions section. So you can either play a nurgle marine army with vanilla plague marines and FW units or you can play the starter set models with no FW models.

No nurgle marine/Death Guard player is going to play that army without the DG legion keyword, because they're losing anything that makes a nurgle army unique.

FW dropped the ball on this. For all the talk on improving the rules and freeing up the players to play fluffy and characterful lists we're still stuck with the same silly rules issues and oversights that really shouldn't be present in a game of this popularity.

Of course many players and many tables will just ignore such tings and allow the GBD to be taken in a pure DG list, but when you find yourself in a competitive environment and the letter oft he law must be applied then you're losing out to sloppy rules design. Same thing goes if your meta bans FW and you can't bring your contemptor dread but your loyalist mate can because his entry is in the Gw index and not the FW one. And the only difference being that GW don't have a kit with spikey bits in it to make the model chaos but FW happens to have a half-mutated 30k Word Bearers model, so that means all chaos contemptors must use that model and are banned in a non-FW meta. It's dumb. You can field the same model with some spikes and greenstuff added with zero problems, but it might still be banned because GW doesn't produce a specific kit for it. Just stop producing chaos specific kits already and launch a chaos conversion box that can convert all loyalist vehicles to chaos ones. Would save so much on their overheads to just do that and we can have half these FW units in the GW index instead, just like loyalists. FW has set the precedent as half these relic vehicles don't have anything to represent their armaments, you'll have to convert them yourself, so if they can have rules for Chaos Achilles where nothing is produced to represent the gun (I'm looking at grabbing a Decimator Soulburner Petard for mine) and your're expected to convert it to fit, then why can't the contemptor be in the GW index and you're expected to convert that too? Pick a policy and stick to it GW....

Hopefully they can rectify this stuff soon before we end up in the same place we always end up with GW. Be the game we want, not the same game we end up tolerating at time.

I don't know if anyone has seen the complete index yet. Have you? Does it include any rules that affect which factions can include these units?

I would take Plague Marines and Typhus in a vanilla CSM army if it meant I could also include a Fire Raptor. Are Poxwalkers really that important that you want to limit yourself to no Forgeworld?

@Daemntia: I'm sorry, but is just flat out wrong. You can take Typhus in a vanilla CSM army. You can even take Plague Marines as troops. It doesn't matter where in the book a unit is listed. What matters is if they share a keyword. That is it. Now, that might not have been the intention of GW (I don't know, I can't read minds) and it might change once we get full codexes, but that is the way they wrote the rules as of now. Nothing is stopping you from putting any unit in a list as long as it shares a keyword with all other models. Full stop. That's why daemon lists can take CSM daemon princes or vice versa. All the keywords restrict is how the models can interact with each other on the table (buffs, transports, summoning, etc.)

Demantiae wrote:
It does matter because if you want to take anything from the starter set in your army it has to be Death Guard. You can play Plague Marines in any legion list but all those other models - Typhus, Lord of Contagion, Poxwalkers etc, all have to be Death Guard, there's no entry in the vanilla legions section. So you can either play a nurgle marine army with vanilla plague marines and FW units or you can play the starter set models with no FW models.

No nurgle marine/Death Guard player is going to play that army without the DG legion keyword, because they're losing anything that makes a nurgle army unique.

FW dropped the ball on this. For all the talk on improving the rules and freeing up the players to play fluffy and characterful lists we're still stuck with the same silly rules issues and oversights that really shouldn't be present in a game of this popularity.

