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.

Sarouan wrote:
No, I perfectly do. The book isn't even out yet and you can't have tested all the possibilites with the new book already. You may have an idea of how it will play in your head, but you can't be sure unless you actually tried it.

You have failed to comprehend the nature of the complaint.

 NAVARRO wrote:

Right. Thank you for the patronising exercise of categorising people, totally off topic.

Still the truth, and you know it.

Sarouan wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:

Right. Thank you for the patronising exercise of categorising people, totally off topic.

Still the truth, and you know it.

Except it's not. Just because you don't understand the very nature of what people are complaining about (hint: It's not entirely about DG...) does not make your belittling "assessments" true.

Sarouan wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:

Right. Thank you for the patronising exercise of categorising people, totally off topic.

Still the truth, and you know it.

Your self righteous tone is not at all helpful, you seem to think that people are purely complaining because they want to min/max their squads. You're missing the point here.

If this is a sign of things to come, then a hobby that many people are drawn to because of the creativity and individuality you can put into your armies', gearing certain squads for different tasks etc. That appears to all be going.

It's a legitimate complaint people have about the Primaris releases with their very limited loadout options. Part of the fun of this game is list building.

At the end of the day it's a dice game based on random numbers. The interactivity comes from the sense of being able to influence chance with your choices, even if that is the difference between a +1s -3 power sword or a +2s -2 power axe.

People like to agonise over those minor choices, it's why we're here and it's strange to belittle people for where they find enjoyment in the hobby...

Abaddon303 wrote:

Your self righteous tone is not at all helpful, you seem to think that people are purely complaining because they want to min/max their squads. You're missing the point here.

If this is a sign of things to come, then a hobby that many people are drawn to because of the creativity and individuality you can put into your armies', gearing certain squads for different tasks etc. That appears to all be going.

It's a legitimate complaint people have about the Primaris releases with their very limited loadout options. Part of the fun of this game is list building.

At the end of the day it's a dice game based on random numbers. The interactivity comes from the sense of being able to influence chance with your choices, even if that is the difference between a +1s -3 power sword or a +2s -2 power axe.

People like to agonise over those minor choices, it's why we're here and it's strange to belittle people for where they find enjoyment in the hobby...

I'm not self-righteous. I'm just saying it's no different than what GW made countless times before with each edition change : they invalidated lists that were working good in the former meta, forcing players to find new ones. All the time.

So your point is the same that was brought by others - rightful or not, players of that changed army or not - again and again and again. Meanwhile, the same people often whine and moan about how imbalanced the current meta is and GW is not doing anything to fix it, blablabla.

The thing is, if GW change the edition, it will eventually change the list building as well. Because that's the point of changing editions : renewing the meta and making it new for players. Otherwise, why bother buying the new rules if it's to play exactly the same thing than before ?

And if you say "but GW doesn't need to change !"...that's a fallacy. Because you know they have to, if they want to keep selling new books. They can't just add more armies or units to a bloated game already, that's the fate of WFB. At one point, if it's too bloated, it just breaks. So you have to renew things once in a while.

See the other companies like Mantic Games : even them, they have to change editions and change the rules after a while to keep selling books to their veteran community. It's not because the previous rules were junk or bad, it's because they need to renew the meta to boost the sales. If they can fix some things that weren't working as they intended meanwhile, it's even better !

You may not agree with it, and that's fine. But that's how things work in games that keep going on very long term. And it's not by moaning on this board you will change it.

Sarouan wrote:


I'm not self-righteous. I'm just saying it's no different than what GW made countless times before with each edition change : they invalidated lists that were working good in the former meta, forcing players to find new ones. All the time.

The point ------------->


Your head.



Don't worry, you'll get it eventually. Or do we need to bend down and patronisingly explain it to you?

 Grimtuff wrote:

The point ------------->


Your head.



Don't worry, you'll get it eventually. Or do we need to bend down and patronisingly explain it to you?

Because you don't want to understand than matching weapon options to the boxes GW sells is also part of the new meta and list building. It's exactly the same purpose, in the end.

