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.

Tyel wrote:
I mean that is why Terminators got a 5++.

You completely missed my point.

The Terminator save works against everything. This iconic durability has no additional effect against the weaker weapons, which makes zero sense.

We have Psychic Powers, and the Plague Surgeon that MIGHT just grant FNPs. So let's not stress just yet.

But even just a -1 to Wound as a Detachment Bonus (wishlist speculation) with -1 Damage seem solid to me.

 Virules wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Compared to the old, 1 wound, 18 point PM here is what I see. The old PM was a little too over pointed.

2 wounds with new DR is better than 1 wound with old DR. This change alone made PM's worth 18 points. Now throw in better AP in their knives and the ability to move and shoot, and they are worth more than 18 points. 26 is way too much, but 19 is way too low. 21-23 seems good to me depending on what other changes are made.

I really hope it's not more than 23 points considering the sidegrade on FNP and that PMs were bad at 18 under their old rules and profile. 22 points would be fantastic.

It isn't JUST the extra wound you're getting though. You're getting the extra attack and AP-1 Knife, and the always double tapping Bolter. Thats WAY better than the old profile, and the whining is quite frankly mind boggling.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I mean that is why Terminators got a 5++.

You completely missed my point.

The Terminator save works against everything. This iconic durability has no additional effect against the weaker weapons, which makes zero sense.

The 5++ didn't work against Bolters, so argument is invalid there. Then again we still have people wanting W3 Terminators with the same 3+ on 2D6 that existed before. I guess some standards are just impossible, or stupid, or both.

GW stated units would gain 20% in cost with the extra wound. DR is worse in many cases now and the DG still have a weaker chapter trait when compared to the loyalists who have 2 trait benefits vs 1. Who knows about contagions vs doctrines that may change my opinion. With all that information and the historical examples, I expect PMs to cost 22pts each. If they go above 23pts then they will stay on the shelf. Being resilient is cool, but you have to be able to kill stuff to win. PMs haven’t seen play in a long time in most lists, I hope they become useful.

Ugg our daemon engines are going to be stupid expensive and in almost all instances got far less resilient.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I mean that is why Terminators got a 5++.

You completely missed my point.

The Terminator save works against everything. This iconic durability has no additional effect against the weaker weapons, which makes zero sense.

Which is why the flavor text on the DR ability is so funny:

Games Workshop wrote:Those favoured by Nurgle are inured to pain, their rotting bodies shrugging off all but the most traumatic damage with ease.

Hmm, if our terminators are going up to 3 wounds, then our terminators probably got better with this change. Firstly, terminators have a 2+ armor save. In cover, it gets even better. small arms fire seems like a waster of time against T5, 3W terminators with a 2+ armor save. Now now, against those higher damage weapons, Terminators auto reduce the damage by 1. It is going to be a pain to kill DG terminators not to mention our terminators have a 4++. So we save against high damage weapons half the time anyway.

A DG terminator can literally take a lascannon shot to the torso and have a pretty high chance of surviving.

The way the article is worded, it seems to imply that DG vehicles will have the new DR. From the article "Of course, larger, tougher units such as Plagueburst Crawlers and Mortarion will also be harder than ever to drop to their wounded profile levels, let alone destroy." I am hopeful that DG vehicles get the new DR as well.

Wow. Lots of heat going on here when everyone really agrees:

1) Disgustingly Resilient in Isolation: -1 Damage is strictly worst than a 5+ Ignore Wounds
2) Line Infantry: Between the new DR and the additional Wound, Plague Marines and the other Core Infantry are overall more resilient. The additional wound means it takes more small arms to kill them now before. Combined with the new DR, formerly 1 Wound units more resilient to D2 weapons although they lose the theoretical ability to survive 3+ Damage attacks. Similarly, formerly 2 Wound models are more resilient to D2 and D3 weapons.
3) More than 3 Wound Models lose out when targeted by anti-tank weapons, since they never reduce damage by more than 1 per attack.

We now need to wait and see what the Contagions of Nurgle entail. Note, the Contagions of Nurgle are pages 62-63 (per the Mortarion datasheet) while Contagion abilities are on page 63. I think this means Contagions of Nurgle is more than just a pure army ability like Doctrines. It is probably also the home of abilities like Malicious Volleys (from Day 1 preview) and Nurgle's Gift (from the Greater Blight Drone). Of course, it could be that Mortarion just doesn't have those abilities.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
This iconic durability has no additional effect against the weaker weapons, which makes zero sense.

