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.

TO be fair though most of what was winning was your typical horsegak spam lists that barely even resembled Death Guard.

Dudeface wrote:
While having a properly maintained dedicated codex is definitely preferable to getting rolled back in, at this point in time (before our PA is released), being part of the CSM codex with 2 campaign books worth of content instead of having our own would be all upside. Which is basically a sign that GW screwed up both books big time.

As pointed out the last time you spread this misinformation, even without the campaign books being part of the CSM strictly better than not being part of it. The two books just add to the pile of stuff we gain, considering how Vigilus just ignored that DG were a major faction of the conflict and gave them nothing.

 Jidmah wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
While having a properly maintained dedicated codex is definitely preferable to getting rolled back in, at this point in time (before our PA is released), being part of the CSM codex with 2 campaign books worth of content instead of having our own would be all upside. Which is basically a sign that GW screwed up both books big time.

As pointed out the last time you spread this misinformation, even without the campaign books being part of the CSM strictly better than not being part of it. The two books just add to the pile of stuff we gain, considering how Vigilus just ignored that DG were a major faction of the conflict and gave them nothing.

I wrote a lengthy response but decided against it. Its academic and they're a stand alone force and not just marginally different spiky marines any more which is good. If you want to complain they should be standard chaos marines + extras that's your opinion.

That lengthy response apparently failed to do as much as count stratagems, relics and warlord traits, which are more numerous for WE or EC even before Vigilus and PA.

You were as wrong then as you are now.

 Jidmah wrote:
That lengthy response apparently failed to do as much as count stratagems, relics and warlord traits, which are more numerous for WE or EC even before Vigilus and PA.

You were as wrong then as you are now.

There is 1 world eaters stratagem in the chaos marines codex, likewise there is 1 emperors children stratagem. If you're insinuating the generic heretic astartes stratagems somehow count as legion specific that's on another planet.

A bit along the same line: I think DG doesn't lose very much from simply combining it with a CSM detachment of choice, and not all CSM stratagems or buffs are keyed to <Legion>
And frankly, a DG player that isn't at least willing to read into what Chaos Daemons have to offer to DG needs not complain about a lack of competitiveness. Staying away from Chaos soup is a pure fluff decision.
You can't make the argument, that DG has nothing that is unique to them, or no options at all.that aren't stronger than what other factions have.
Deathguard Psykers may have less choice in their starting picks from the Hereticus Discipline, but the option to spend 1 CP to chose from one of six Contagion powers mid-game makes them incredibly capable to react to changing situations, for example.

Dudeface wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
That lengthy response apparently failed to do as much as count stratagems, relics and warlord traits, which are more numerous for WE or EC even before Vigilus and PA.

You were as wrong then as you are now.

There is 1 world eaters stratagem in the chaos marines codex, likewise there is 1 emperors children stratagem. If you're insinuating the generic heretic astartes stratagems somehow count as legion specific that's on another planet.

And you somehow think that 1 Death Guard stratagem plus everything in Codex:CSM is somehow worse or even less than what DG have now?

Don't bother answering, I don't care for your answer. Just like last time, you'll just keep moving goalposts to create the illusion of DG gaining access to all that is part of Codex:CSM somehow is a disadvantage for them. The hard numbers prove you wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AuntHerbert wrote:
Deathguard Psykers may have less choice in their starting picks from the Hereticus Discipline, but the option to spend 1 CP to chose from one of six Contagion powers mid-game makes them incredibly capable to react to changing situations, for example.

CSM have the very same stratagem under a different name though.

 Jidmah wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
That lengthy response apparently failed to do as much as count stratagems, relics and warlord traits, which are more numerous for WE or EC even before Vigilus and PA.

You were as wrong then as you are now.

There is 1 world eaters stratagem in the chaos marines codex, likewise there is 1 emperors children stratagem. If you're insinuating the generic heretic astartes stratagems somehow count as legion specific that's on another planet.

And you somehow think that 1 Death Guard stratagem plus everything in Codex:CSM is somehow worse or even less than what DG have now?

Don't bother answering, I don't care for your answer. Just like last time, you'll just keep moving goalposts to create the illusion of DG gaining access to all that is part of Codex:CSM somehow is a disadvantage for them. The hard numbers prove you wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AuntHerbert wrote:
Deathguard Psykers may have less choice in their starting picks from the Hereticus Discipline, but the option to spend 1 CP to chose from one of six Contagion powers mid-game makes them incredibly capable to react to changing situations, for example.