Of course many players and many tables will just ignore such tings and allow the GBD to be taken in a pure DG list, but when you find yourself in a competitive environment and the letter oft he law must be applied then you're losing out to sloppy rules design. Same thing goes if your meta bans FW and you can't bring your contemptor dread but your loyalist mate can because his entry is in the Gw index and not the FW one. And the only difference being that GW don't have a kit with spikey bits in it to make the model chaos but FW happens to have a half-mutated 30k Word Bearers model, so that means all chaos contemptors must use that model and are banned in a non-FW meta. It's dumb. You can field the same model with some spikes and greenstuff added with zero problems, but it might still be banned because GW doesn't produce a specific kit for it. Just stop producing chaos specific kits already and launch a chaos conversion box that can convert all loyalist vehicles to chaos ones. Would save so much on their overheads to just do that and we can have half these FW units in the GW index instead, just like loyalists. FW has set the precedent as half these relic vehicles don't have anything to represent their armaments, you'll have to convert them yourself, so if they can have rules for Chaos Achilles where nothing is produced to represent the gun (I'm looking at grabbing a Decimator Soulburner Petard for mine) and your're expected to convert it to fit, then why can't the contemptor be in the GW index and you're expected to convert that too? Pick a policy and stick to it GW....

Hopefully they can rectify this stuff soon before we end up in the same place we always end up with GW. Be the game we want, not the same game we end up tolerating at time.

I don't see how this is true. Your army only need to share 1 keyword, and all those models do. There is a limit on which models can take the Death Guard keyword, but that doesn't prevent you have from having non DG units in your army without the DG keyword, while at the same time that your DG troops are in the army with the DG keyword.

Would of been nice if FW amended it so all models with NURGLE and DAEMON ENGINE can choose the Death Guard keyword etc.

So, how's the Lord of Skulls now? Worth buying one?

Bluebeard wrote:
So, how's the Lord of Skulls now? Worth buying one?

Almost half the price and 10 times better than it was in 7e? It is definitely worth taking in higher point games.

Sounds great! I'll buy one then. I've always liked the model.

Mugaaz wrote:

Demantiae wrote:
It does matter because if you want to take anything from the starter set in your army it has to be Death Guard. You can play Plague Marines in any legion list but all those other models - Typhus, Lord of Contagion, Poxwalkers etc, all have to be Death Guard, there's no entry in the vanilla legions section. So you can either play a nurgle marine army with vanilla plague marines and FW units or you can play the starter set models with no FW models.

No nurgle marine/Death Guard player is going to play that army without the DG legion keyword, because they're losing anything that makes a nurgle army unique.

FW dropped the ball on this. For all the talk on improving the rules and freeing up the players to play fluffy and characterful lists we're still stuck with the same silly rules issues and oversights that really shouldn't be present in a game of this popularity.

Of course many players and many tables will just ignore such tings and allow the GBD to be taken in a pure DG list, but when you find yourself in a competitive environment and the letter oft he law must be applied then you're losing out to sloppy rules design. Same thing goes if your meta bans FW and you can't bring your contemptor dread but your loyalist mate can because his entry is in the Gw index and not the FW one. And the only difference being that GW don't have a kit with spikey bits in it to make the model chaos but FW happens to have a half-mutated 30k Word Bearers model, so that means all chaos contemptors must use that model and are banned in a non-FW meta. It's dumb. You can field the same model with some spikes and greenstuff added with zero problems, but it might still be banned because GW doesn't produce a specific kit for it. Just stop producing chaos specific kits already and launch a chaos conversion box that can convert all loyalist vehicles to chaos ones. Would save so much on their overheads to just do that and we can have half these FW units in the GW index instead, just like loyalists. FW has set the precedent as half these relic vehicles don't have anything to represent their armaments, you'll have to convert them yourself, so if they can have rules for Chaos Achilles where nothing is produced to represent the gun (I'm looking at grabbing a Decimator Soulburner Petard for mine) and your're expected to convert it to fit, then why can't the contemptor be in the GW index and you're expected to convert that too? Pick a policy and stick to it GW....

Hopefully they can rectify this stuff soon before we end up in the same place we always end up with GW. Be the game we want, not the same game we end up tolerating at time.

