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.

Anyone seen a Blightlords schematic sheet yet?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 puma713 wrote:
Disappointed that Contagions is mono-DG. I guess there is a chance that Nurglings are in the book as a selection, but my confidence level is low on that.

Well of course it's mono-DG. Everyone knows that Nurgle Daemons don't spread contagion and, in fact, stop Plague Marines from spreading contagion whenever they show up.

I laughed hard on that, yeah them nurglings always stopping my plague marines from getting stuff done.." Where is my plague sprayer ? I set it right down here...NURGLINGS !!!!! "

What base size are Possessed on? 32mm? Wonder if the wound bump will have GW move them to 40mm. Can't think of a non character unit with 3 wounds that's on anything smaller than 40mm.

 Eldarain wrote:
What base size are Possessed on? 32mm? Wonder if the wound bump will have GW move them to 40mm. Can't think of a non character unit with 3 wounds that's on anything smaller than 40mm.

They’re confirmed 3 wounds?

 puma713 wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
What base size are Possessed on? 32mm? Wonder if the wound bump will have GW move them to 40mm. Can't think of a non character unit with 3 wounds that's on anything smaller than 40mm.

They’re confirmed 3 wounds?

When the new codex launches, the Death Guard will be ignoring one wound guaranteed against any attacks that deal more than 1 Damage. When you consider that Plague Marines, Death Guard Possessed, Blightlord Terminators, and Deathshroud Terminators also gain an additional Wound in the new codex, it makes the legion a true force to be reckoned with. The 2-Damage weapons (super-charged plasma weapons, we’re looking at you) that are the bane of Space Marines of every stripe simply won’t cut it against the Death Guard.*

From the "Disgustingly Resilient" preview.

I thought the initial announcement said all non Scouts were getting it.

Semper wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

I feel like the community does need to learn to let go. Legacy options don't need to be supported and things will have to change to improve the game. We can't keep everything the same and at the same time claim we want a more balanced game too. Balance is going to sacrifice things and accepting that sooner will make the game more enjoyable in the long run.

I would have thought we want an enjoyable game first and foremost? If that's the case, you assume that balance at any cost is the solution or that it has to sacrifice? Genuine question btw. Again, it's taking the argument to its conclusion if you really want to go this way. We may as well all have exactly the same stratgems, unit options so on and so forth. What exactly needs to be sacrificed for this balance we're looking for? Why is soup the sacrifice and not stratagems, for example? Or why do armies have different weapons? How much do we cut off because it's the easier thing to do? What do we keep cutting off?

Dude, the Marine codex alone has over 90 datasheets. Sometimes you have to prune the tree to keep it healthy. Don't play the slippery slope fallacy where they keep cutting things off willy nilly. Some options will need to be pruned and some rules will need to change in order to keep the game balanced and healthy.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Semper wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

I feel like the community does need to learn to let go. Legacy options don't need to be supported and things will have to change to improve the game. We can't keep everything the same and at the same time claim we want a more balanced game too. Balance is going to sacrifice things and accepting that sooner will make the game more enjoyable in the long run.

I would have thought we want an enjoyable game first and foremost? If that's the case, you assume that balance at any cost is the solution or that it has to sacrifice? Genuine question btw. Again, it's taking the argument to its conclusion if you really want to go this way. We may as well all have exactly the same stratgems, unit options so on and so forth. What exactly needs to be sacrificed for this balance we're looking for? Why is soup the sacrifice and not stratagems, for example? Or why do armies have different weapons? How much do we cut off because it's the easier thing to do? What do we keep cutting off?

Dude, the Marine codex alone has over 90 datasheets. Sometimes you have to prune the tree to keep it healthy. Don't play the slippery slope fallacy where they keep cutting things off willy nilly. Some options will need to be pruned and some rules will need to change in order to keep the game balanced and healthy.

Entire consolidation of profiles is what's needed, and I'm talking like rolling Tactical Marine options into the Intercessor profile for example.

Keep is a strong word

I'm loathe to sunset units as they represent people's hard work (why it's more difficult than video/card games)

I think you're right it would be good for the health of the game but it needs to be done somewhat even handedly. Taking a hatchet to Dark Eldar repeatedly but leaving Marine bike characters without a kit in game is just going to generate anger and resentment.

I will say that rolling mortals and daemons of the same god into the same army has worked really well for AoS. I remain disappointed they don't seem to want to do the same with 40k.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Semper wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

I feel like the community does need to learn to let go. Legacy options don't need to be supported and things will have to change to improve the game. We can't keep everything the same and at the same time claim we want a more balanced game too. Balance is going to sacrifice things and accepting that sooner will make the game more enjoyable in the long run.