But you already decided in your head I didn't understand, so no matter what I say, you won't aknowledge it. It's fine.

There's literally no way the changes to equipment options so that they're "on-sprue only" are driven by the meta. They're just not.

Billicus wrote:
There's literally no way the changes to equipment options so that they're "on-sprue only" are driven by the meta. They're just not.

Exactly. This guy's treating it like it's just the same as when plasma becomes better than melta, or flamers are no longer viable etc.

He doesn't seem to understand the consequences of where this is going. I don't want to build a unit of five models that are identical to the box art. At what point do they stop selling these models in kit form?

Sarouan wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

The point ------------->


Your head.



Don't worry, you'll get it eventually. Or do we need to bend down and patronisingly explain it to you?

Because you don't want to understand than matching weapon options to the boxes GW sells is also part of the new meta and list building. It's exactly the same purpose, in the end.

But you already decided in your head I didn't understand, so no matter what I say, you won't aknowledge it. It's fine.

So why doesn't the loyalist SM codex have the same restrictions? Yeah, because you're talking out your bum.

Sarouan wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:


I.... i don't think you understood that analogy.

No, I perfectly do. The book isn't even out yet and you can't have tested all the possibilites with the new book already. You may have an idea of how it will play in your head, but you can't be sure unless you actually tried it.

To take your analogy, you're like a child refusing to eat what their parents are trying to feed him, purely because you decided in your mind it was dog gak so and not how it actually really taste.

You do what you want, in the end ! But I'm expecting the majority of Death Guard players not sharing your very narrow point of view about the changes, in the end.

If you think issue is about power level then you should consider going to school to refresh english.

Hint: it's not is　something too good/too bad in point efficiency.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sarouan wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

The point ------------->


Your head.



Don't worry, you'll get it eventually. Or do we need to bend down and patronisingly explain it to you?

Because you don't want to understand than matching weapon options to the boxes GW sells is also part of the new meta and list building. It's exactly the same purpose, in the end.

But you already decided in your head I didn't understand, so no matter what I say, you won't aknowledge it. It's fine.

No it isn't. It's part of dg only for arbitary reason.

You can't say it's part of common style when　it's　so far just dg. Nor is it anything to do with　balance nor　is it good and for players sake the plague better not　spread out. Luckily only dg so far is screwed by this so far.

Billicus wrote:
There's literally no way the changes to equipment options so that they're "on-sprue only" are driven by the meta. They're just not.

I agree, specially because these sprues were done before this edition. This is specially ridiculous with the Codex having a normal 10 man unit but the sprues themselves only have 7.

The way I see it its an attempt of streamlining things like they have on the Primaris boxes with only one load out, but when looking at the DG box sets its really not applicable. I think GW themselves probably seen that this philosophy shift is not applicable to kits done prior to this idea, but lets face it redoing these "not so old" sprues into something else is a huge money investment... heck they did not even changed the DI sprues for the Poxwalkers with half a marine in it have they? A clear sign that some new ideas or philosophies may be ok on paper but fall short once implemented.

Ok so what's the solution for this? A good way to go about it since PMs and termis are the worse offenders is either make them the exceptions and bespoke and only update load outs when you actually update the Sprues ...or in the case of PM's add the easy build into the box.

Its easier to not do anything though and carry on <removed> with the new load outs.

I get the feeling that idea is to simplify with power replacing the points systems and inbox sprues dictating load out. So you pick a box, equip the way you want with a predetermined power and thats it.

heck they did not even changed the DI sprues for the Poxwalkers with half a marine in it have they?

Correct. Its actually a little hilarious to have marine legs and half a torso, a left arm and a backpack in an unrelated box. Except the backpack, they won't even match up well to the actual plague marine kit.

What options does the Chaos Lord have? (Since there is no actual model...)

Is Chain axe still a choice?

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
What options does the Chaos Lord have? (Since there is no actual model...)

Is Chain axe still a choice?

There is one :

https://www.games-workshop.com/fr-BE/Chaos-Space-Marine-Chaos-Lord-2019

And the options in the Death Guard codex match exactly what you can build from the sprue : combi-boltgun, combi-melta, power axe, power fist, chain fist, lightning claw (in pairs or alone).

