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.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 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.

As yes the "40k isn't balanced so they shouldn't bother" argument.You lost that in 8th when GW started making real steps to close loopholes and balance the game. 9th even more so as they've shown more efforts in the last few months to fix the game than most will give them credit for.

It's time to stop beating that dead horse.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

As yes the "40k isn't balanced so they shouldn't bother" argument.You lost that in 8th when GW started making real steps to close loopholes and balance the game. 9th even more so as they've shown more efforts in the last few months to fix the game than most will give them credit for.

It's time to stop beating that dead horse.

Lol. If anything, the argument started in 8th. Historically, game balance has never been a fraction as bad as it was in late 8th after Marines 2.0.

You could've made the argument that GW cared about balance in 3rd, 4th (when they actually had a semi-competitive chess-guy writing rules), 5th and 6th, but 8th basically threw the idea out of the window (which makes sense, as they did diversify more into other games like, as said above, Warhammer Underworlds or Kill Team Arena, etc.. designed for competitive play from the ground up).

 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.

You kind of skipped over all my questions there, mate. I am asking you what should be cut; what is this "some" you speak of? And why? I've already acknowledged that tailoring was needed and i've explicitly explained how I feel it should be. I have pointed out things that have been cut/tailored. I could, and perhaps I would be right to, assume you think the main marine codex would be a good target, judging by your example. If so, why are you here challenging complaints that the changes to the DG codex are unjust?

(Edited spelling here and there and clarified point further)

Semper 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.

You kind of skipped over all my questions there, mate. I am asking you what should be cut; what is this "some" you speak of? And why? I've already acknowledged that some things needed tailoring and have pointed out things that have been cut/tailored. I could, and perhaps I would be right to, assume you think the main marine codex would be a good target, judging by your example. If so, why are you here challenging complaints that the changes to the DG codex are unjust?

(Edited spelling here and there and clarified point further)

How am I skipping it when I've been very clear about it in previous posts: the entire Firstborn line. Anything without the "Primaris" Keyword. Take it all out.

And the point is that changes need to happen to keep the game balanced. DG are gaining a bunch of rules on top of the Plague Company rules and the change to DR benefits the Plague Marine over the daemon engines or the cultists, which is a good change for the book.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

As yes the "40k isn't balanced so they shouldn't bother" argument.You lost that in 8th when GW started making real steps to close loopholes and balance the game. 9th even more so as they've shown more efforts in the last few months to fix the game than most will give them credit for.

It's time to stop beating that dead horse.

Lol. If anything, the argument started in 8th. Historically, game balance has never been a fraction as bad as it was in late 8th after Marines 2.0.

You could've made the argument that GW cared about balance in 3rd, 4th (when they actually had a semi-competitive chess-guy writing rules), 5th and 6th, but 8th basically threw the idea out of the window (which makes sense, as they did diversify more into other games like, as said above, Warhammer Underworlds or Kill Team Arena, etc.. designed for competitive play from the ground up).

Well, this is simply false.

Except for that short window between IH release and the first nerf (around 2 weeks?) where there some egregious things going on, the rest of the edition both pre and post SM2.0 dex enjoyed a much better balance than the whole of 6th and 7th.

Currently, we are living in the most balanced 40k environment in my memory.

Actually, I was little confused and disappointed about new rules (especially DR), but now I cant wait on spreading contagion on the battlefield - nice and fluffy, I like it

Is this thread about Death Guard?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Is this thread about Death Guard?

It's a 40k thread, it's the same as all 40k threads, it ends up as a whine about marines in some capacity.

Dudeface wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Is this thread about Death Guard?

It's a 40k thread, it's the same as all 40k threads, it ends up as a whine about marines in some capacity.

I was trying to use Marines as an example of why pruning rules and making adjustments to the game is good for the game (to point at why I don't think the DR change is bad for the army or the game) but it brought out the Firstborn Defense Brigade instead. Oops.

