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.

the_scotsman wrote:
You don't build an army that's bad on purpose, you choose to either build an army that has a variety of equipment so that meta changes dont screw you over, or you choose to build an army that's meta for a particular edition/moment,and GW changes the rules on you like they do every 5 seconds.

I was looking over what I have for Chaos Terminators last night. All my old ones were largely built for termicide (3-marine squad, deep strikes, hits something and gets destroyed for those who don't know) use, and new ones I added I wanted to give powerful weapon options since the sculpt looks a little better. Combine that with me liking the look and concept of a power fist and can barely field minimum sized squad with even close to similar weapons load out.

Funny enough I think I have a full 5 combi-melta with power fist or chain fist team and 5 combi-bolter and power axe team just barely out of 20 Chaos Terminators. The other 10 are a crazy assortment of combi-types or heavy weapons and power weapons and two terminators with dual lighting claws. If I decide to pick another box of Chaos Terminators I don't know if they can even do much to sort out the mish-mash. I am definitely waiting for the CSM to see if Bringers of Dispair stayed and is worth it.

I am not too bothered by meta flux. At least in terms of power. There are certainly times when changes are baffling [cough, GSC], but I found that so long as a player doesn't chase the meta dragon's tail, the game works okay in terms of balance. No one is typically bringing optimized lists which does allow for headspace for weaker factions to optimize if needed. Plus, it is really easy to see which player's favorite unit is 'the current most optimized' and not ______ unit. Not worth updating things every six months maybe, but it is what is.

To me the game became much more enjoyable when i started approaching it with a fluff for my lists.

My night lords are blessed by slaanesh even if they do not worship them because they have a maniacal need to flay their victims and create "art" out of their skins. Often Slaanesh sends a keeper and her retinue of daemonettes to assist them and a Contorted epitome to better watch their art.

My Admech are an exploratory fleet from forgeworld Lucius, teleporting onto various worlds with their heavy armor in search of a stronger metal than Luciun.

Having these stories in my mind, even if i don't necessarily tell them to my opponent makes the games more enjoyable and "my guys" are still fun to play even if theyre bad currently.

Heh, my Termicide squad of Night Lords have their gauntlets painted red...Fortunately I only have 1/3 intended for that purpose...

 Jidmah wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:
Yes 7th had a lot of OP as feth stuff but honestly it's not really all that different than any other edition where you bring a tournament net list vs somebody running something fluffy. Good games of 40k come from talking with your opponent to gauge what sort of game both parties are looking to have, roughly how powerful an army they are going to field, and fielding an army that is within the same ballpark in terms of power. The game has always had terrible codex balance (internal and external) and a level of mutual agreement has been needed to hammer out a good matchup and avoid one sided stomps.

The problem with 7th wasn't the OP stuff, it was that balance was so out of whack that some codices could bring their top competitive lists and had no chance of beating other codices who just brought a random coherent list from their collection.

It's also worth noting that "netlists" aren't really a thing in 9th any more...

Exactly why it all comes down to talking to your opponent and coming to some common understanding of what sort of experience both parties are looking to achieve. Believe me I know full well how not all codexes where created equal as Orks and Tau where the two armies I played as the most in 7th and most often I ended up playing against a lot of Eldar or Dark Eldar lists. That being said GW has always done a horrible job of codex consistency but the real kicker in 7th was the transition in "design" from the restrained codexes in early 7th and the post Decurion power creep insanity that dominated the mid to late 7th edition releases. Even then (with the exception of maybe Craftword Eldar) every full codex had some real stinker units even if the codex was considered a top tier army. Didn't see people calling for nerfs for Kroot, Skyrays, and those God awful flyers even when Tau was a tournament winning contender codex for most of the edition.

9th probably doesn't have much in the way of netlists yet considering how thrown off everything has been due to COVID. Nothing about 9th is so inherently different that netlist won't be a thing, even if objective play was made more important.

Pretty good, I guess. I don't do competitive play, and I have yet to win a single game, so take this with a grain of salt.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Thanks for your perspective! It’s very different from mine, and it shows the diversity in gaming communities. Crusade has been a dud around here, while the competitive Matched Play format is thriving (as much as it can under there conditions). My play group is not hyper-competitive, but our bi-monthly tournaments are the anchors of our gaming. We veered away from the GW missions in 8th, but the 9th Ed ones have been good for us. Time will tell when things get more normal if the wider tournament community will get behind the GW mission pack - I think it would be a good thing.

