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.

Rumours about DR changes have been circulating for at least 2 months, with playtesters mentioning it "accidentally."

Essentially the rumour is that it is changed to a -1 to wound instead of a FNP which on its own is something I can absolutely see happening. Not necessarily because a 5+++ on 2W models would be too imbalanced or anything like that, but because a FNP on multiwound model dealing with multiple damage just slows the game down to an absolute crawl. Trying to work out damage to a DG terminator unit if you're throwing damage 2+ weapons at it is already a nightmare, but putting that across an entire army sounds like an exercise in hammering nails through your balls.

And yeah, I realise IH still have their FNP, but it's still very apparent that different design philosophies exist between different writers of the Codexes. Just look at how carefully balanced and designed the Necron one is and then looking at Marines you still have at least a dozen abusive feel-bad mechanics going on, which is half down to the writers not caring as much but also the natural bloat of 7+ books with hundreds of combos in it being an impossible task to properly balance or design around. DG lose their FNP because it slows the game down but IH keep theirs? How very GW~

 AngryAngel80 wrote:

 Horla wrote:
I imagine the promotional work is all written and prepared well in advance of posting - so they probably work in the dark regarding what will actually be in stock when the articles are published.

Maybe but the plague marine stuff has been pretty much out of stock for a month/months so it was just a joke that they were " Hey Pick up these ! " and you can't. You'd think someone would have amended the bottom of the article at least when it was placed to say ** When they are back in stock ! You know at least make a joke of it as opposed to just not care and post and forget which it felt more like.

I could have sworn the big PM box was in stock as of a few days ago as I was thinking about picking them up. Plus, don’t the different regions have different stock levels, making it look like you’re sold out and having someone in Europe when the US is sold out (or whatever) not click a link is worse for business than someone clicking the link and then having to go buy them in a shop or wait until they restock their region.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I feel like I’ve truly become a DakkaDakka member now when I’m arguing about whether GW should flag links or not

No, they were out for at least a month or two as every time I looked at DG stuff a lot of it was sold out in the US at least, plague marines counted with those sold out. You are correct that certain areas may have it and others not, I think this is just a supply issue as they seem to be doing awful bad at keeping things in stock.

My comment was more they should have maybe put a tongue in cheek comment to say they may not be in stock as opposed to just place a link to stock up, with no stock, wouldn't take long just to add that.

Just feels like kind of a sad DG roll out. First people are hyped, slow trickle of info, then told they are delayed till next year, then continue to tease information but put in links for things to buy in the mean time that you can't, made me chuckle..

It's worth noting that there is lots of stuff happening in the real world around our plastic toys. With Christmas coming up, GW having shut down in spring and apparently still not catching up with the backlog from then (probably with reduce production capacity), basically anything 40k is hard to get.

Heck, I'm still waiting for a SW dread I ordered in August.

Assume I live in a world and in this world we also are dealing with these real life issues, that has nothing to do with me finding it funny the snafus or fubars that do crop up are there.

The only thing I'd ordered was a couple DG things way earlier in the year that I just got weeks ago and honestly I'm lucky to have them as it feels like they must have come back into stock to just go right back out of stock again. I hope your dread gets to you soon.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Castozor wrote:
Honestly why are people so convinced they are going to rework or nerf DR?

Because there was a badly photo-shopped, hastings-style fake "leak" and after now decades of having seen stuff like this make the rounds on click-bait sites, people still haven't learned to just ignore the non-sense.

Rumour started way before that though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bosskelot wrote:
Rumours about DR changes have been circulating for at least 2 months, with playtesters mentioning it "accidentally."

Essentially the rumour is that it is changed to a -1 to wound instead of a FNP which on its own is something I can absolutely see happening. Not necessarily because a 5+++ on 2W models would be too imbalanced or anything like that, but because a FNP on multiwound model dealing with multiple damage just slows the game down to an absolute crawl. Trying to work out damage to a DG terminator unit if you're throwing damage 2+ weapons at it is already a nightmare, but putting that across an entire army sounds like an exercise in hammering nails through your balls.