CSM have the very same stratagem under a different name though.

You asked an objective question, I gave an objective answer. Your response to being wrong is to have a stroppy fit about it and decide I'm beneath your interest. I'm fine with that BTW.

Ofc it'd be a massive buff for them but then I wouldn't selfishly expect them to keep a full codex worth of unique entries and then get access to another full codex worth of entries.

Stop whining that someone else got some toys and you didn't. Ally in some chaos marines and use their stuff if it bothers you so much.

Protip, World eaters have 14 strats open to them including one for changing their mark of chaos.

*looks back in on this thread*

So we've had pages of arguments about lore stuff, and about how many books things should be spread across, and yet still hardly any discussion of the core problem: If you put a bunch of plague marines, some terminators, and some vehicles on the board, your list will be crap.

That's the primary problem with DG (and all Chaos marines in general, and was previously a problem for loyalists until they got their new books.)

The goal of balance for any specific faction shouldn't be to get them to have competitive lists of any sort, it should be to get their units to be competitive in general. 8th has had too many problems of really whacky, unfluffy lists being able to win tournaments (such as dual primarch + brimstones) while 80% of a faction's units are never worth putting on the field.

Ideally, you should be able to put down basically any units in the book and have a decent list (as long as you satisfy covering basic roles.) But that's not how it works at all these days.

In other words, everyone should be demanding buffs for Plague Marines and similar units.

If you put a bunch of plague marines, some terminators, and some vehicles on the board, your list will be crap.

I totally agree with you, but this has always been a problem. Skew armies have mostly always been the tournament winners.

With 40K I've come to the conclusion, if your list even remotely resembles an actual army that could exist in the books it will be terrible in game.

Possibly one of the main reasons I'm a really bad player. My armies always revolve around lots of marines and terminators.

Plague Marines, Terminators, Dreadnoughts. These should all be your go to units.

Also, why do Plague Crawlers absolutely suck as artillery tanks? Another example of GW writing rules completely ass backwards. They need BS3 and possibly double shots if they don't move, at least with the mortar.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

If you put a bunch of plague marines, some terminators, and some vehicles on the board, your list will be crap.

I totally agree with you, but this has always been a problem. Skew armies have mostly always been the tournament winners.

With 40K I've come to the conclusion, if your list even remotely resembles an actual army that could exist in the books it will be terrible in game.

Possibly one of the main reasons I'm a really bad player. My armies always revolve around lots of marines and terminators.

Plague Marines, Terminators, Dreadnoughts. These should all be your go to units.

Also, why do Plague Crawlers absolutely suck as artillery tanks? Another example of GW writing rules completely ass backwards. They need BS3 and possibly double shots if they don't move, at least with the mortar.

I'd change the mortar to 2d3 shots since 1d6 is just so swingy, maybe adding more shots if the unit is large or make it BS3 if the unit size is 10 or larger (more targets means it should be generally easier to hit something right?).

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

If you put a bunch of plague marines, some terminators, and some vehicles on the board, your list will be crap.

I totally agree with you, but this has always been a problem. Skew armies have mostly always been the tournament winners.

With 40K I've come to the conclusion, if your list even remotely resembles an actual army that could exist in the books it will be terrible in game.

Possibly one of the main reasons I'm a really bad player. My armies always revolve around lots of marines and terminators.

Plague Marines, Terminators, Dreadnoughts. These should all be your go to units.

Also, why do Plague Crawlers absolutely suck as artillery tanks? Another example of GW writing rules completely ass backwards. They need BS3 and possibly double shots if they don't move, at least with the mortar.

Yeah. It was less of a problem in earlier editions at least (although perhaps more due to Force Org restrictions then.)

A typical fluff marine army is like a couple HQs, 3 troops, 1 elite, 1 fast, and 1 heavy. Scatter in some transports. So for example:
Captain
Chaplain/Librarian
3x Tacs in Rhinos
Dreadnought
Assault Marines
Devastators
Maybe an attack bike or landspeeder.

The goal of the game balance should be to let basic lists like this (or chaos equivalents) be functional and worth using. But instead armies are loyal32+castellan+custodes captains (for a lot of 8th) or ahriman+1ksons DPs+brimstone spam or other such nonsense. At least typhus+poxwalkers being a powerful list was fluffy!

Obviously this problem I'm talking about is an issue with approach to balance overall. But my point is that the issues with Death Guard are downstream of the wider problems with the approach to balance. Its not just that there's issues with some units or strats or something.