I think it does in the sense that marines, plague or no, already don't really care about units that wield S3, AP0 weapons. Even S4, AP 0/-1 aren't really raising a welt on them. I never got all that ruffled when 30 Guardsmen were shooting at my Primaris in 8th. Why would a Death Guard player suddenly be in panic that they lost their last resort rolls against these same kinds of attacks that usually didn't amount to anything.

Straight up, if this is truly seen and an issue with Plague Marines, I'd rather them just have rules outright saying they are immune to S3 and below weapons than bother rolling dice and both players hoping for spikes when the reality is so little happens. And this comes from someone that brought down Blightlord Terminators with Chaos Cultists in Kill Team before.

I'll admit it initially feels off, but I think in actual play it will play a lot smoother and Plague Marines still feel pretty resilient compared to what some here are thinking. And I am just as invested that Death Guard work in 9th as I commission painted a whole Death Guard army for a new player that I want to have a great, fun time in 9th. I am probably more concerned his army works over any of mine at this point.

Yeah, I think people need to play test the new DG with the new DR before they jump to the conclusion that the new DG units are bad against small arms fire.

The increase from 1W to 2W is a big buff against small arms fire. Consider this, previously, a lucky las gun shot that got through your T5 and armor save would have a 2/3 chance of killing your plague marine.

Now a lucky las gun shot that gets through your T5 and armor save would have a 0% chance of killing your plague marine because its on 2W.

Our basic Plague marines already got a massive buff in resilience against small arms fire just by going to 2W.

I mean, lets take 20 shots of las guns against the new Plague marines. So, half hit, so 10 hits go through. Then only 1/3 of them wound, so 3.33 of them wound. And then 1/3 of them gets saved by the armor, so 1.11 wounds get through. Yay, congratulations, you killed ... Zero plague marine with 20 las gun shots.

With the old DR, if you are unlucky, you can fail the DR save 2/3 of the time and end up losing 1 plague marine from those 20 shots.

 Marshal Loss wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I think the rule is the opposite of what it should be. The idea of PMs is that they shrug off smaller arms fire and can only be reliably killed by big high-damage weapons. This makes them less vulnerable to what kills them best in the fluff, while the d1 weapons they are supposedly most resistant to are the most efficient way to kill them.

That's 100% my qualm with the rule. It doesn't make any sense that the Death Guard's trademark resilience ability only kicks in against D2+ weapons. I get that the old 5+++ had its issues but at least it impacted (or could impact) everything in the game. Felt far more appropriate thematically.

Would have been easy to adjust too. Make disgustingly resilient a 6+ but you add 1 to the roll against D1 weapons.

The pessimistic side of me thinks that GW did it this way because they wanted death guard to die to bolsters so that vanilla marines wouldn't get sad and have to actually diversify loadouts. The realistic side of me is still scratching it's head as to WHY. I cannot think of a good reason to change the rule in this way.

 Virules wrote:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
I vote for 21 points, 7 x 3 ftw. The faction won't be over the top good either way, take a hit for the sake of fluff GW, won't someone please think of the nurglings ?!?!?

If they were 21 ppm I would trip all over myself to put PMs on the table. But I doubt they will be only 1 point more than an Intercessor, even if an Intercessor gets a much better gun and has doctrines.

Why not though ? Even at a good bargain price you have to look at the whole faction, marines still end up better when you take into account all of their choices, ability and combos. All it would do is give DG a real winner choice for troops, I don't see any real issue with that.

The logistics of properly resolving D2+ attacks against multi model W2+ units with traditional FNP is probably enough to justify this change on the infantry.

It's a big hit to the single model entries (Vehicles, Princes, Morty) Hopefully there is more for them that takes that into account.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Marshal Loss wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I think the rule is the opposite of what it should be. The idea of PMs is that they shrug off smaller arms fire and can only be reliably killed by big high-damage weapons. This makes them less vulnerable to what kills them best in the fluff, while the d1 weapons they are supposedly most resistant to are the most efficient way to kill them.

That's 100% my qualm with the rule. It doesn't make any sense that the Death Guard's trademark resilience ability only kicks in against D2+ weapons. I get that the old 5+++ had its issues but at least it impacted (or could impact) everything in the game. Felt far more appropriate thematically.

