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.

Couple of big fix/nerfs in there.

Biggest one is the change to flash outbreak. No more contagions from hell blades.

I dunno, I'd rank the Daemon Prince change as possibly being bigger.

What rules modify movement if difficult terrain does not count as modifying?
I am sure there are loads of examples, but my lack of any play time since lockdown means I can't think of them.

Inexorable advance isn't exactly knocking down trees as a rule is it?

Doohicky wrote:
What rules modify movement if difficult terrain does not count as modifying?
I am sure there are loads of examples, but my lack of any play time since lockdown means I can't think of them.

Inexorable advance isn't exactly knocking down trees as a rule is it?

Some psychic powers and stratagems.

So massive nerf to DG Legion Trait then.

The vehicle version only worked on vehicles no one took, and now the infantry version only works on very specific circumstances and may come up once in a blue moon

But hey!!! We get to rapid fire bolters on the move.... Yayyyy

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Codex: Death Guard FAQ is out:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/JO62MoTw7DJ1MzcW.pdf

Barely anything.

Either they knocked it out of the park with Death Guard, or there haven't been enough games to find more errors.

Its a REALLY good book, with very few duds, and lots of interesting options. I wish every army ended up with this tier of book, but considering their strengths were immediately dwarfed by the very next Codex, I don't think we can hope for much.

DG looks honestly more scary to me than DA, so I'm not sure I'm following you on the "dwarfed" definition.

Doohicky wrote:
What rules modify movement if difficult terrain does not count as modifying?

Apparently it has to _specifically_ modify the model's Move characteristic.
So it would ignore Tenebrous Curse from the Space Marine Phobos librarian discipline (or at least that aspect of it- halve the model's move characteristic) but wouldn't affect things that simply reduce movement. Especially at the moment, because so many 8th edition books didn't draw a clear distinction. Maybe by the end of 9th this will all be really clear (barring a mid-edition paradigm shift that walks back the style guide)

Basically its another 'well, technically' rules interpretation that is valid but causes confusion with GW's habit of writing non-specific rules half the time.


On the other hand, the change to the Daemon Prince is huge, as DG are no longer forced to have a pile of sorcerers if they want more than 1 HQ choice.

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Codex: Death Guard FAQ is out:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/JO62MoTw7DJ1MzcW.pdf

Barely anything.

Either they knocked it out of the park with Death Guard, or there haven't been enough games to find more errors.

Its a REALLY good book, with very few duds, and lots of interesting options. I wish every army ended up with this tier of book, but considering their strengths were immediately dwarfed by the very next Codex, I don't think we can hope for much.

yeah, you might be fine with uncustomizable charachters and paragrafs for specific loadouts for you basic troops that you dare infringe upon must be punished..
I am not and this is nonsense for any chaos faction but now i'll shut up before i will get inevitably shouted down by gw believers.

 Dysartes wrote:
I dunno, I'd rank the Daemon Prince change as possibly being bigger.

Yeah, I think 3 DG Daemon Princes are pretty decent now in a battalion.

 whembly wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
I dunno, I'd rank the Daemon Prince change as possibly being bigger.

Yeah, I think 3 DG Daemon Princes are pretty decent now in a battalion.

Not allowed. Still one DP per detachment, just no longer one DP OR Lord per detachment.

Before: 1 DP OR Lord per detachment
Now: 1 DP per detachment AND 1 Lord per detachment.

Not Online!!! wrote:

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Codex: Death Guard FAQ is out:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/JO62MoTw7DJ1MzcW.pdf

Barely anything.

Either they knocked it out of the park with Death Guard, or there haven't been enough games to find more errors.

Its a REALLY good book, with very few duds, and lots of interesting options. I wish every army ended up with this tier of book, but considering their strengths were immediately dwarfed by the very next Codex, I don't think we can hope for much.

yeah, you might be fine with uncustomizable charachters and paragrafs for specific loadouts for you basic troops that you dare infringe upon must be punished..
I am not and this is nonsense for any chaos faction but now i'll shut up before i will get inevitably shouted down by gw believers.

Except the book is legit awesome fun to play and build armies with, is doing well in tournaments and has tons of customization options for characters and unit champions whose only "drawback" is not having to hunt for bits.

The decisions to limit daemon princes, blightlords and plague marines to exact model specifications might be a mistake, but not an error. This FAQ fixed errors.

Doohicky wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
I dunno, I'd rank the Daemon Prince change as possibly being bigger.

Yeah, I think 3 DG Daemon Princes are pretty decent now in a battalion.

Not allowed. Still one DP per detachment, just no longer one DP OR Lord per detachment.

Before: 1 DP OR Lord per detachment
Now: 1 DP per detachment AND 1 Lord per detachment.