On the subject of the Plague Crawler, remember how part of the reason that they created the rule of 3 was that someone was winning tournaments with a list of 2x DPs and 10x Plague Burst Crawlers? Nobody could kill it! That's the problem with giving it more offensive power. It actually has a really nice ratio of offense vs defense at the moment. You get a lot of defensive power for its price. The problem is that nobody cares about that, because the meta is so far skewed towards offense alpha strike spam. In the bigger picture, I'm not sure it would need more offensive power if the rest of the army was working better (like if plague marines were good and could kill stuff.) Although I totally agree that it should be 2d3 shots or 1d6 minimum 2 or something, but that's really an issue with ALL random shot weapons in the game being obnoxious.

I remember in 5th ed I often took a dakka predator to use as mobile cover, lane blocking, etc. It went well with the rhinos I had on the board too. The Crawler would be amazing in this sort of role, especially with its plague flamers. Except that 8th edition eliminated that entire tactical part of the game due to the LOS and cover changes.

In 5th Ed, the Crawler would have been an amazing unit.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
If you put a bunch of plague marines, some terminators, and some vehicles on the board, your list will be crap.

Although I totally agree that it should be 2d3 shots or 1d6 minimum 2 or something, but that's really an issue with ALL random shot weapons in the game being obnoxious.

I remember in 5th ed I often took a dakka predator to use as mobile cover, lane blocking, etc. It went well with the rhinos I had on the board too. The Crawler would be amazing in this sort of role, especially with its plague flamers. Except that 8th edition eliminated that entire tactical part of the game due to the LOS and cover changes.

In 5th Ed, the Crawler would have been an amazing unit.

Giving it a rule that wounds from the mortar spill over to other models if it overkills a model wouldn't hurt either, something similar to the flail of corruption's rule which could help clear chaff for the units advancing up the board.

 DrGiggles wrote:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
If you put a bunch of plague marines, some terminators, and some vehicles on the board, your list will be crap.

Although I totally agree that it should be 2d3 shots or 1d6 minimum 2 or something, but that's really an issue with ALL random shot weapons in the game being obnoxious.

I remember in 5th ed I often took a dakka predator to use as mobile cover, lane blocking, etc. It went well with the rhinos I had on the board too. The Crawler would be amazing in this sort of role, especially with its plague flamers. Except that 8th edition eliminated that entire tactical part of the game due to the LOS and cover changes.

In 5th Ed, the Crawler would have been an amazing unit.

Giving it a rule that wounds from the mortar spill over to other models if it overkills a model wouldn't hurt either, something similar to the flail of corruption's rule which could help clear chaff for the units advancing up the board.

Having blast templates exist and it be a large blast template would be great too. Or having better rules for weapons that used to be large blasts!

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

Having blast templates exist and it be a large blast template would be great too. Or having better rules for weapons that used to be large blasts!

Yeah, having a "blast" USR for weapons that used to be templates would be helpful for a lot of armies. I'm honestly surprised there aren't more weapons with rules similar to the flail's spillover rule.

edit: I started in 8th so I haven't used templates, but I'd be okay trying some version of them.

I love the wound spill over idea. Very Nurgle.

3d3 shots maybe?

 DrGiggles wrote:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

Having blast templates exist and it be a large blast template would be great too. Or having better rules for weapons that used to be large blasts!

Yeah, having a "blast" USR for weapons that used to be templates would be helpful for a lot of armies. I'm honestly surprised there aren't more weapons with rules similar to the flail's spillover rule.

edit: I started in 8th so I haven't used templates, but I'd be okay trying some version of them.

I don't really miss the blast templates, they were quite immersive, but also frustrating as you usually didn't hit more than 3-4 models, just like with a D6 when you think about it. It was pretty fiddly and caused discussions, though.
What I'd like to see as a general change to blast weapons is either make them hit automatically or switch the hit roll and number of shots around. Roll to hit, and if you do, roll a die for the number of hits. Would also save some time.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

 DrGiggles wrote:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

Having blast templates exist and it be a large blast template would be great too. Or having better rules for weapons that used to be large blasts!

Yeah, having a "blast" USR for weapons that used to be templates would be helpful for a lot of armies. I'm honestly surprised there aren't more weapons with rules similar to the flail's spillover rule.

edit: I started in 8th so I haven't used templates, but I'd be okay trying some version of them.