I was listening to HonestWargamer yesterday and I think he had a solid point that the DR change supports the Plague Marines and Terminators over the Daemon Engines and Cultists which is incredibly good as it serves to keep the army focused more on the infantry it should be focused on.

It also makes DG innately skew in any meta where loyalists are running roughshod since they aren't countered by the weapons the loyalists are.

Another thing that crossed my mind was that if the zombies get a FnP they'll benefit strongly from the DR since it means D2 weapons will only proc a single FnP save each.

Dudeface wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Is this thread about Death Guard?

It's a 40k thread, it's the same as all 40k threads, it ends up as a whine about marines in some capacity.

Death Guard are Chaos MARINES - worth remembering.

A comparison with the also recently released Marines seems logical?

I don't play Death Guard, but I have a couple of armies of them that were waiting for something like this.

I do think it was needed, based on the 8th book coming out like an afterthought and no work on it, except for last minute writing to shore up for the models.

Spoletta wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

As yes the "40k isn't balanced so they shouldn't bother" argument.You lost that in 8th when GW started making real steps to close loopholes and balance the game. 9th even more so as they've shown more efforts in the last few months to fix the game than most will give them credit for.

It's time to stop beating that dead horse.

Lol. If anything, the argument started in 8th. Historically, game balance has never been a fraction as bad as it was in late 8th after Marines 2.0.

You could've made the argument that GW cared about balance in 3rd, 4th (when they actually had a semi-competitive chess-guy writing rules), 5th and 6th, but 8th basically threw the idea out of the window (which makes sense, as they did diversify more into other games like, as said above, Warhammer Underworlds or Kill Team Arena, etc.. designed for competitive play from the ground up).

Well, this is simply false.

Except for that short window between IH release and the first nerf (around 2 weeks?) where there some egregious things going on, the rest of the edition both pre and post SM2.0 dex enjoyed a much better balance than the whole of 6th and 7th.

Currently, we are living in the most balanced 40k environment in my memory.

Which just show how bad your memory is. Marines　have　been top dogs since their 2.0 codex came and 9e codex　gave huge buffs.

Balance has been　going downhill as gw goes nuttier and nuttier and dropped all pretense of caring about balance. Not that they ever cared and just changed imbalance to change model　purchases. Now it's just on overdrive

 Mr Morden wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Is this thread about Death Guard?

It's a 40k thread, it's the same as all 40k threads, it ends up as a whine about marines in some capacity.

Death Guard are Chaos MARINES - worth remembering.

A comparison with the also recently released Marines seems logical?

Yes, but the discussion on the contents and balance of Codex: Space Marines is clearly off-topic and has absolutely no place in this thread, as stated in the first post.

Balance has been　going downhill as gw goes nuttier and nuttier and dropped all pretense of caring about balance. Not that they ever cared and just changed imbalance to change model　purchases. Now it's just on overdrive

As someone who has been playing since 2nd edition I can attest to the idea that the game is currently better balanced than it has ever been - because if people remember there was a long time between codexes and no frequent point updates or FAQs.. Have there been pitfalls on the road? Yep, wouldn't be GW without them, but balance is getting much better these days.

The big problem GW tends to face is that they fall in love with a paradigm change, but then take their sweet time rolling out the new paradigm change while probably discovering a new paradigm while doing so.

Just hope they keep the PM units ability to be just 7. Thats it, crap rules or not Im having 3 potentially 4 PM squads.

 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.

Thank you, I thought so as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seriously though, take debate of loyalist marines or their bloat or likes dislikes with them else where. Make a thread in the general, I'll bitch with the best of them there, this is for DG rumors, rules and news of the new codex and release for when it'll show up.

Let's try and keep it clean, as odd an idea as that may be for Nurgle.

I will say. Despite my eternal cynicism this has been a rather impressive beginning of edition rollout of books.

I'm trying to be optimistic that they'll do well with the Chaos Marines release and Death Guard getting the 9th treatment (especially the removal of the asinine Infantry, Bikes, Dreads garbage) is a great sign.