Same with the sorcerer in terminator armor, that comes from the same box actually.

So...yeah. Same battle than for the blightlord terminators, in the end.


EDIT : ah sorry I thought you were talking about the one in terminator armour, not the "classic" one in power armour. Yes, chainaxe is still an option for him.

That's not a Death Guard Chaos Lord though, there is no model for the DG Lord (hence the problem this caused in the previous codex with NMNR).

There's no model, yet he has a bunch of options. Who'da thunk it? Almost as if GW talk out of both sides of their mouths...

If you don't care that GW messes with peoples options, then you don't need to have an opinion on it. End of story.

People have a legitimate gripe here. And nothing anyone to the contrary is saying makes any sense at all.

It's like watching somebody get kicked in the teeth and then telling them they deserved it because they didn't see it coming.

Jesus.H Christ....glad i play 7th solo and being done with GW.

Voss wrote:

heck they did not even changed the DI sprues for the Poxwalkers with half a marine in it have they?

Correct. Its actually a little hilarious to have marine legs and half a torso, a left arm and a backpack in an unrelated box. Except the backpack, they won't even match up well to the actual plague marine kit.

Is the half-marine in the “Chosen of Mortarion” set the other half to the Poxwalkers half-marine?

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
If you don't care that GW messes with peoples options, then you don't need to have an opinion on it. End of story.

I do care. It's just that you moaning about this here won't change anything at all, GW will still do it with the other codexes and you will still keep playing your army. Maybe grumbling a bit at first.

The other option, of course, is to stop and stay at previous editions with your friends (perfectly possible) or stop GW games entirely and go elsewhere, hoping the other game you will be playing won't have the same fate or worse.


We'll see after a month if we're still remembering the outrage or if we will be moving on. My bet is on the second option, personnally.

Sarouan wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
If you don't care that GW messes with peoples options, then you don't need to have an opinion on it. End of story.

I do care. It's just that you moaning about this here won't change anything at all

Except it will.

6th ed WHFB Dark Elves, 2.0 Dark Eldar codex in 3rd, Bezerkers and NMs being FAQed to be allowed as troops in their respective armies in 8th, literally the entire current SOB range, consumers getting (partial) refunds on the plastic CSM box, after it was deemed unfair that they paid the same price for 8 minis as loyalists paid for 10 (oh irony, given the current PM box, but still...)The list goes on.

If enough people kick up enough of a fuss, GW will change it.

I am a bit irritated why so few people complain about the loss of daemons.

This is not at all about "power level", it is about GW cutting a sizable portion of options from the army. Of course one can take the CD codex for an extra detachment - meaning you have to get another book and some more models compared to before. Of course that is what GW wants. I still consider it asinine. Heavens beware a cult legion has easier access to its patrons warp minions than anybody else.

Looking forward to what Thousand Sonst will "get".

Boys, yes there is a legitimate gripe here about loadouts. I love to whale on GWs terrible choices as much as the next guy.

But to have like 4-5 pages of just debating the validation of that single critique? Especially when the full rules were spoiled only 1-2 pages before that? Like yes that's terrible. Most of us get it and sympathize. Now let's move on. Honestly at this point nothing is even being added to the conversation about it.

As for rules, I'm excited to try the new Damon princes. They feel a little different, but I'm going with they are better than before. Sad I just modeled mine with 2 claws but that's just the way it goes. Sword looking really strong.
Bloat drones as well feel back. Might have to convert some flesh mowers as well... Those looking good.

 Nostromodamus wrote:

Voss wrote:

heck they did not even changed the DI sprues for the Poxwalkers with half a marine in it have they?

Correct. Its actually a little hilarious to have marine legs and half a torso, a left arm and a backpack in an unrelated box. Except the backpack, they won't even match up well to the actual plague marine kit.

Is the half-marine in the “Chosen of Mortarion” set the other half to the Poxwalkers half-marine?