I would like to get a Crusade going - maybe over the holidays with my son.

Being honest, Crusade needs to be refined. It’s still a bit too early. It’s not much of an advantage to have Codex rules when playing against someone still waiting for their Dex, but it’s much more enjoyable to have themed options. The excitement in the players is noticeable. I will say that the biggest advantage of Crusade is that your opponent doesn’t need to play Crusade. This has made it easier to include players to get games in when they don’t have the time to play regularly, are just visiting, or want to switch between armies. It also makes it easier for players to start over without forcing the rest of the group to do the same.

Tournament 40k isn’t that inclusive. I’m glad that it’s working for your group, but not everyone feels that way. The Matched Play format was built by a group of players who ignored the 7th/8th Missions and as a result, excluded 40k players. 9th is the first time that they’ll be able to say that they’re actually holding a 40k tournament, but only because the format is finally a part of the rules. In order for 40k players to attend events now, we have to play by a set of rules that drove us out in the first place.

That said, I typically play using the Open War Mission Pack. I’m still re-learning my Necrons and experimenting with different units and combinations to commit to a Crusade list at this time. This allows for some larger games to learn with, but I can still play with the Crusade players no issues. It’s a great holdover while we wait for the Maelstrom pack or a functional Tournament pack.

What is 9th edition?! Seriously, I just moved to a new place this summer and all of the LGS's are totally closed for gaming so, haven't had a single game yet. Good times.

 Vankraken wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:
Yes 7th had a lot of OP as feth stuff but honestly it's not really all that different than any other edition where you bring a tournament net list vs somebody running something fluffy. Good games of 40k come from talking with your opponent to gauge what sort of game both parties are looking to have, roughly how powerful an army they are going to field, and fielding an army that is within the same ballpark in terms of power. The game has always had terrible codex balance (internal and external) and a level of mutual agreement has been needed to hammer out a good matchup and avoid one sided stomps.

The problem with 7th wasn't the OP stuff, it was that balance was so out of whack that some codices could bring their top competitive lists and had no chance of beating other codices who just brought a random coherent list from their collection.

It's also worth noting that "netlists" aren't really a thing in 9th any more...

Exactly why it all comes down to talking to your opponent and coming to some common understanding of what sort of experience both parties are looking to achieve. Believe me I know full well how not all codexes where created equal as Orks and Tau where the two armies I played as the most in 7th and most often I ended up playing against a lot of Eldar or Dark Eldar lists. That being said GW has always done a horrible job of codex consistency but the real kicker in 7th was the transition in "design" from the restrained codexes in early 7th and the post Decurion power creep insanity that dominated the mid to late 7th edition releases. Even then (with the exception of maybe Craftword Eldar) every full codex had some real stinker units even if the codex was considered a top tier army. Didn't see people calling for nerfs for Kroot, Skyrays, and those God awful flyers even when Tau was a tournament winning contender codex for most of the edition.

7th was so badly balanced, even a player with a varied collection would find himself unable to tone his lists in such a way that they could meet on equal footing with someone in the same situation. And that is already assuming people know their army well enough and own enough models to do this in the first place. One necron player that started after their codex dropped left the game for good only half a year later - half the players wouldn't play him and the other half would
There is no way to sugar-coat that.

9th probably doesn't have much in the way of netlists yet considering how thrown off everything has been due to COVID. Nothing about 9th is so inherently different that netlist won't be a thing, even if objective play was made more important.

Yeah, this is demonstrably wrong. COVID isn't as much of an issue in other parts of world and it's possible to play 40k without meeting each other in person.
Click here to find the analysis of thousands of recorded competitive games since the release of SM and Necrons alone: https://www.goonhammer.com/the-december-2020-meta-review/

My area has a healthy mix of casual, narrative and comp types but Crusade hasn't really taken off like I'd have expected it to. Maybe that's just because people are more interested in learning and getting to grips with 9th that an extra gamemode on top of it is too much to ask right now, or it could be because Crusade requires so much extra book-keeping it's turning people away. The latter is kind of what's happened with me honestly. We're at a stage where hyper-focused competitive practice feels like less work than the casual Crusade campaign stuff.