I would have thought we want an enjoyable game first and foremost? If that's the case, you assume that balance at any cost is the solution or that it has to sacrifice? Genuine question btw. Again, it's taking the argument to its conclusion if you really want to go this way. We may as well all have exactly the same stratgems, unit options so on and so forth. What exactly needs to be sacrificed for this balance we're looking for? Why is soup the sacrifice and not stratagems, for example? Or why do armies have different weapons? How much do we cut off because it's the easier thing to do? What do we keep cutting off?

Dude, the Marine codex alone has over 90 datasheets. Sometimes you have to prune the tree to keep it healthy. Don't play the slippery slope fallacy where they keep cutting things off willy nilly. Some options will need to be pruned and some rules will need to change in order to keep the game balanced and healthy.

Entire consolidation of profiles is what's needed, and I'm talking like rolling Tactical Marine options into the Intercessor profile for example.

Nah. Legends the whole Firstborn line. Don't need to stop selling the kits for now, but drop the entire thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eldarain wrote:
Keep is a strong word

I'm loathe to sunset units as they represent people's hard work (why it's more difficult than video/card games)

I think you're right it would be good for the health of the game but it needs to be done somewhat even handedly. Taking a hatchet to Dark Eldar repeatedly but leaving Marine bike characters without a kit in game is just going to generate anger and resentment.

Honestly it's one of the reasons I like Legends. You can roll out those old favorites, but active support and rebalancing is off the plate which lets the game lean up a bit and run smoother.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I will say that rolling mortals and daemons of the same god into the same army has worked really well for AoS. I remain disappointed they don't seem to want to do the same with 40k.

Yeah, 5 Chaos books (one for each god, and an unaligned book for the rest) would be a good solution. They could even do three different types of detachment bonuses depending on if you are running CSM, Daemons or both.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Semper wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

I feel like the community does need to learn to let go. Legacy options don't need to be supported and things will have to change to improve the game. We can't keep everything the same and at the same time claim we want a more balanced game too. Balance is going to sacrifice things and accepting that sooner will make the game more enjoyable in the long run.

I would have thought we want an enjoyable game first and foremost? If that's the case, you assume that balance at any cost is the solution or that it has to sacrifice? Genuine question btw. Again, it's taking the argument to its conclusion if you really want to go this way. We may as well all have exactly the same stratgems, unit options so on and so forth. What exactly needs to be sacrificed for this balance we're looking for? Why is soup the sacrifice and not stratagems, for example? Or why do armies have different weapons? How much do we cut off because it's the easier thing to do? What do we keep cutting off?

Dude, the Marine codex alone has over 90 datasheets. Sometimes you have to prune the tree to keep it healthy. Don't play the slippery slope fallacy where they keep cutting things off willy nilly. Some options will need to be pruned and some rules will need to change in order to keep the game balanced and healthy.

Entire consolidation of profiles is what's needed, and I'm talking like rolling Tactical Marine options into the Intercessor profile for example.

Nah. Legends the whole Firstborn line. Don't need to stop selling the kits for now, but drop the entire thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eldarain wrote:
Keep is a strong word

I'm loathe to sunset units as they represent people's hard work (why it's more difficult than video/card games)

I think you're right it would be good for the health of the game but it needs to be done somewhat even handedly. Taking a hatchet to Dark Eldar repeatedly but leaving Marine bike characters without a kit in game is just going to generate anger and resentment.

Honestly it's one of the reasons I like Legends. You can roll out those old favorites, but active support and rebalancing is off the plate which lets the game lean up a bit and run smoother.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I will say that rolling mortals and daemons of the same god into the same army has worked really well for AoS. I remain disappointed they don't seem to want to do the same with 40k.

Yeah, 5 Chaos books (one for each god, and an unaligned book for the rest) would be a good solution. They could even do three different types of detachment bonuses depending on if you are running CSM, Daemons or both.

I'd rather not deal with that kind of whining, and it isn't like an Intercessor taking a Grav Cannon is gonna be broken or anything.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I'd rather not deal with that kind of whining, and it isn't like an Intercessor taking a Grav Cannon is gonna be broken or anything.

People are going to whine anyways. Ripping the bandage off is better than letting the game fester or forcing people who aren't using Firstborn to convert models just to use options they don't otherwise have access to.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I'd rather not deal with that kind of whining, and it isn't like an Intercessor taking a Grav Cannon is gonna be broken or anything.

People are going to whine anyways. Ripping the bandage off is better than letting the game fester or forcing people who aren't using Firstborn to convert models just to use options they don't otherwise have access to.