D'oh... you're right.

Still not too shabby.

Oh yeah. Totally agree, much nicer now.
The way it was locked by the one DP per detachment AND one LotDG per detachment meant I was 99% sure it shouldn't have had the LotDG keyword, but couldn't asume until they fixed it

They didn't fix the pathetic Plague Marine and Blightlord entries. Amazing job, GW.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
They didn't fix the pathetic Plague Marine and Blightlord entries. Amazing job, GW.

Because they don't consider it broken, no matter how asinine the wargear options are.

Boy oh boy am I looking forward to the DE Codex now.

"One in every 5 models may take a Dark Lance. One in every 5 models may take a Heat Lance. One in every..."

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
They didn't fix the pathetic Plague Marine and Blightlord entries. Amazing job, GW.

Because they don't consider it broken, no matter how asinine the wargear options are.

Boy oh boy am I looking forward to the DE Codex now.

"One in every 5 models may take a Dark Lance. One in every 5 models may take a Heat Lance. One in every..."

I'd be okay with warrior squads being allowed to take a blaster, shredder, splinter cannon, and dark lance per 10.

That Inexorable Advance FAQ doesn't make sense. It contradicts the part where IA also allows you to ignore penalties to Advance and Charge rolls.

So does IA work against penalties to Advance and Charge or not?

I kinda scratch my head on the IA ruling, feels stupid but eh.

Demon prince thing I am happy about.

Keeping the crap weapon set ups, for that I still curse GW to all the gods old and new.

 Jidmah wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Codex: Death Guard FAQ is out:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/JO62MoTw7DJ1MzcW.pdf

Barely anything.

Either they knocked it out of the park with Death Guard, or there haven't been enough games to find more errors.

Its a REALLY good book, with very few duds, and lots of interesting options. I wish every army ended up with this tier of book, but considering their strengths were immediately dwarfed by the very next Codex, I don't think we can hope for much.

yeah, you might be fine with uncustomizable charachters and paragrafs for specific loadouts for you basic troops that you dare infringe upon must be punished..
I am not and this is nonsense for any chaos faction but now i'll shut up before i will get inevitably shouted down by gw believers.

Except the book is legit awesome fun to play and build armies with, is doing well in tournaments and has tons of customization options for characters and unit champions whose only "drawback" is not having to hunt for bits.

The decisions to limit daemon princes, blightlords and plague marines to exact model specifications might be a mistake, but not an error. This FAQ fixed errors.

That doesn't make it any less infuriating or bode well for the other dexes though.
But maybee i am at this stage just an old grognard.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Codex: Death Guard FAQ is out:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/JO62MoTw7DJ1MzcW.pdf

Barely anything.

Either they knocked it out of the park with Death Guard, or there haven't been enough games to find more errors.

Its a REALLY good book, with very few duds, and lots of interesting options. I wish every army ended up with this tier of book, but considering their strengths were immediately dwarfed by the very next Codex, I don't think we can hope for much.

yeah, you might be fine with uncustomizable charachters and paragrafs for specific loadouts for you basic troops that you dare infringe upon must be punished..
I am not and this is nonsense for any chaos faction but now i'll shut up before i will get inevitably shouted down by gw believers.

Except the book is legit awesome fun to play and build armies with, is doing well in tournaments and has tons of customization options for characters and unit champions whose only "drawback" is not having to hunt for bits.

The decisions to limit daemon princes, blightlords and plague marines to exact model specifications might be a mistake, but not an error. This FAQ fixed errors.

That doesn't make it any less infuriating or bode well for the other dexes though.
But maybee i am at this stage just an old grognard.

Welcome to the grognard side, we have cookies.

Not Online!!! wrote:
That doesn't make it any less infuriating or bode well for the other dexes though.
But maybee i am at this stage just an old grognard.

I think DG players just aren't as shocked about the effect on their army as other people are about the implication it likely has on their army - especially CSM.
There are multiple reasons for that:
1) The vast majority of DG players started collecting them in 8th. Unless you did some major conversion work over the last three years like changing 10 PM to dual knives or building 10 plasma blightlords, the effect on your army is likely no bigger than the usual impact of getting a new codex, when you have to reconfigure units because the rules changed. Plasma losing 18" rapid fire, much more limited access to re-rolls and overcharge now frying two wound marines or three wound terminators has much more impact on weapon choice than the odd block of rules apparently written by The Riddler.
2) The change isn't actually a nerf to plague marines. Not only did plague marines get significantly better despite no longer being able two carry two BL/plasma guns at 5, they also can take additional weapons in units of 10 - which synergizes well with the new tollkeeper tallyman.
3) Judging from painting blogs, armies on display, etc, most of the plague marines out there are just models ETB or DI sets with mostly cosmetic conversions. The change really only affects units build from the multi-part kit, and most of that can be mitigated by switching models from unit to another.
4) Blightlords with all combi-melta/plasma/flamers were mostly considered a waste of points, so the incentive to convert them was not high.
5) No one cares about the spitter on the daemon prince.
6) The codex is hands down awesome. Besides the firstborn vehicles everything in the codex is decent and there are multiple ways to play the army - which is quite feat for a codex with less than 20 non-character datasheets. And it actually feels like playing deathguard, not like jumping through hoops and relying on combos in order to win games.