Would have been easy to adjust too. Make disgustingly resilient a 6+ but you add 1 to the roll against D1 weapons.

The pessimistic side of me thinks that GW did it this way because they wanted death guard to die to bolsters so that vanilla marines wouldn't get sad and have to actually diversify loadouts. The realistic side of me is still scratching it's head as to WHY. I cannot think of a good reason to change the rule in this way.

I mostly agree on both your points.
However, I think we'll see massed PM spam with psycher spam to try and protect us from MW in the psychic phase. Thanks to our vehicles now being absolute poop.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eldarain wrote:
The logistics of properly resolving D2+ attacks against multi model W2+ units with traditional FNP is probably enough to justify this change on the infantry.
.

Yeah, because who wants any sort of dice rolling, chance and complexity in their game?

 Kall3m0n wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Marshal Loss wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I think the rule is the opposite of what it should be. The idea of PMs is that they shrug off smaller arms fire and can only be reliably killed by big high-damage weapons. This makes them less vulnerable to what kills them best in the fluff, while the d1 weapons they are supposedly most resistant to are the most efficient way to kill them.

That's 100% my qualm with the rule. It doesn't make any sense that the Death Guard's trademark resilience ability only kicks in against D2+ weapons. I get that the old 5+++ had its issues but at least it impacted (or could impact) everything in the game. Felt far more appropriate thematically.

Would have been easy to adjust too. Make disgustingly resilient a 6+ but you add 1 to the roll against D1 weapons.

The pessimistic side of me thinks that GW did it this way because they wanted death guard to die to bolsters so that vanilla marines wouldn't get sad and have to actually diversify loadouts. The realistic side of me is still scratching it's head as to WHY. I cannot think of a good reason to change the rule in this way.

I mostly agree on both your points.
However, I think we'll see massed PM spam with psycher spam to try and protect us from MW in the psychic phase. Thanks to our vehicles now being absolute poop.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eldarain wrote:
The logistics of properly resolving D2+ attacks against multi model W2+ units with traditional FNP is probably enough to justify this change on the infantry.
.

Yeah, because who wants any sort of dice rolling, chance and complexity in their game?

except plenty of people HAVE been complaining about rolling too many dice. I mean seriously are you new to these fourms?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The 5++ didn't work against Bolters, so argument is invalid there.

And you don't understand the point either. Terminators got the 5+ save because they weren't durable against things that they were meant to be able to withstand. They should be able to take the odd hit from a plasma gun or a Lascannon, so they got the 5+. They weren't having trouble with small-arms, as the 3rd-7th AP system and their 2+ save worked fine against those.

Look at what I actually wrote:

"It's also another one of those "doesn't scale well" rules, where it's meant to make them tougher, but somehow has no effect on the lowest damage weapons, which makes no sense. It'd be like saying that Terminators are dying too easily, so we'll give them a 2+ Invulnerable save, but only against weapons S9 and above."

Do you understand?

Nice summary by someone over on the DG FB page:;

Alright kids, settle down. I see that DG players have been in an uproar all morning debating all over the Internet whether this huge change to disgustingly resilient is amazing or whether it's a fatal nerf to the army. Let's look at the facts and math and break it down. Obviously this is all solely in a vacuum, but I've seen a lot of people vehemently arguing (incorrectly) that this change is in and of itself overall an improvement when in fact it's overall a large nerf. But does that mean you should run out and sell your Death Guard? Not so fast.

Pros:
- Obviously, -1 to damage taken is fantastic versus damage 2 weapons, which will be more common as we head into weapons changes for 9th edition.

- Plague Marines will arguably be the big winners when combined with all the other new changes. They are going to 2 wounds and are already toughness 5. There are also multiple ways for them to get a cover save and also -1 to hit. They now also are not slowed by terrain in cover. 2 wound Plague Marines with toughness 5 in cover will be very hard to shift with damage 1 weapons in most cases, even after losing a 5+++. With damage 2 being knocked down to damage 1, it's probably a great outcome.

- The change offers several advantages at a competitive level. A 5+++ was rather variable, whereas the -1 damage will be in effect 100% of the time. No more losing a round at an event because you made 0 disgustingly resilient saves. On top of that, you now burn a lot less time on your chess clock making dice rolls.