Pretty good my Ad Mech are holding strong against the marine front. Being the only Admech/DG/Custodes player in my area (theres like 100+ people) is kind of rough, but after GW fething mistake of making DR useless as a paper umbrella im now selling all my DG possible cuz that army is now 1 giant pile of mistake. Custodes are amazing and fun, currently 6 and 1 with my list and my Ad mech are like 4 and 2. I've found i can counter sisters really nicely, but some of the tankier marines list are really hard to delete.

Rahdok wrote:
Pretty good my Ad Mech are holding strong against the marine front. Being the only Admech/DG/Custodes player in my area (theres like 100+ people) is kind of rough, but after GW fething mistake of making DR useless as a paper umbrella im now selling all my DG possible cuz that army is now 1 giant pile of mistake. Custodes are amazing and fun, currently 6 and 1 with my list and my Ad mech are like 4 and 2. I've found i can counter sisters really nicely, but some of the tankier marines list are really hard to delete.

pretty sure youre overreacting to DG changes lol

My area has a healthy mix of casual, narrative and comp types but Crusade hasn't really taken off like I'd have expected it to. Maybe that's just because people are more interested in learning and getting to grips with 9th that an extra gamemode on top of it is too much to ask right now, or it could be because Crusade requires so much extra book-keeping it's turning people away. The latter is kind of what's happened with me honestly. We're at a stage where hyper-focused competitive practice feels like less work than the casual Crusade campaign stuff.

For my group it didn't take off because of the book-keeping aspect and because, while what we got wasn't bad, it wasn't what we were hoping it would be. We like the idea of leveling up your army but were hoping it would come with a more campaign based component where you're fighting over areas on a map, can control territory and get different strategic bonuses for holding different things etc.

Took part in a eighteen player local tournament yesterday. Four rounds, 1000 points with the CA20 Mission Pack. This was our third tourney for 9th Ed and it sold out (although we are at roughly 1/3 capacity in our gaming area).

All four of my games played in under 90 minutes to five turns (although the last game effectively ended on Turn 3). My games were quite bloody. One game was close and three were basically blow-outs on VPs (I went 2-2 with Necrons - my first time playing Necrons). No rules issues came up, besides me usually forgetting my Command Protocols, Dynasty benefits and Warlord Trait... Playing at 1000 points meant that some Secondary Objectives provide much less potential (killing specific units etc) as there are less Vehicles/Monsters etc. 1000 points is a challenging level - I think 1500 is my preferred level but the smaller format meant we could get one more game in.

I didn't keep fantastic notes, but my recollection of the player breakdown was: Necrons x 2, Tau x 2, Space Wolves x 1, Flesh Tearers x 2, Ultramarines x 2, Deathwatch x 1, Thousand Sons, x 1, Tau x 2, Word Bearers x 1, Daemons x 3, Harlies x 1.

Daemons, Harlies, Tau and Space Wolves were in the top group. Full disclosure - the tourney was intended to be a fun event with quirky lists encouraged and "hard" lists discouraged so take all this with more than the usual grain of salt. I will safely say, though, that Daemons with the big models backed by hordes of smaller ones are very strong in 9th as are Harlies.

Our group is enjoying 9th so far. We are looking forward to the new DE Codex (and I'm looking forward to the DA one of course!)

Cheers

T2B

Given the high lethality of 9th, I'm not surprised armies like Daemons and Harlies are doing well.

The invuln save represents a flat %chance to ignore damage regardless of its character. Essentially, take the entire damage output of a list and reduce it by a flat %. That's how armywide invulns work - and both Daemons and Harlies have ways to spike the survival chance on specific vital units, giving them the flexibility to protect something critical.

The only thing that this doesn't protect against is mortal wounds, but the current most common opponent (space marines) don't output many, and Harlies/Daemons don't output many against each other (mostly psychic phase stuff). Harlies output tons against vehicles, but guess what armies care very little for their vehicles?

Daemons and harlies.

Honestly, either army has felt super squishy to me. They win because they get to the objectives first and can murder anything that you try to park on an objective.
The main reason why harlequins lose to my orks is because they leave 3-4 boyz+nob alive who then murder the entire troupe.