I don't see how this is true. Your army only need to share 1 keyword, and all those models do. There is a limit on which models can take the Death Guard keyword, but that doesn't prevent you have from having non DG units in your army without the DG keyword, while at the same time that your DG troops are in the army with the DG keyword.

There is a list of units you are able to take and retain the death guard bonus. While yes, you can take any unit of chaos, taking units not on the list makes it so you cannot use plague marines as troops(or rubrik marines for Tsons). That's why there are two entries of plague marines in the index, one as elite to be taken with any chaos army. And one as troops in the deathguard section, which is a bonus you only get if the entire army is deathguard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mrhappyface wrote:

Bluebeard wrote:
So, how's the Lord of Skulls now? Worth buying one?

Almost half the price and 10 times better than it was in 7e? It is definitely worth taking in higher point games.

Sadly he costs 723 before swapping for different guns, 465 base, 184 for the Hades Gatling cannon, and 74 for the gorestorm. Still a little cheaper and he's not horrible, especially with a Lord or daemon prince next to.him to re roll 1s to hit

Ecdain wrote:


There is a list of units you are able to take and retain the death guard bonus. While yes, you can take any unit of chaos, taking units not on the list makes it so you cannot use plague marines as troops(or rubrik marines for Tsons). That's why there are two entries of plague marines in the index, one as elite to be taken with any chaos army. And one as troops in the deathguard section, which is a bonus you only get if the entire army is deathguard.

Where do you think it says that? There is no such restriction. Death Guard Plagues are Troops and can be included in a World Eaters list no problem. They are Death Guard Plague Marines, that's it. No restriction on where Death Guard Plagues can be placed. There's are restrictions on what can be Death Guard, but no restriction on where Death Guard models are in Detachments.

In case anyone is interested I just did some MathHammer to pass the time and a 20 man unit of Khorne Bezerkers w/ Chainaxe and Chainsword + Khorne Lord w/Chainfist and being buffed by a Sorceror (+1 to hit) will destroy an IK on the charge. Just if anyone was interested.

I'm not saying you can't take these units in any chaos list, you can, but in order to receive character buffs you must be the same legion, so DG lords and that dude with the dude with the bell can only buff other DG units. If you take a DG lord and a FW GBD then he can't buff it's shooting. They're not huge buffs but it's setting a precedent for how GW will do things going forward. You have to pick a legion keyword and to sue DG at lol you have to stick to the list of allowed units.

Typhus and pox walkers always have to be keyword DG too, no matter what other faction your army is, though that hardly matters unless you try to use a Dark apostle to buff the pox walkers cc capability (which you can't).

GW has done half a job with the DG list, eye should have left off that list of units until a proper codex came along, so they add the units we know are coming and make sure there are appropriate FW exemptions.

Uch that makes Necrosius awkward. He can buff 'The Tainted' and Poxwalkers, but can't buff one unit with both as poxwalkers have to be death guard .

Demantiae wrote:

GW has done half a job with the DG list, eye should have left off that list of units until a proper codex came along, so they add the units we know are coming and make sure there are appropriate FW exemptions.

My opinion has always been that they based their lists on what the Studio/Devs with that army had painted.

Think about it.

World Eaters - they've used their Red Corsairs and Crimson Slaughter as Khornate armies so many times they literally just looked at that shelf and ticked everything.
Emperor's Children - This is the only oddity - I reckon they looked at their display, saw a Noise Marine squad and a normal CSM squad and just assumed normal CSM = can take everything.
Thousand Sons - the list matches Matt Hutson's army perfectly.
Death Guard - the list is awkward, it is literally what they have painted - DI starter models and old Death Guard/Nurgle models from 3.5 and the EoT campaign - hence a lack of any of the newer units.

It's really shoddily done.

At this point I'm half tempted to say screw it and just run keyword Chaos - but god it will suck if the Death Guard detachment bonus is something like morale immunity or DR across the board D:

Run two detachments? One DG for any bonus they might put in with the codex and another with Nurgly stuff that can't take the DG keyword?