I don't really miss the blast templates, they were quite immersive, but also frustrating as you usually didn't hit more than 3-4 models, just like with a D6 when you think about it. It was pretty fiddly and caused discussions, though.
What I'd like to see as a general change to blast weapons is either make them hit automatically or switch the hit roll and number of shots around. Roll to hit, and if you do, roll a die for the number of hits. Would also save some time.

Blast templates certainly caused problems, but they also captured an important mechanic that can't be easily replicated. First, they could hit multiple units. Second, the amount of damage they caused often related to the size of the squad you were targeting, and also to its density. So they were often more effective vs horde weapons. Third, the scatter mechanic meant that they often didn't land the most optimal hit, but also rarely missed completely (unless you were firing blind). And vehicles could be full or partial hits as well.

Against bunched up hordes, you could get 10+ hits from a large template even with some scatter. Against spread out units, you often average only a couple hits after factoring in scatter. Having a random number of shots does reflect the scattering, but it doesn't properly count for likely unit density. The result is that the weapons are proportionally more effective vs small elite units, and less effective vs hordes than they used to be (no surprise 8th has been an edition of horde units rolling everything due to almost all previous anti-horde weapons no longer working well.)

So to get it working like it used to, you'd need a rule that makes it get more shots against certain sized units, and a rule to have it behave differently vs vehicles (less shots, but more strength or dmg maybe?) and a rule for splashing other nearby units based on measuring or something, and perhaps even a rule for bunched up units. And at that point, it would have been way easier to just stick to the old template system! Yes it had problems, but you got a lot out of it.

There used to be tactical differences between blast weapons and normal weapons. Now the difference is that one is unreliable and annoying.

Maybe all former template weapons should have the same rule as the fellblade accelerator cannon's he shells. You can reroll the number of shots for any unit of five or more models.

Density really only mattered against deep striking units as these usually couldn't move when they came in and had to be placed in base contact.
I agree that some aspects changed, blast weapons were good for Orks because their bs didn't matter that much with them, other factions usually had high rof weapons just like now which were overall better.
Hordes were killed by anything before, that's why all of them where weak. I've had many weapons and rules in my Codex where I thought, well, this would be nice to try out against some Orks, but it won't even kill two firewarriors so why bother? And every Bolter can kill an Ork, too. Even soulblaze could kill an Ork. So basically blasts weren't high on the list of things to keep hordes in check, they were merely icing on the cake.

Death Guard are said to be a Legion that operates very similar to how they did pre Heresy.

Give them Combat Doctrines and a unique Super Doctrine.

 Ishagu wrote:
Death Guard are said to be a Legion that operates very similar to how they did pre Heresy.

Give them Combat Doctrines and a unique Super Doctrine.

But combat doctrines are a Codex thing, not a Legion thing. For wolves to have doctrines is allready a little far fetech.

After reading the thread, I had a couple of ideas rattling around in my head, so I created an account just to get them off my chest:

I think GW intend a clear identify for DG - slow, durable and mainly do their damage at short range/melee. So I'm going to re-work the codex with this still in mind. I would also focus on our two main gimmicks; DR and plague weapons. I'm also not going to change any fundamental 'rules' GW has, i.e. Primaris has 2W, but regular marines do not and demonic engines cannot have a better BS than 4+. I would also add the greater possessed and Master of Possession units tot he codex.

Legion trait - Keep it as it is, but extend the double shot range to 24", have it include DR and make it apply to all units in the codex. It also goes without saying that all marine units should be T5.

Chaos Lord - add some more plague weapon options like bubonic axe, mace of contagion, but not the flail that would be too much. otherwise fine.

Terminator Lord - lose him, he's not needed.

Demon Prince - similar to the Lord, he needs more plague weapon options or give his existing weapons the plague weapon rules. I'd also increase his invun save to 4+ because I think its weird the Lord has a better one than him.

Lord of Contagion - add the reroll 1 aura and change his useless special to instead buff plague weapons within 7". At the start of the turn you can chose a +1 to S, AP or damage.

Sorcerer/Terminator Sorcerer - Give them access to the CSM powers.

Plaguecaster - Buff them so know three powers and have 2 denies. (Note - to stop them being too similar to the now nurgleified sorcerers)

Cultists - fine the way they are

Poxwalkers - also fine, just need to have a max unit size of 40 so they actually survive long enough to regenerate.

Plague marines - ok hear me out, I think they're fine. Instead I would buff them indirectly with stratagems, better support characters etc.