- The reduction in variance is really going to shine in certain weapon-to-model matchups. Think of the new 3-wound terminators getting shot with multiple 3-damage weapons. Previously, doing the rolls one unsaved attack at a time, you would fail all 3 5+++ rolls at once on some rolls, with one attack wiping out one terminator in some cases. With a -1 damage, it flatly reduces every attack to 2 damage, causing "wasted" attacks (2 attacks for 4 wounds to kill one 3-wound terminator) 100% of the time. Therefore even though technically a 5+++ provides more durability versus 3 damage attacks than -1 damage (more on that below), in this case the -1 damage is much more helpful given that the odds of a 5++ terminator surviving through more than 2 attacks at damage 3 each is extremely low.

- Because overall the -1 to damage provides a lot less durability to the entire army (see below), I am hopeful that this means most units in the codex won't go up too much in points despite a lot of other improvements that GW has already previewed.

Cons:
- The loss of 5+++ is a mathematically a MUCH bigger loss than most people think. People are incorrectly claiming that there is no change for damage 3 weapons. That's not true. The old mechanic was stronger than a 33% increase in durability, because every wound saved once with 5+++ has the potential of being saved again with the same mechanic later. Here's a good excerpt from a great Hammer of Math Goonhammer article from September 7th:

"[O]ne must also consider that every point of damage that has to be dealt because one wound was ignored is also subject to the possibility of being ignored. This compounding effect means that the bonus is greater than the raw probability of success. [...] a 5+++ is effective 150% more wounds."

- This means that in literally every situation except for damage 2 attacks, the new -1 to damage brings less durability than the old 5+++. In the case of damage 1 attacks, you go from 150% durability to 100% durability, a huge loss of 50%. For damage 3 weapons it's slightly worse, and for damage 4 or higher it's much worse the more damage per attack. Even for damage 2 attacks, your increase to durability is only 200% versus an effective 150% with 5+++.

- As everyone immediately realized, the new -1 damage also does 0 versus mortal wounds, so again it's a drop 50% durability rather than 33% as people thought. That means against purely mortal wounds, Mortarion went from an effective 27 wounds to 18 wounds. While this would be a huge loss for any army, it is a bigger loss for Death Guard than anyone else because DG are famously high toughness and they pay for that part of their profiles. Mortal wounds of course completely ignore toughness. Not to mention that DG of course are almost army-wide 3+ and 2+ saves which mortal wounds also ignore.

- I think vehicles and especially Mortarion are by far the biggest losers, as per all of the above points. They are the highest toughness models and have the most wounds and are the most likely to get show with weapons that are 3 to 9+ damage a pop. This is especially true with the change to melta weapons being 3 + d6 damage. Previously you had an effective 50% improved resilience versus any melta shots that didn't finish off the model, with 33% on whatever attack finally finishes off the last wound (not that it matters at that point). Now you only drop 1 damage in the worst case scenario of a 9 damage attack, a less than 12% increase in durability.

Conclusion:
Despite what some people are claiming, this change is overall a massive nerf to the whole army. New 2-wound Plague Marines are (very arguably) overall slight winners in practice under the new rule when combined with other changes in the codex despite a technical drop in durability, for 3-wound models like Terminators it will depend on a number of factors, and for all other models it's probably a huge nerf.

However, there may be a lot of other changes and new options in the codex that make the situation a lot more rosy for vehicles, terminators, and characters. Most importantly, we have not yet seen points changes. Even if Mortarion lost a lot of durability with this change, we also know he went to toughness 8 with no points increase and got some new special rules. So even if for example Plagueburst Crawlers lost a lot of durability overall, perhaps that means they didn't go up in points despite bumping up to 3+ WS/BS and getting some other little boosts.

Yes, in a vacuum this change is clearly a large nerf for Death Guard but we've already seen so many changes previewed that in my opinion we can't view this change in a vacuum and we'll have to reserve final judgement until we have 100% of the information. It could well be that even if disgustingly resilient itself is worse than before, the army overall is far more powerful post-codex than pre-codex.

 Kall3m0n wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Marshal Loss wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I think the rule is the opposite of what it should be. The idea of PMs is that they shrug off smaller arms fire and can only be reliably killed by big high-damage weapons. This makes them less vulnerable to what kills them best in the fluff, while the d1 weapons they are supposedly most resistant to are the most efficient way to kill them.

That's 100% my qualm with the rule. It doesn't make any sense that the Death Guard's trademark resilience ability only kicks in against D2+ weapons. I get that the old 5+++ had its issues but at least it impacted (or could impact) everything in the game. Felt far more appropriate thematically.