They are pretty much the opposite of durable.

 Jidmah wrote:
Honestly, either army has felt super squishy to me. They win because they get to the objectives first and can murder anything that you try to park on an objective.
The main reason why harlequins lose to my orks is because they leave 3-4 boyz+nob alive who then murder the entire troupe.

They are pretty much the opposite of durable.

That's precisely the point though, isn't it?

Charging a keeper of secrets into 30 boys plus nobs is a recipe for failure. Charging a Keeper of Secrets into 10 marines is a recipe for success. They're perfect Marine mulchers with the durability to survive a few Marines hitting back. They're terrible Ork mulchers who lack the ability to endure loads of orks hitting back. I can go into detail why if you like, but suffice to say from personal experience:

A keeper of secrets is ridiculously amazing against marines, and ridiculously crap against orks, for a whole gamut of reasons.

Rahdok wrote:
Pretty good my Ad Mech are holding strong against the marine front. Being the only Admech/DG/Custodes player in my area (theres like 100+ people) is kind of rough, but after GW fething mistake of making DR useless as a paper umbrella im now selling all my DG possible cuz that army is now 1 giant pile of mistake. Custodes are amazing and fun, currently 6 and 1 with my list and my Ad mech are like 4 and 2. I've found i can counter sisters really nicely, but some of the tankier marines list are really hard to delete.

Dude... I'm also a "the sky is falling" DG player,(just look at my latest posts) but nowhere near your caliber. Troops are stronger now, but daemon Engines are much weaker overall. It's still a very good army, and the new -1T aura could be amazing depending on what units gets it and how it's costed. Wait for the codex to fully drop before you commit to selling them. If you picked up DG just so you could win, you were wrong from the start.

However, if you're selling them because they don't FEEL right anymore, then that's subjective and there's no real objective arguments to be made.
I also think that the new DR doesn't FEEL right, and it's overall worse considering all the mortal wounds everywhere, but it's still not BAD. Especially not bad enough to sell your whole army.

You're bringing up Custodes and Admech as good armies because those are the ones you're winning with, so I guess you're only into armies you are favourited to win with.
If you're running "mech DG", then I completely understand why you wanna sell your DG army. However, you could adapt it to take advantage of the new rules so you increase your chance of winning, since that's the only thing you seem to deem good enough.

I wouldn't say Daemon Engines are much weaker, as they are also becoming WS/BS 3+

They are having a horizontal realignment, losing durability but gaining damage output.

 Tyran wrote:
I wouldn't say Daemon Engines are much weaker, as they are also becoming WS/BS 3+

They are having a horizontal realignment, losing durability but gaining damage output.

Yes, they are becomming glass cannons. And that's something that feels really Nurgly: High DPS, low survivability...

 Kall3m0n wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
I wouldn't say Daemon Engines are much weaker, as they are also becoming WS/BS 3+

They are having a horizontal realignment, losing durability but gaining damage output.

Yes, they are becomming glass cannons. And that's something that feels really Nurgly: High DPS, low survivability...

The changes are not that massive. -1 to Damage may be weaker than 5+ FNP against most weapons, but it still is a considerable defensive ability.

Moreover it will be very strong in the current meta in which mid damage weapons are very common, you don't want to bring plasma and heavy bolters against -1 to damage abilities.

 Kall3m0n wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
I wouldn't say Daemon Engines are much weaker, as they are also becoming WS/BS 3+

They are having a horizontal realignment, losing durability but gaining damage output.

Yes, they are becomming glass cannons. And that's something that feels really Nurgly: High DPS, low survivability...

theyre still tougher than most other vehicles in the game. Lets not forget how we were losing our gak a cuople of weeks back when we saw dreadnought all gain "duty eternal" and even before that with serpent shield.

-1 damage is a HUGE buff in resiliency, coupled with the 5++ it does wonders to keep your models alive.

Sure, your vehicles might be less resilient than before but theyre still more resilient than the average in the game.

 Tyran wrote:

 Kall3m0n wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
I wouldn't say Daemon Engines are much weaker, as they are also becoming WS/BS 3+

They are having a horizontal realignment, losing durability but gaining damage output.

Yes, they are becomming glass cannons. And that's something that feels really Nurgly: High DPS, low survivability...