Blightbringer - Increase the -1Ld aura to 14" and add a +1 to charge rolls for his normal aura.

Biologus Putrifiers/Foul Blightspawn - fine the way they are, maybe increase the size of their auras?

Tallyman - Change him to be our version of the dark apostle. Prayers would focus of defensive buffs like +1 T, +1 to save etc. Include his old melee reroll as a prayer.

Plague surgeon - Instead make his aura a +1 to DR for infantry units.

Blightlords - fine the way they are.

Deathshroud - Add a new rule, before the start of the game you select one DG HQ as the ward for all your Deathshroud units. In the charge phase, if the ward is within 1" of an enemy unit that is also within 12" of the deathshroud, you do not need to roll for their charge, it is automatically a 12. The deathshroud can only charge one enemy unit when using this special rule.

Possessed marines - make their claws a plague weapon with an extra damage on 6s to wound. Aim is to make them the best melee infantry unit, while plague marines are more flexible.

Helbrute - Needs a +1 to T and some more plague weapon options.

Bloat drone - fine the way it is

Blight hauler - needs to be able to take heavy blight launcher and entropy cannons.

Plagueburst Crawlers - change the mortar to be 2D3 shots and can fire twice if it doesn't move. Otherwise, having the legion trait should help.

Rhino/Pred/Land Raider - Having the legion trait will do.

Typhus - same as Lord of Contagion

Mortarion - dunno, I don't use him.


Stratagems Ideas:

Plague bolts - Give bolters weapons in a unit the plague weapon special rule
Nurgles chosen - Use before the battle begins, one unit of plague marines has 2W
Blight shell - blight launcher causes a -1 T
Immoveable - a plague marine unit cannot move, but can reroll all failed DR and morale
Cursed blade - use when an enemy loses a wound to a plague knife - they take D3 mortal wounds
Acid boils - passed DR rolls cause morale wounds to enemy units within 1"
Big splash - plague spewers/belcher/spitter does 2D6 shots
Empower plagues - increase damage of plague weapons by 1


Phew - ok, I think I'm done. I'll let someone else come up with warlord and relic ideas.

Nice ideas. In respect of the Blight Hauler, any buff would probably have to be based on the assumption that they are keeping current weapon loadout. I think it's too much to hope that GW will bring out a whole new kit for them with weapon options.

Agree, I'd just take all your suggestions as Codex: Deathguard 2.0

One idea could be to add another line or two of plague zombies and/or some other kinds of monsters besides spawn. My personal opinion is that the DG should be the most visceral and disgusting 40k army, both in fluff and crunch, and this could help.

The debate on whether or not Death Guard should be rolled back into the Chaos Space Marine codex seems to have gotten a lot of air time in this thread.

For whatever reason GW decided that Death Guard would become their own sub-faction. I found the choice of legion odd for a sub faction, but they did it. Like it or not, Death Guard now have their own ruleset separate from the Chaos Space Marine Codex. I don’t think anyone is arguing that it hasn’t aged well, the entire point of this thread is to figure out how to bring them on-par with more modern factions. So the general idea is that if we put Death Guard back in the Chaos Marine codex and grant them access to all the fun generic stuff they’re fixed right? I really disagree - I don’t think putting them back in the main CSM codex will fix them as a faction.

Death Guard have 14 unique units that they’ve never had before. What are to become of those? Sure, some like the Lord of Contagion could just be weapons options for an existing character such as the Terminator Lord but what about the Biologis Putrifier? The Tallyman? The Plague Surgeon? Do we now make generic versions of these available to all Chaos Marines? Do we keep them as Death Guard exclusive? Or do we delete them from existence?

Let’s say we keep all of them. Let’s be generous and make them available to any Legions or Renegades that can take NURGLE. Now we’ve created an imbalance in favour of Undivided and Nurgle forces, while Khorne, Slaanesh and Tzeentch ones get nothing out of it.

Ok scrap that idea – Death Guard keep their toys. But now they have everyone else’s toys too! Dark Apostles, Forgefiends, Raptors, Bikes, Lord Discordant, Warpsmith. The lot. Now the codex is imbalanced in favour of Death Guard specifically.

Another thing I’ve seen suggested is that somehow roll the +1T and Disgustingly Resilient into their Legion Trait so that vanilla units are more “plague-mariney”. Ok sure now we have T6 bikers, Obliterators and Havocs with DR. Why would anyone ever take a Legion OTHER than Death Guard at this point? I’ve played Chaos since 3rd edition and the Mark of Nurgle has almost ALWAYS been the superior option. I don’t want Death Guard to become the new Mark of Nurgle. I say this as a current Death Guard player!