Would have been easy to adjust too. Make disgustingly resilient a 6+ but you add 1 to the roll against D1 weapons.

The pessimistic side of me thinks that GW did it this way because they wanted death guard to die to bolsters so that vanilla marines wouldn't get sad and have to actually diversify loadouts. The realistic side of me is still scratching it's head as to WHY. I cannot think of a good reason to change the rule in this way.

I mostly agree on both your points.
However, I think we'll see massed PM spam with psycher spam to try and protect us from MW in the psychic phase. Thanks to our vehicles now being absolute poop.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eldarain wrote:
The logistics of properly resolving D2+ attacks against multi model W2+ units with traditional FNP is probably enough to justify this change on the infantry.
.

Yeah, because who wants any sort of dice rolling, chance and complexity in their game?

MOAR DICE ROLLING is not complexity in any way, shape, or form.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Kall3m0n wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Marshal Loss wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I think the rule is the opposite of what it should be. The idea of PMs is that they shrug off smaller arms fire and can only be reliably killed by big high-damage weapons. This makes them less vulnerable to what kills them best in the fluff, while the d1 weapons they are supposedly most resistant to are the most efficient way to kill them.

That's 100% my qualm with the rule. It doesn't make any sense that the Death Guard's trademark resilience ability only kicks in against D2+ weapons. I get that the old 5+++ had its issues but at least it impacted (or could impact) everything in the game. Felt far more appropriate thematically.

Would have been easy to adjust too. Make disgustingly resilient a 6+ but you add 1 to the roll against D1 weapons.

The pessimistic side of me thinks that GW did it this way because they wanted death guard to die to bolsters so that vanilla marines wouldn't get sad and have to actually diversify loadouts. The realistic side of me is still scratching it's head as to WHY. I cannot think of a good reason to change the rule in this way.

I mostly agree on both your points.
However, I think we'll see massed PM spam with psycher spam to try and protect us from MW in the psychic phase. Thanks to our vehicles now being absolute poop.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eldarain wrote:
The logistics of properly resolving D2+ attacks against multi model W2+ units with traditional FNP is probably enough to justify this change on the infantry.
.

Yeah, because who wants any sort of dice rolling, chance and complexity in their game?

MOAR DICE ROLLING is not complexity in any way, shape, or form.

No, but more rules are more complexity and more strategic.

 Kall3m0n wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Kall3m0n wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Marshal Loss wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I think the rule is the opposite of what it should be. The idea of PMs is that they shrug off smaller arms fire and can only be reliably killed by big high-damage weapons. This makes them less vulnerable to what kills them best in the fluff, while the d1 weapons they are supposedly most resistant to are the most efficient way to kill them.

That's 100% my qualm with the rule. It doesn't make any sense that the Death Guard's trademark resilience ability only kicks in against D2+ weapons. I get that the old 5+++ had its issues but at least it impacted (or could impact) everything in the game. Felt far more appropriate thematically.

Would have been easy to adjust too. Make disgustingly resilient a 6+ but you add 1 to the roll against D1 weapons.

The pessimistic side of me thinks that GW did it this way because they wanted death guard to die to bolsters so that vanilla marines wouldn't get sad and have to actually diversify loadouts. The realistic side of me is still scratching it's head as to WHY. I cannot think of a good reason to change the rule in this way.

I mostly agree on both your points.
However, I think we'll see massed PM spam with psycher spam to try and protect us from MW in the psychic phase. Thanks to our vehicles now being absolute poop.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eldarain wrote:
The logistics of properly resolving D2+ attacks against multi model W2+ units with traditional FNP is probably enough to justify this change on the infantry.
.

Yeah, because who wants any sort of dice rolling, chance and complexity in their game?

MOAR DICE ROLLING is not complexity in any way, shape, or form.

No, but more rules are more complexity and more strategic.

WOW someone must've missed the train wreck of what happens with MOAR RULES = MOAR COMPLEX in 7th.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Kall3m0n wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Kall3m0n wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Marshal Loss wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I think the rule is the opposite of what it should be. The idea of PMs is that they shrug off smaller arms fire and can only be reliably killed by big high-damage weapons. This makes them less vulnerable to what kills them best in the fluff, while the d1 weapons they are supposedly most resistant to are the most efficient way to kill them.