The changes are not that massive. -1 to Damage may be weaker than 5+ FNP against most weapons, but it still is a considerable defensive ability.

Moreover it will be very strong in the current meta in which mid damage weapons are very common, you don't want to bring plasma and heavy bolters against -1 to damage abilities.

The majority of weapons that hurts MY daemon engines are D1, D6 and MW. FNP are vastly supriour in that regard. The Bloat Drones also lost a wound. That makes them even easier to kill. It's an upgrade overall for sure, but it still makes them easier to kill. Yes, -1D is great and it's a very good defencive ability, but compared to FNP, it's worse. Yes, there's probably gonna be a strat that gives them a 5+ FNP, but that's one phase, for command points.

 Jidmah wrote:
Honestly, either army has felt super squishy to me. They win because they get to the objectives first and can murder anything that you try to park on an objective.
The main reason why harlequins lose to my orks is because they leave 3-4 boyz+nob alive who then murder the entire troupe.

They are pretty much the opposite of durable.

In fact Harlequins are a glass cannon army, they're definitely not durable. 14-25 (depending on the loadout) ppm models with T3 1W aren't durable at all, even with 4++ and -1 to hit.

However against armies that spam anti tank and anti elite weapons like candies they are quite durable, just like an ork greentide, which isn't durable at all in a TAC game but can be extremely hard to deal with against an army designed to kill marines.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Kall3m0n wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
I wouldn't say Daemon Engines are much weaker, as they are also becoming WS/BS 3+

They are having a horizontal realignment, losing durability but gaining damage output.

Yes, they are becomming glass cannons. And that's something that feels really Nurgly: High DPS, low survivability...

theyre still tougher than most other vehicles in the game. Lets not forget how we were losing our gak a cuople of weeks back when we saw dreadnought all gain "duty eternal" and even before that with serpent shield.

-1 damage is a HUGE buff in resiliency, coupled with the 5++ it does wonders to keep your models alive.

Sure, your vehicles might be less resilient than before but theyre still more resilient than the average in the game.

Yes, we should absolutely compare a unit to other armies when wer're talking about how they are better or worse than how that same unit used to be.
Yes, unit X might be better than unit Y from a completely different army, but so what? That doesn't change the fact that they are worse than they used to be.
Milk here in Sweden costs 1 dollar for a liter. If they raise that to 1.10 dollars it might still be cheaper than in Guatemala, but it's still 10 cents more than it used to be.

-1D and losing a wound is not a HUGE buff in resilience than before. The 5+ FNP that's probably coming is probably for ONE unit, for ONE phase. Throw that on the drone and they'll just shoot the other one down.
However, if they get BOTH -1D AND FNP, then I totally agree, hands down.

Yes, but they have still been nerfed, no matter what any other army in the game has.
Compare it to itself, not to other things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Honestly, either army has felt super squishy to me. They win because they get to the objectives first and can murder anything that you try to park on an objective.
The main reason why harlequins lose to my orks is because they leave 3-4 boyz+nob alive who then murder the entire troupe.

They are pretty much the opposite of durable.

In fact Harlequins are a glass cannon army, they're definitely not durable. 14-25 (depending on the loadout) ppm models with T3 1W aren't durable at all, even with 4++ and -1 to hit.

However against armies that spam anti tank and anti elite weapons like candies they are quite durable, just like an ork greentide, which isn't durable at all in a TAC game but can be extremely hard to deal with against an army designed to kill marines.

Yeah. Every army and every army list have good or bad matchups. The problem is it should be a balanced enough game that every non-idiotic or non-meme list has a chance at least.

The game is more than just match-ups between armies. Boards, missions, and players count for something.

 Kall3m0n wrote:

The majority of weapons that hurts MY daemon engines are D1, D6 and MW. FNP are vastly supriour in that regard. The Bloat Drones also lost a wound. That makes them even easier to kill. It's an upgrade overall for sure, but it still makes them easier to kill. Yes, -1D is great and it's a very good defencive ability, but compared to FNP, it's worse. Yes, there's probably gonna be a strat that gives them a 5+ FNP, but that's one phase, for command points.

Your meta is your meta, but no army with an universal -1 to damage can be considered "glass cannon".

They may be more brittle than they were before, but they remain a very durable faction.