It is, more-or-less (mine has a different head, but the chest plate and bolter are correct. But I'd look at people funny if they paid $60 for three and half marines.

 Darnok wrote:
I am a bit irritated why so few people complain about the loss of daemons.

This is not at all about "power level", it is about GW cutting a sizable portion of options from the army. Of course one can take the CD codex for an extra detachment - meaning you have to get another book and some more models compared to before. Of course that is what GW wants. I still consider it asinine. Heavens beware a cult legion has easier access to its patrons warp minions than anybody else.

Looking forward to what Thousand Sonst will "get".

It still will be more than what EC and WE do...

But to have like 4-5 pages of just debating the validation of that single critique? Especially when the full rules were spoiled only 1-2 pages before that? Like yes that's terrible. Most of us get it and sympathize. Now let's move on. Honestly at this point nothing is even being added to the conversation about it.

Unfortunately for people like me, this is my hill to die on. I will not be playing my army or purchasing any further DG related product until this decision is reversed. If I can't have it the way I want it, I don't want it at all.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

But to have like 4-5 pages of just debating the validation of that single critique? Especially when the full rules were spoiled only 1-2 pages before that? Like yes that's terrible. Most of us get it and sympathize. Now let's move on. Honestly at this point nothing is even being added to the conversation about it.

Unfortunately for people like me, this is my hill to die on. I will not be playing my army or purchasing any further DG related product until this decision is reversed. If I can't have it the way I want it, I don't want it at all.

Honestly debating whether to get a refund on my codex order or not. Only found all this out after buying it.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

But to have like 4-5 pages of just debating the validation of that single critique? Especially when the full rules were spoiled only 1-2 pages before that? Like yes that's terrible. Most of us get it and sympathize. Now let's move on. Honestly at this point nothing is even being added to the conversation about it.

Unfortunately for people like me, this is my hill to die on. I will not be playing my army or purchasing any further DG related product until this decision is reversed. If I can't have it the way I want it, I don't want it at all.

Honestly debating whether to get a refund on my codex order or not. Only found all this out after buying it.

You can always reorder it a different time. A refund now sends a message to them.

So overall this codex seems to be a buff.

My big points:

It seems that GW has decided to make our shooting less powerful (by limiting range weapons in unit) and instead making us a melee army. In 8th we were mid range firepower masters, but now everything really revolves around getting very close to include combat for the most part.

I think there is an error with the jealousy rule and demon princes were not meant to have the “Lord” keyword. Otherwise the demon prince jealousy rule is irrelevant since you have 2 in a detachment because of the “Lord” keyword anyways. This makes the rule redundant. If it isn’t an error this is my #1 gripe that they have FORCED you to buy a caster in a battalion. Regardless I hate these silly restrictions!

The random limitations across the board are annoying, but I’ll get over them. I feel bad for the people who bought lots of bits to make things work only to have them invalidated. However, I feel this was done intentionally to drive more sales. Otherwise, since DG are an elite army and ost people own everything, they would buy much. Almost EVERY DG list is going to look almost the same with mall variance due to the restrictions the exact opposite of most other new codexes.

Anyone have pictures of the new data sheets?

 Darnok wrote:
I am a bit irritated why so few people complain about the loss of daemons.

This is not at all about "power level", it is about GW cutting a sizable portion of options from the army. Of course one can take the CD codex for an extra detachment - meaning you have to get another book and some more models compared to before. Of course that is what GW wants. I still consider it asinine. Heavens beware a cult legion has easier access to its patrons warp minions than anybody else.

Well, the complaints about daemons were made at the start of 8th already when they appeared in the codex without any reason but to summon them. Including them in your army made you lose your DG rules even though they were units from your own codex. So everybody simply allied a Daemon detachment and moved on and I guess people who did that will continue to do so (I know I will or play Daemons on their own because they'll get their own "contagion- rule").
However that debate has also been made prior to the codex leaks, especially since fluffwize it seems... counterintuitive that DG would lose its "contagions" when allied to Nurgle Daemons... would have been nice to see contagions restricted to a nurgle army but for consistency's sake they did it like for SM doctrines.