That's 100% my qualm with the rule. It doesn't make any sense that the Death Guard's trademark resilience ability only kicks in against D2+ weapons. I get that the old 5+++ had its issues but at least it impacted (or could impact) everything in the game. Felt far more appropriate thematically.

Would have been easy to adjust too. Make disgustingly resilient a 6+ but you add 1 to the roll against D1 weapons.

The pessimistic side of me thinks that GW did it this way because they wanted death guard to die to bolsters so that vanilla marines wouldn't get sad and have to actually diversify loadouts. The realistic side of me is still scratching it's head as to WHY. I cannot think of a good reason to change the rule in this way.

I mostly agree on both your points.
However, I think we'll see massed PM spam with psycher spam to try and protect us from MW in the psychic phase. Thanks to our vehicles now being absolute poop.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eldarain wrote:
The logistics of properly resolving D2+ attacks against multi model W2+ units with traditional FNP is probably enough to justify this change on the infantry.
.

Yeah, because who wants any sort of dice rolling, chance and complexity in their game?

MOAR DICE ROLLING is not complexity in any way, shape, or form.

No, but more rules are more complexity and more strategic.

WOW someone must've missed the train wreck of what happens with MOAR RULES = MOAR COMPLEX in 7th.

Things aren't always black or white. There IS a middle ground.

Seems GW has stirred the proverbial hornets nest!

I don't really have a horse in this race other than being up against DG regularly at my local meta.

I have to say it seems like a slight nerf and a side grade at first glance.

BUT at this point we dont know if a FNP is on the menu via strat, relic, or trait. Also no idea what powers are available.

Also, consider these Dg will be riding in rhinos with duty eternal... And duty eternal on everything potentially. Way to many variables at this stage. GW is playing it close to the chest without a single strat.

I fully expect a 5++/6++ in an aura/targeted ability to core to be a thing..

Also.. really tough troops, good at melee riding in cheap transports with duty eternal.. Seems pretty good combo for the way 9th works atm.

 Argive wrote:
Seems GW has stirred the proverbial hornets nest!

I don't really have a horse in this race other than being up against DG regularly at my local meta.

I have to say it seems like a slight nerf and a side grade at first glance.

BUT at this point we dont know if a FNP is on the menu via strat, relic, or trait. Also no idea what powers are available.

Also, consider these Dg will be riding in rhinos with duty eternal... And duty eternal on everything potentially. Way to many variables at this stage. GW is playing it close to the chest without a single strat.

I fully expect a 5++/6++ in an aura/targeted ability to core to be a thing..

Also.. really tough troops, good at melee riding in cheap transports with duty eternal.. Seems pretty good combo for the way 9th works atm.

I agree on your points, but a 5+++ aura is highly unlikely. I can see a 6+++ aura for only CORE, but that is just a slap in the face.
Yes, I agree on the Rhino. I just wish our Rhinos got a slight buff. Either +2" movement or +1 toughness, but that last one is extremely unlikely.

With how GW rolls, I honestly expect a few ways for a FnP to be accessible, via aura or strat. Auras would be locked to CORE but a strat would likely have more flexibility.

 Kall3m0n wrote:

 Argive wrote:
Seems GW has stirred the proverbial hornets nest!

I don't really have a horse in this race other than being up against DG regularly at my local meta.

I have to say it seems like a slight nerf and a side grade at first glance.

BUT at this point we dont know if a FNP is on the menu via strat, relic, or trait. Also no idea what powers are available.

Also, consider these Dg will be riding in rhinos with duty eternal... And duty eternal on everything potentially. Way to many variables at this stage. GW is playing it close to the chest without a single strat.

I fully expect a 5++/6++ in an aura/targeted ability to core to be a thing..

Also.. really tough troops, good at melee riding in cheap transports with duty eternal.. Seems pretty good combo for the way 9th works atm.

.... just a slap in the face..

Why?

 Kall3m0n wrote:

Spoiler:

 Argive wrote:
Seems GW has stirred the proverbial hornets nest!

I don't really have a horse in this race other than being up against DG regularly at my local meta.

I have to say it seems like a slight nerf and a side grade at first glance.

BUT at this point we dont know if a FNP is on the menu via strat, relic, or trait. Also no idea what powers are available.

Also, consider these Dg will be riding in rhinos with duty eternal... And duty eternal on everything potentially. Way to many variables at this stage. GW is playing it close to the chest without a single strat.