Eh, people have been managing to use Primaris to represent their First Born just fine with minor work, and you can always just stick the manlet Marine in the squad with his supposed bodyguards.

It's a non-issue.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I'd rather not deal with that kind of whining, and it isn't like an Intercessor taking a Grav Cannon is gonna be broken or anything.

People are going to whine anyways. Ripping the bandage off is better than letting the game fester or forcing people who aren't using Firstborn to convert models just to use options they don't otherwise have access to.

Eh, people have been managing to use Primaris to represent their First Born just fine with minor work, and you can always just stick the manlet Marine in the squad with his supposed bodyguards.

It's a non-issue.

Affects line of sight.

We know the Firstborn are slowly being phased out. Just shunt the entire thing to legends, move the kits to direct only and stop hampering the game with a dead model line just because it'll make some people upset when the same company has removed whole unit options out of codexes for far less.

Heck, they used to double dip units in Dark Eldar but removed the elite Kabalite and Wych options despite the fact they were selling double those kits thanks to the double dip. Marine players don't deserve special treatment, and I say that as someone whose Marine faction is Black Templars who have 0 Primaris options.

 alextroy wrote:
If you want to call that handful of Daemon units they included in the codex as being part of the army, go right ahead.

You're saying that something in the Codex isn't part of the army? You realise how daft that sounds.

 alextroy wrote:
They are obviously there to allow you to summon them without owning Codex Chaos Daemons, not because they expect you to include them in your battle-forged army.

That which is presented without evidence...

 alextroy wrote:
I would be less surprised if they are removed from the upcoming codex than if they remain included.

I don't disagree. My issue is that if they stay, they shouldn't cause your army to lose it's special rules. Nothing in your own Codex should prevent you from using your Codex as it is written. By all means include rules that discourage soup lists, but Nurgle daemons in a Deathguard army isn't soup when they're in the fething Codex to begin with.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I'd rather not deal with that kind of whining, and it isn't like an Intercessor taking a Grav Cannon is gonna be broken or anything.

People are going to whine anyways. Ripping the bandage off is better than letting the game fester or forcing people who aren't using Firstborn to convert models just to use options they don't otherwise have access to.

Eh, people have been managing to use Primaris to represent their First Born just fine with minor work, and you can always just stick the manlet Marine in the squad with his supposed bodyguards.

It's a non-issue.

Affects line of sight.

We know the Firstborn are slowly being phased out. Just shunt the entire thing to legends, move the kits to direct only and stop hampering the game with a dead model line just because it'll make some people upset when the same company has removed whole unit options out of codexes for far less.

Heck, they used to double dip units in Dark Eldar but removed the elite Kabalite and Wych options despite the fact they were selling double those kits thanks to the double dip. Marine players don't deserve special treatment, and I say that as someone whose Marine faction is Black Templars who have 0 Primaris options.

Honestly the size difference isn't that terrible that I wouldn't let my opponent use their Manlets as Primaris. The LOS argument just isn't very good for that miniscule a difference.

It's enough of one to matter for competetive play.

Legends would let narrative and casual play to still run Firstborn while not shackling the balance of the game as a whole to them.

Marines don't deserve to be special. We've seen units whose models where sold up to the release of a codex be permanently dumped and never returned. We've seen options taken away when they've existed for editions before that. It's time to stop acting like Marines need to be some sacred cow not held to the same rules every other codex is held to.

Legends is already better than most expected for the Firstborn anyways. Far better treatment than other armies got.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Why shouldn't there be a bonus for sticking to only one codex? It's been 5 editions since daemons and marines existed wholly in 1 book.

 alextroy wrote:
So going from the release of 3rd Edition (1998), daemons have not been part of Codex CSM longer than they were.

Daemons are in the DG Codex. You guys remember that, right?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
If my argument was wrong you wouldn't need to twist the truth so much for a rebuttal.

I'm not even certain you addressed my argument to begin with, so...

As I stated earlier, it's horrid that the daemons exist separately in the first place now, give us god books.

Short term, the daemons in the book now also break your faction rules, which is equally stupid, but even if they didn't you still would have no daemons strats, traits or relics etc. You still need to rely on the daemons codex to use them to their fullest.

I can't remember, is there a paragraph spelling out they're included for summoning?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I will say that rolling mortals and daemons of the same god into the same army has worked really well for AoS. I remain disappointed they don't seem to want to do the same with 40k.

Same. A joint army like in AoS just feel more like a proper army compared to the mini-thing they are going for in 40k.

Can we please keep this talk to actual Deathguard rumors ?