 NAVARRO wrote:
Just hope they keep the PM units ability to be just 7. Thats it, crap rules or not Im having 3 potentially 4 PM squads.

Just wishlisting basically, but it would be cool if there was a Sacred Number rule where if a unit was exactly 7 models, it counted as 5 for the purposes of Blast and coherency.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Semper 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.

You kind of skipped over all my questions there, mate. I am asking you what should be cut; what is this "some" you speak of? And why? I've already acknowledged that some things needed tailoring and have pointed out things that have been cut/tailored. I could, and perhaps I would be right to, assume you think the main marine codex would be a good target, judging by your example. If so, why are you here challenging complaints that the changes to the DG codex are unjust?

(Edited spelling here and there and clarified point further)

How am I skipping it when I've been very clear about it in previous posts: the entire Firstborn line. Anything without the "Primaris" Keyword. Take it all out.

And the point is that changes need to happen to keep the game balanced. DG are gaining a bunch of rules on top of the Plague Company rules and the change to DR benefits the Plague Marine over the daemon engines or the cultists, which is a good change for the book.

So, why then did you even reply to my complaints about them cutting synergy with daemons of nurgle or hurting having soup more when your core complaint is to do with first born and non-primaris marines? It doesn't seem like you're extending that to first born CSM (as otherwise you'd want PM to go too). Seems like there actually isn't conflict between our ideas. Ace. Glad we could clear that up.

 Eldarain wrote:
I will say. Despite my eternal cynicism this has been a rather impressive beginning of edition rollout of books.

I'm trying to be optimistic that they'll do well with the Chaos Marines release and Death Guard getting the 9th treatment (especially the removal of the asinine Infantry, Bikes, Dreads garbage) is a great sign.

Yeah I think the rules we've seen so far really fit the Death Guard well. I hope they handle the rules for the other Legions this well.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
Just wishlisting basically, but it would be cool if there was a Sacred Number rule where if a unit was exactly 7 models, it counted as 5 for the purposes of Blast and coherency.

I wish Sacred Numbers meant something. But I'd rather Marks meant something first.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
Just wishlisting basically, but it would be cool if there was a Sacred Number rule where if a unit was exactly 7 models, it counted as 5 for the purposes of Blast and coherency.

I wish Sacred Numbers meant something. But I'd rather Marks meant something first.

Yeah having numbers and marks be relevant to stuff would be cool.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
Just wishlisting basically, but it would be cool if there was a Sacred Number rule where if a unit was exactly 7 models, it counted as 5 for the purposes of Blast and coherency.

I wish Sacred Numbers meant something. But I'd rather Marks meant something first.

If they do make marks mean something again, then they should be sure to make Undivided actually do something. Every Legion doesn't worship the Chaos Gods.

So Contagions yeh.................. like actual real rules..............................nah lets not talk about that lets whine away and ruin this thread.

Seriously focus on what the threads about.

Definitely think the Contagions mean the terrain piece is probably the first auto include one for 40K. The Necron one is okay but needs a Cryptek to be at its best.

Whereas this is 9" aura from turn one.

 TwilightSparkles wrote:
Definitely think the Contagions mean the terrain piece is probably the first auto include one for 40K. The Necron one is okay but needs a Cryptek to be at its best.

Whereas this is 9" aura from turn one.

I think you are jumping the gun here for a number of reasons.

1. We don't know points
2. We don't know how tough it is to kill, that sort of is tied in with how much it is points wise.
3. Terrain is not easy to find a place to deploy that is 3" from all other terrain. It could end up having no where to be placed and that means you lose your points.

It certainly has potential, but we can't say yet

Blightlords

Sure would be cool if the Reaper AC was D2.

Nothing unexpected there, just need to wait and see whether they've kept the 4++ or not

 Marshal Loss wrote:
Nothing unexpected there, just need to wait and see whether they've kept the 4++ or not

Well, their movement is 5". I'd say they're going the way of the Loyalists to a 2+/5++ just like their Relic Terminator Armor.