And yeah, I realise IH still have their FNP, but it's still very apparent that different design philosophies exist between different writers of the Codexes. Just look at how carefully balanced and designed the Necron one is and then looking at Marines you still have at least a dozen abusive feel-bad mechanics going on, which is half down to the writers not caring as much but also the natural bloat of 7+ books with hundreds of combos in it being an impossible task to properly balance or design around. DG lose their FNP because it slows the game down but IH keep theirs? How very GW~

This. And I would gladly take that. Either way it can be made balanced but if you get rid of some dice rolling from the process yey.

There's reason I decided I would never play snakebites period when first indication of ork kultures appeared 6+++? On orks? Like hell I slow my games like that.

Now if we could get rid of ridiculous amount of rerolls...One thing AOS got right. Less rerolls.

-1 to wound is pretty spicy if you do the maths, I'm 50/50 on whether it's too good, but it would speed things up and sounds the most believable of the rumoured replacement options. Only other one I've seen floating around is -1 to damage which wouldn't even work on units like Poxwalkers.

gif DR preview today GW

 Marshal Loss wrote:
-1 to wound is pretty spicy if you do the maths, I'm 50/50 on whether it's too good, but it would speed things up and sounds the most believable of the rumoured replacement options. Only other one I've seen floating around is -1 to damage which wouldn't even work on units like Poxwalkers.

gif DR preview today GW

Someone mathed it out in the DG tactics thread. Statistically it's very similar to 5+ FNP, with it being slightly better against attacks lower than your toughness and slightly worse against attacks higher than your toughness.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Marshal Loss wrote:
-1 to wound is pretty spicy if you do the maths, I'm 50/50 on whether it's too good, but it would speed things up and sounds the most believable of the rumoured replacement options. Only other one I've seen floating around is -1 to damage which wouldn't even work on units like Poxwalkers.

gif DR preview today GW

Someone mathed it out in the DG tactics thread. Statistically it's very similar to 5+ FNP, with it being slightly better against attacks lower than your toughness and slightly worse against attacks higher than your toughness.

Yeah--i definitely wouldn't complain about replacing FnP with -1 to wound. Speeds up the game as well.

I kind of like the way they are making the rules we've seen for death guard so far.

Isn't -1 to wound the same as +1 toughness?

Why not just adjust the statlines up?

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Isn't -1 to wound the same as +1 toughness?

Why not just adjust the statlines up?

It's not. For example, a lascannon currently wounds a T5 plague marine on a 3+.
-1 to wound makes that a 4+, +1T is still a 3+.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Isn't -1 to wound the same as +1 toughness?

Why not just adjust the statlines up?

It's not. For example, a lascannon currently wounds a T5 plague marine on a 3+.
-1 to wound makes that a 4+, +1T is still a 3+.

Not only that, but -1 to Wound is a way to cancel out anything that might get a +1 to Wound...and anything that might be a Mortal Wound or additional Wound triggering off of 5+, 6+ or things of that nature.

I wouldn't be shocked if there's a permacover bonus or something for the infantry too.

 Kanluwen wrote:
I wouldn't be shocked if there's a permacover bonus or something for the infantry too.

I doubt that. We already have MBH and the new terrain piece for that.

I'd rather have the -1-to wound as a stratagem for one unit, and keep the disgustingly resilient as it is. Sure, the reroll mechanic is slower, but death guard is not exactly a horde army.

 Spreelock wrote:
I'd rather have the -1-to wound as a stratagem for one unit, and keep the disgustingly resilient as it is. Sure, the reroll mechanic is slower, but death guard is not exactly a horde army.

The number of DG models is irrelevant, you might only have 10 models but if I do 360d6 damage we still need to roll each one of those individually RAW, just in case.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Isn't -1 to wound the same as +1 toughness?

Why not just adjust the statlines up?

Not by longshot. Same reason why +1 to wound is HUGE making blood angels largely best marine chapter and why skorpek destroyer stratagem is　so awesome.

3-7 ed's it would have been but imagine all those s7-8 weapons becoming 4+ to wound, bolters wounding on 6's(t5 and t6? Bolter doesn't care)

There's reason why blood angels(native) and　bloody rose(stratagem) are　so good. +1 to wound. That ain't no strength stat boost.

Salamander　captain with　t7 and -1 to wound? Need s7 to not wound on 6's...