I fully expect a 5++/6++ in an aura/targeted ability to core to be a thing..

Also.. really tough troops, good at melee riding in cheap transports with duty eternal.. Seems pretty good combo for the way 9th works atm.

I agree on your points, but a 5+++ aura is highly unlikely. I can see a 6+++ aura for only CORE, but that is just a slap in the face.
Yes, I agree on the Rhino. I just wish our Rhinos got a slight buff. Either +2" movement or +1 toughness, but that last one is extremely unlikely.

-1D isn't a buff?

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Kall3m0n wrote:

Spoiler:

 Argive wrote:
Seems GW has stirred the proverbial hornets nest!

I don't really have a horse in this race other than being up against DG regularly at my local meta.

I have to say it seems like a slight nerf and a side grade at first glance.

BUT at this point we dont know if a FNP is on the menu via strat, relic, or trait. Also no idea what powers are available.

Also, consider these Dg will be riding in rhinos with duty eternal... And duty eternal on everything potentially. Way to many variables at this stage. GW is playing it close to the chest without a single strat.

I fully expect a 5++/6++ in an aura/targeted ability to core to be a thing..

Also.. really tough troops, good at melee riding in cheap transports with duty eternal.. Seems pretty good combo for the way 9th works atm.

I agree on your points, but a 5+++ aura is highly unlikely. I can see a 6+++ aura for only CORE, but that is just a slap in the face.
Yes, I agree on the Rhino. I just wish our Rhinos got a slight buff. Either +2" movement or +1 toughness, but that last one is extremely unlikely.

-1D isn't a buff?

-1D on Rhinos isn't making enough of a diff. It's gonna die just as easily.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Argive wrote:

 Kall3m0n wrote:

 Argive wrote:
Seems GW has stirred the proverbial hornets nest!

I don't really have a horse in this race other than being up against DG regularly at my local meta.

I have to say it seems like a slight nerf and a side grade at first glance.

BUT at this point we dont know if a FNP is on the menu via strat, relic, or trait. Also no idea what powers are available.

Also, consider these Dg will be riding in rhinos with duty eternal... And duty eternal on everything potentially. Way to many variables at this stage. GW is playing it close to the chest without a single strat.

I fully expect a 5++/6++ in an aura/targeted ability to core to be a thing..

Also.. really tough troops, good at melee riding in cheap transports with duty eternal.. Seems pretty good combo for the way 9th works atm.

.... just a slap in the face..

Why?

Because we get scraps of what we used to have. That's why it's a proverbial slap in the face.

Scraps of what you used to have? W+1 and a strict -1 to damage is what better than the 5+++ you have before. Get over it.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Scraps of what you used to have? W+1 and a strict -1 to damage is what better than the 5+++ you have before. Get over it.

I'm not saying it's worse. I'm just saying that I would rather have 1W and 5+ FNP.

 Kall3m0n wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Kall3m0n wrote:

Spoiler:

 Argive wrote:
Seems GW has stirred the proverbial hornets nest!

I don't really have a horse in this race other than being up against DG regularly at my local meta.

I have to say it seems like a slight nerf and a side grade at first glance.

BUT at this point we dont know if a FNP is on the menu via strat, relic, or trait. Also no idea what powers are available.

Also, consider these Dg will be riding in rhinos with duty eternal... And duty eternal on everything potentially. Way to many variables at this stage. GW is playing it close to the chest without a single strat.

I fully expect a 5++/6++ in an aura/targeted ability to core to be a thing..

Also.. really tough troops, good at melee riding in cheap transports with duty eternal.. Seems pretty good combo for the way 9th works atm.

I agree on your points, but a 5+++ aura is highly unlikely. I can see a 6+++ aura for only CORE, but that is just a slap in the face.
Yes, I agree on the Rhino. I just wish our Rhinos got a slight buff. Either +2" movement or +1 toughness, but that last one is extremely unlikely.

-1D isn't a buff?

-1D on Rhinos isn't making enough of a diff. It's gonna die just as easily.

Less easily than anyone else's Rhinos, however.

We have no idea if PMs or other units will be better or worse. We don't have all the new rules, we don't have the point costs. We can debate if the new rule is worse or better, but that has only a flimsy connection to a given unit being worse or better, because point changes are a thing.

But we CAN agree that this new rule does the exact opposite of what it is ostensibly supposed to. That's what bugs me.