Keep the salty " I hate firstborn marines because I have bad taste wahhh" Arguments to their own threads eh ?

I love firstborn marines and think primaris are a dumb cash grab with poop back story, but I don't put that into every thread with power armor just to be heard.

None of that has anything at all to do with Deathguard rumors, please, think of the darn nurglings.

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
Keep the salty " I hate firstborn marines because I have bad taste wahhh" Arguments to their own threads eh ?

Put away your projection. No one said they hate Firstborn. No need to make up hills to die on.

Honestly with DG delayed and GW's articles on them likely run their course, unless we get a round two this week we're likely treading water at the moment.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Why shouldn't there be a bonus for sticking to only one codex? It's been 5 editions since daemons and marines existed wholly in 1 book.

 alextroy wrote:
So going from the release of 3rd Edition (1998), daemons have not been part of Codex CSM longer than they were.

Daemons are in the DG Codex. You guys remember that, right?

Yes, for summoning, and nothing else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
My issue is that if they stay, they shouldn't cause your army to lose it's special rules. Nothing in your own Codex should prevent you from using your Codex as it is written. By all means include rules that discourage soup lists, but Nurgle daemons in a Deathguard army isn't soup when they're in the fething Codex to begin with.

Noting prevents you from using daemons in the same army or even in the same detachment. The only thing that happened is that you now get to decide between from benefiting the great synergy dameons have with DG and the contagions of nurgle.

And it's also worth noting that Necrons, Space Marines and Sisters also lose their army-wide traits if they mix different chapters, dynasties or orders, this really is no different.

 ClockworkZion wrote:


Legends would let narrative and casual play to still run Firstborn while not shackling the balance of the game as a whole to them.

Legends is fully matched-play legal.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
Keep the salty " I hate firstborn marines because I have bad taste wahhh" Arguments to their own threads eh ?

Put away your projection. No one said they hate Firstborn. No need to make up hills to die on.

Honestly with DG delayed and GW's articles on them likely run their course, unless we get a round two this week we're likely treading water at the moment.

All kind of discussion about loyalists that is not involving death guard is explicitly off-topic for this thread and therefore violating the forum rules.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:


Legends would let narrative and casual play to still run Firstborn while not shackling the balance of the game as a whole to them.

Legends is fully matched-play legal.

But not all tournaments will allow Legends, thus removing them from comp balance discussion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
Keep the salty " I hate firstborn marines because I have bad taste wahhh" Arguments to their own threads eh ?

Put away your projection. No one said they hate Firstborn. No need to make up hills to die on.

Honestly with DG delayed and GW's articles on them likely run their course, unless we get a round two this week we're likely treading water at the moment.

All kind of discussion about loyalists that is not involving death guard is explicitly off-topic for this thread and therefore violating the forum rules.

And that is a fair point. Making up claims about people "hating Firstborn" to then try and dunk on Primaris is not.

On a more topical note: do we know if Plague Companies will still be a thing?

 ClockworkZion wrote:
On a more topical note: do we know if Plague Companies will still be a thing?

Very likely. The FW book and legends have introduced a <Plague Company> placeholder, and Mortarion's list of warlord traits he can pick from after the game has started have the same name as the seven warlord traits associated with the plague fleets in War of the Spider.

 ClockworkZion wrote:


But not all tournaments will allow Legends, thus removing them from comp balance discussion.

Sure. And by the same measure, tournaments could decide to not allow first-born marines (or super-heavies, or Forge World, or Psykers, or whatever) and achieve the same effect.

Tournaments disallowing Legends proves that you don't need GW to make that call.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:


But not all tournaments will allow Legends, thus removing them from comp balance discussion.

Sure. And by the same measure, tournaments could decide to not allow first-born marines (or super-heavies, or Forge World, or Psykers, or whatever) and achieve the same effect.

Tournaments disallowing Legends proves that you don't need GW to make that call.

You're missing the point that the game would still be balanced around the assumption by GW that Firstborn would still be in the book, so it doesn't fix the balance. Chunking them out instead would go a long way to sorting that issue because then the game isn't being balanced around them.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

You're missing the point that the game would still be balanced around the assumption by GW that Firstborn would still be in the book, so it doesn't fix the balance. Chunking them out instead would go a long way to sorting that issue because then the game isn't being balanced around them.

The game is not balanced one way or another. Even within the GW product range, 40K isn't the game they write for balanced competitive play. They have stuff like Underworlds and some such for that.

40K is the "get all your toys out for a sunday-afternoon"-product. It's their Minecraft, not their League of Legends, their DnD, not their MtG, the Pacific Crest Trail, not the 200 metre sprint.