 Jidmah wrote:

 Marshal Loss wrote:
-1 to wound is pretty spicy if you do the maths, I'm 50/50 on whether it's too good, but it would speed things up and sounds the most believable of the rumoured replacement options. Only other one I've seen floating around is -1 to damage which wouldn't even work on units like Poxwalkers.

gif DR preview today GW

Someone mathed it out in the DG tactics thread. Statistically it's very similar to 5+ FNP, with it being slightly better against attacks lower than your toughness and slightly worse against attacks higher than your toughness.

It also does nothing against mortal wounds so I'd prefer we keep the 5+. Compared to the rerolls of some armies and with our low model count I never felt DR was slowing my games down too much.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I wouldn't be shocked if there's a permacover bonus or something for the infantry too.

I doubt that. We already have MBH and the new terrain piece for that.

That's true, but it could be that they give different types of cover.

 Castozor wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Marshal Loss wrote:
-1 to wound is pretty spicy if you do the maths, I'm 50/50 on whether it's too good, but it would speed things up and sounds the most believable of the rumoured replacement options. Only other one I've seen floating around is -1 to damage which wouldn't even work on units like Poxwalkers.

gif DR preview today GW

Someone mathed it out in the DG tactics thread. Statistically it's very similar to 5+ FNP, with it being slightly better against attacks lower than your toughness and slightly worse against attacks higher than your toughness.

It also does nothing against mortal wounds so I'd prefer we keep the 5+. Compared to the rerolls of some armies and with our low model count I never felt DR was slowing my games down too much.

Being numb to pain or having thick flubber to blast off doesn't make you more resilient to your soul being burned out though. Never the less, ever d2+ shot coming in at plague marines now has to be rolled individually, by getting more wounds your DR rolls will become longer winded.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/12/08/death-guard-rules-preview-part-2-deadly-pathogens/

Wonder what the other 6 affects will be?

I'm thinking viscous death would be crazy good on a Foul Blightspawn. +1 S and re-roll number of hits. Nice

Really cool stuff!

It really only seems to impact 3 models right now? The Biologus, the Blightspawn, and the Lord of Virulence.

The best mention is that this upgrade is points based, so CP can be saved for turn to turn things.

On DR being -1 to wound, I think the best comparison isn’t between Strength but between Damage.

D1 is currently ignored 1/3 of the time, would move to 1/6 wiffing.

D2 is 1/9 currently, would be 1/6 wiffing.

D3 is 1/27, would be 1/6 wiffing.

And so on. Not as good vs D1 (and useless against being T double the weapon’s S) but better against D2 and waaaaay better against every other D value.

Which is to say, this will make Daemon Engines even more of the go to than they already are. The only thing it’s useless against on the T7 engines is flashlights and other S3 or S2 weapons.

Now is it applied per unit or weapon? That'll be the deal breaker on using it for anything not a character or Daemon Engine.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Now is it applied per unit or weapon? That'll be the deal breaker on using it for anything not a character or Daemon Engine.

It's pretty clearly spelled out in article

These optional upgrades can be applied to a Plague Weapon wielded by one of your Death Guard Characters for a nominal charge in points/Power

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Now is it applied per unit or weapon? That'll be the deal breaker on using it for anything not a character or Daemon Engine.

Going by the article these upgrades are Character only to begin with. The revealed one is nice for the Blightspawn and makes me wonder if this will be the replacement for his stratagem in War of the Spider. Makes me wonder what the others will do.
Also while I didn't expect otherwise, with this new guys flamers being only 12" and heavy while being in Terminator armor I'm REALLY wondering what his rules are going to be. Can't see him keep up with the very engines he's supposed to buff. And if he's supposed to be more of a backline buffer, why give him 12" flamers?

Nice to see plague weapon has been left alone.

As blight grenades are plague weapons almost any character can benit from it

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
It really only seems to impact 3 models right now? The Biologus, the Blightspawn, and the Lord of Virulence.

Technically daemon prince with sword and spitter as well.

I'm curious what the other pathogens are - if there is something decent for melee characters in there a LoC or noxious blightbringer could make use of the extra point of strength.

They are really stretching out these leaks, like a slow moving crawl to spoon feed us tiny tiny bites. Fiendish GW.

darthryan wrote:
As blight grenades are plague weapons almost any character can benit from it

Tecnically true but who is gonna pay for that?