I do think the omission of certain things have hurt us, but I’m happy to have our own Codex. I believe a rework of our support Characters and some new stratagems is really all we need. Obliterators would be nice though…

Another thing I’ve seen suggested is that somehow roll the +1T and Disgustingly Resilient into their Legion Trait so that vanilla units are more “plague-mariney”. Ok sure now we have T6 bikers, Obliterators and Havocs with DR. Why would anyone ever take a Legion OTHER than Death Guard at this point? I’ve played Chaos since 3rd edition and the Mark of Nurgle has almost ALWAYS been the superior option. I don’t want Death Guard to become the new Mark of Nurgle. I say this as a current Death Guard player!

Why would you take mark of nurgle, check your stratagems, see that one called cacophony? yeah? that one, why bother with nurgle?

Further, DG getting CSM barebones toys is like, well, no issue at all because atm CSM toys only function with specific legion setups, meaning that a forgefiend is infinitely better with WB or IW then with DG and obliterators the same just with AL.

Fergie0044 wrote:

Plaguecaster - Buff them so know three powers and have 2 denies. (Note - to stop them being too similar to the now nurgleified sorcerers)

They already know 3 powers, unless you mean having 3 casts which seems a bit OTT for an army/faction that is not known to have any special psyker focus. 3 casts and 2 denies is Eldrad level.

Fhanados wrote:
For whatever reason GW decided that Death Guard would become their own sub-faction. I found the choice of legion odd for a sub faction, but they did it. Like it or not, Death Guard now have their own ruleset separate from the Chaos Space Marine Codex. I don’t think anyone is arguing that it hasn’t aged well, the entire point of this thread is to figure out how to bring them on-par with more modern factions. So the general idea is that if we put Death Guard back in the Chaos Marine codex and grant them access to all the fun generic stuff they’re fixed right? I really disagree - I don’t think putting them back in the main CSM codex will fix them as a faction.

Eh. The whole thing really is just a mind game to show how neglected DG have been. Many people who don't play them argue that DG shouldn't complaining, considering how we have gotten tons of new models, a primarch, our own codex and have had some impact on competitive gaming. People see all that, but they don't see what Death Guard don't have.

When CSM and DG were released, other legions had roughly the same amount of stuff as we had, we lost some of the more powerful stratagems and psychic powers but got unique stratagems, relics, warlord traits and units in return.
As 8th edition aged, CSM kept getting stuff, while DG didn't, with no real reason as to why. Now we are at a point where having our own codex isn't really much of an advantage compared to all the stuff we got locked out of for having it return.

What I, and probably every other DG player would have hoped for, would be:
- A single specialist detachment in Vigilus. We were the guys who apparently overran the entire northern continent with their plagues and had the third largest presence there. So we should have been represented in the rules, especially if something like Fallen got a spotlight.
- Access to the new units surrounding the Master of Possession. Not only are daemon engines and possessions a sub-theme of DG, but fluff-wise the plague planet should be a dream come real for any MoP with all its factories chumming out daemon engines. Havocs and Lords Discordant are clearly not DG units, so not having them is fine.
- Access to chaos lord with thunder hammer. It was added for CSM, but despite not actually having a DG model for lords, we still can't have the shiny new guy?
- Access to (the) demon weapon(s). The nurgle fist isn't really that great, but why can some red corsair chump get it, but a Death Guard lord can't?
Or, in other words, whenever GW gives something to the legions in Codex:CSM, they should at least consider whether DG (and TS!) should have that or not. Just like they do for Space Wolves or Dark Angels when they release stuff for codex compliant chapters.

As it is, we were lucky to not get skipped on bolter discipline and hateful blows as well. They did forget to give us "Mere Mortals" after all

Note that TS are very much in the same boat, but they have the benefit of being a younger codex and already having access to their PA. On the flip side, their internal balance is much worse than ours.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bosskelot wrote:

Fergie0044 wrote:

Plaguecaster - Buff them so know three powers and have 2 denies. (Note - to stop them being too similar to the now nurgleified sorcerers)

They already know 3 powers, unless you mean having 3 casts which seems a bit OTT for an army/faction that is not known to have any special psyker focus. 3 casts and 2 denies is Eldrad level.

I think he meant 2 casts, 2 denies.