 Tyran wrote:

 Kall3m0n wrote:

The majority of weapons that hurts MY daemon engines are D1, D6 and MW. FNP are vastly supriour in that regard. The Bloat Drones also lost a wound. That makes them even easier to kill. It's an upgrade overall for sure, but it still makes them easier to kill. Yes, -1D is great and it's a very good defencive ability, but compared to FNP, it's worse. Yes, there's probably gonna be a strat that gives them a 5+ FNP, but that's one phase, for command points.

Your meta is your meta, but no army with an universal -1 to damage can be considered "glass cannon".

They may be more brittle than they were before, but they remain a very durable faction.

Yeah, sorry I wasn't clear. I wasn't referring to DG in generall. I meant the Daemon Engines specifically.

 Kall3m0n wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

 Kall3m0n wrote:

The majority of weapons that hurts MY daemon engines are D1, D6 and MW. FNP are vastly supriour in that regard. The Bloat Drones also lost a wound. That makes them even easier to kill. It's an upgrade overall for sure, but it still makes them easier to kill. Yes, -1D is great and it's a very good defencive ability, but compared to FNP, it's worse. Yes, there's probably gonna be a strat that gives them a 5+ FNP, but that's one phase, for command points.

Your meta is your meta, but no army with an universal -1 to damage can be considered "glass cannon".

They may be more brittle than they were before, but they remain a very durable faction.

Yeah, sorry I wasn't clear. I wasn't referring to DG in generall. I meant the Daemon Engines specifically.

The thing is that demon engines had such unreliable damage output that from my experience they would be the last models to be targeted by my opponents. Sure with demonforge + discolord they could do something but thats not about "just" the demon engine then.

GW had two options: lower the price so that you can spam them or give them decent firepower. Out of these two, giving them a 3+ was the best move they could do to be in line with the fluff.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Kall3m0n wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

 Kall3m0n wrote:

The majority of weapons that hurts MY daemon engines are D1, D6 and MW. FNP are vastly supriour in that regard. The Bloat Drones also lost a wound. That makes them even easier to kill. It's an upgrade overall for sure, but it still makes them easier to kill. Yes, -1D is great and it's a very good defencive ability, but compared to FNP, it's worse. Yes, there's probably gonna be a strat that gives them a 5+ FNP, but that's one phase, for command points.

Your meta is your meta, but no army with an universal -1 to damage can be considered "glass cannon".

They may be more brittle than they were before, but they remain a very durable faction.

Yeah, sorry I wasn't clear. I wasn't referring to DG in generall. I meant the Daemon Engines specifically.

The thing is that demon engines had such unreliable damage output that from my experience they would be the last models to be targeted by my opponents. Sure with demonforge + discolord they could do something but thats not about "just" the demon engine then.

GW had two options: lower the price so that you can spam them or give them decent firepower. Out of these two, giving them a 3+ was the best move they could do to be in line with the fluff.

Death Guard never had Demonforge nor discolord...

Making them easier to kill is the opposite of being in line with the fluff for DG.

 Kall3m0n wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

 Kall3m0n wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
I wouldn't say Daemon Engines are much weaker, as they are also becoming WS/BS 3+

They are having a horizontal realignment, losing durability but gaining damage output.

Yes, they are becomming glass cannons. And that's something that feels really Nurgly: High DPS, low survivability...

The changes are not that massive. -1 to Damage may be weaker than 5+ FNP against most weapons, but it still is a considerable defensive ability.

Moreover it will be very strong in the current meta in which mid damage weapons are very common, you don't want to bring plasma and heavy bolters against -1 to damage abilities.

The majority of weapons that hurts MY daemon engines are D1, D6 and MW. FNP are vastly supriour in that regard. The Bloat Drones also lost a wound. That makes them even easier to kill. It's an upgrade overall for sure, but it still makes them easier to kill. Yes, -1D is great and it's a very good defencive ability, but compared to FNP, it's worse. Yes, there's probably gonna be a strat that gives them a 5+ FNP, but that's one phase, for command points.

Pray tell, what is the average wound output for a D1 weapon to typically wound one of the Nurgle Daemon Engines even without FNP?

Oh wait it's super low. The real people that should be complaining are the Baneblade players getting their models blown up by those pesky Bolters and Lasguns!