TL;DR: Most people aren't actually affected by the more limited wargear options, and many of those who are gained a lot more from the codex than they lost.

All the bright sides in the world don't take away the weapon set up changes are lame. I agree the book feels good but those weapon choices feel dumb still. It will feel worse if they do that kinda dumb crap to other armies. Sure, DG can survive the change but I really still don't like it, never will and don't like what it could mean to other books following this road.

I think everyone agrees on that, but it doesn't change that the book is great.

It's just a shame that GW have made a decision that's quite the opposite of many other ones in regard to the 9th changes (as in, it slows the game down instead of streamlining it). I play against DG quite a bit and while I do agree that it's a really fun and cool book that rewards you in all the right ways, I still think it's a slog every time the PMs get into CC because they now have 4 different CC profiles that we need to run through instead of 1 or 2.

It was, for me as an outsider looking in, the one thing I really wanted them to change. It's less fun to play against (IMO) and the implications for future codices aren't great. (Although the distinction for difficult terrain and IA seems like it could become a nightmare with new codices and unique abilities down the line).

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
That Inexorable Advance FAQ doesn't make sense. It contradicts the part where IA also allows you to ignore penalties to Advance and Charge rolls.

So does IA work against penalties to Advance and Charge or not?

Yes, it does. It just happens to be that Difficult Terrain isn't a penalty to Advance or Charge. It is essentially a charge against your movement. I don't know if anything else that impacts Move, Advance, or Charge isn't a modifier.

It just means that for GW the difficult ground is meant to be something that forces you to go up and down continously.

Look at it as requiring 2" of vertical movement to cross, it makes more sense that way.

The effects of the strats and powers from the new codici, are affecting the roll, not the distance.

The more 9th codici roll out, the more IA will become relevant.

 alextroy wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
That Inexorable Advance FAQ doesn't make sense. It contradicts the part where IA also allows you to ignore penalties to Advance and Charge rolls.

So does IA work against penalties to Advance and Charge or not?

Yes, it does. It just happens to be that Difficult Terrain isn't a penalty to Advance or Charge. It is essentially a charge against your movement. I don't know if anything else that impacts Move, Advance, or Charge isn't a modifier.

How is Difficult Ground not a modifier?

[...] any of its models wish to move over any part of this terrain feature, subtract 2" from the maximum distance that every model in that unit can move (to a minimum of 0).

Compare that to the Custode's Tagglefoot Grenade stratagem:

[...] Your opponent must reduce that unit’s Movement characteristic or charge distance by the result until the end of the phase.

If GW's logic is that Difficult Ground doesn't modify the Movement characteristic, then wouldn't the precedent be that any rule that only modifies your Advance or Charge distance not ignorable?
If it's because Difficult doesn't modify the Advance or Charge rolls specifically but just the maximum movement of those moves, then wouldn't there be precedent for Death Guard units to not be able to ignore the penalty from Tanglefoot Grenades when charging? It doesn't specifiy "Charge roll" anywhere.

It just doesn't make sense. If they don't want IA to ignore Difficult Ground then fine, all the power to them. It should be an errata though, and not an FAQ that ignores the Advancing and Charging parts of both rules and basically implies that any rule that doesn't modify the Move characteristic can't be ignored.

It makes sense, its just overly nitpicky rules writing that doesn't mesh well with GW's indifference to writing technically precise rules.

Difficult ground _is_ a modifier, but its not a modifier to the unit's move characteristic. They've basically put the onus on the players to double check any ability that modifies movement and parse the wording to see if it affects movement or Move Characteristic.

---
I also suspect that GW's solution to Tanglefoot Grenades will be to rewrite that strat whenever the 9e edition Custards book comes out. GW has made it really clear that temporary problems resulting from un-updated 8th edition books aren't a priority and not their problem. 9th edition's teething problems won't be solved until most of the armies are rewritten.

Voss wrote:
GW has made it really clear that temporary problems resulting from un-updated 8th edition books aren't a priority and not their problem. 9th edition's teething problems won't be solved until most of the armies are rewritten.

And given the 3 year cycle about 6 months before 10th edition comes out.