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.

 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.

Points factor into a units durability as well. The Death Guard daemon engines have gained offensive output, but lost some toughness, so they probably won't be seeing massive price increases. If they stay roughly the same, then it will take 240 points of Eradicators, currently the nastiest AT unit in the game, to just barely kill one MBH at roughly 100 PPM. That's pretty tough, especially for a unit that can be taken in squadrons.

 Kall3m0n wrote:

 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.

I misread, i thought you were talking about Daemon Engines in general, not specifically the DG ones.
Still, DG engines still do damage in the fluff, theyre not punching bags. Giving them bs/ws 3+ is a good change and doesnt make them any more glasscannon.
And your demon engines are still the toughest ones in the game, -1 damage is a much better DR than a simple 5++.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 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!

Without buffs -which rarely ever happens: 0.074 dmg. With FNP: 0.049. That's a huge differnce.
It's still low, yes, but two things:
1. It's extremely rare to shoot a single unboosted bolter shot at a Daemon Engine.
2: FNP still makes a HUGE difference.

No, not really. Super-heavies shouldn't be a part of regular 40k at all.So, if we can get rid of them ASAP and "force" people not to take them I see it as something good.
If people are adamant to take them, they should! But expect to lose them in one round.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Kall3m0n wrote:

 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.

I misread, i thought you were talking about Daemon Engines in general, not specifically the DG ones.
Still, DG engines still do damage in the fluff, theyre not punching bags. Giving them bs/ws 3+ is a good change and doesnt make them any more glasscannon.
And your demon engines are still the toughest ones in the game, -1 damage is a much better DR than a simple 5++.

Fair enough!
Yes, and 4+ still does damage. Besides, flamers were still the weapon of choice (automatic hits, so 4+ BS doesn't matter) The fact that they removed a wound and reduced their survivability while increasing thei potential damage output is EXACTLY why they're more like glass cannons now. Lower chance of survival and increased dmg potential = more of a glasscannon. You DO know what a proverbial "glass cannon" is defines as, right?

Again: YUes, they might be the toughest in the game, but that doesn't change the fact that they are worse than before. -1D being better than 5+ FNP: Sometimes yes. Most often, no.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 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.

Points factor into a units durability as well. The Death Guard daemon engines have gained offensive output, but lost some toughness, so they probably won't be seeing massive price increases. If they stay roughly the same, then it will take 240 points of Eradicators, currently the nastiest AT unit in the game, to just barely kill one MBH at roughly 100 PPM. That's pretty tough, especially for a unit that can be taken in squadrons.

No, points doesn't matter when you're talking about a vehicle's durability.
If a tank has 10 wounds, T7, 3+/5++ and costs 100p, it's still more durable than a tank with 5 wounds, T4, 4+/6++ at 10.
One dies more easily than the other, no matter the points.

What? Of course points matter, as does the ability to bring 3 per detachment slot. That's why 2 Leman Russes are considered more durable than the aforementioned Baneblade.

And super heavys have existed in 40k since 3rd edition. Want to go back to 2nd do you?

And super heavys have existed in 40k since 3rd edition. Want to go back to 2nd do you?

Point of order - technically, super heavies were in 2nd as well ...

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
What? Of course points matter, as does the ability to bring 3 per detachment slot. That's why 2 Leman Russes are considered more durable than the aforementioned Baneblade.

And super heavys have existed in 40k since 3rd edition. Want to go back to 2nd do you?

Then please tell me how less wounds and a worse save makes a tank more durable.

When I was playing 5th, the only superheavy avalable was in Apocalypse and Epic.
(edit) No, sorry. Didn't the Stompa come in 5th, and had rules for non-Apoc games?

All big things require 2-3 less damage to kill, only Mortarion and the drone lost more, the later only because it lost an additional wound from its profile.

That's hardly being a glass cannon.

 Jidmah wrote:
All big things require 2-3 less damage to kill, only Mortarion and the drone lost more, the later only because it lost an additional wound from its profile.

That's hardly being a glass cannon.

2-3 less dmg to be killed. For a 10 wound model, that's 20-30%.

High T, Invun Saves and -Damage are considered glass cannons now?

 Bosskelot wrote:
High T, Invun Saves and -Damage are considered glass cannons now?

Okay T, 5+ inv, -1D.
9 non-rapid firing bolters is enough to take down a drone now.

Tycho wrote:

And super heavys have existed in 40k since 3rd edition. Want to go back to 2nd do you?

Point of order - technically, super heavies were in 2nd as well ...

Ah, my apologies. I started in 3rd. Which super heavys were available in 2nd?

Kall3m0n wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
High T, Invun Saves and -Damage are considered glass cannons now?

Okay T, 5+ inv, -1D.
9 non-rapid firing bolters is enough to take down a drone now.

That's assuming every shot hits, then wounds, and you fail every save. 10 could do the same previously if you failed all of your DR rolls. Either of those things happening is incredibly unlikely.

 Kall3m0n wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
High T, Invun Saves and -Damage are considered glass cannons now?

Okay T, 5+ inv, -1D.
9 non-rapid firing bolters is enough to take down a drone now.

What have you been smoking? I need it.

Of course a few bolters can kill it if they're rolling like an Irishman with a horseshoe up their arse, but that's all but irrelevant in game terms.

Like once every ten million blue moons.

For the fun of maths, it is one in 14.89 billion, meaning you are more likely to win the lottery by a factor of 50 (1 in 300 million) than killing a blight drone with 9 bolter.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

 Kall3m0n wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
High T, Invun Saves and -Damage are considered glass cannons now?

Okay T, 5+ inv, -1D.
9 non-rapid firing bolters is enough to take down a drone now.

What have you been smoking? I need it.

Of course a few bolters can kill it if they're rolling like an Irishman with a horseshoe up their arse, but that's all but irrelevant in game terms.

I remember when a squad of 10 FRFSRF infantryman removed 8 wounds from one of my Rhinos full of berserkers. We all became spechless for a couple seconds but thats like... a one time thing in 200 games played?

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Tycho wrote:

And super heavys have existed in 40k since 3rd edition. Want to go back to 2nd do you?

Point of order - technically, super heavies were in 2nd as well ...

Ah, my apologies. I started in 3rd. Which super heavys were available in 2nd?

Kall3m0n wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
High T, Invun Saves and -Damage are considered glass cannons now?

Okay T, 5+ inv, -1D.
9 non-rapid firing bolters is enough to take down a drone now.

That's assuming every shot hits, then wounds, and you fail every save. 10 could do the same previously if you failed all of your DR rolls. Either of those things happening is incredibly unlikely.

Yes, but let's assume every single shot hits and wounds and isn't saved Drone dead.
. And let's add an additional single bolter shot. and add the fact that every single shot has a 1/3 chance of being ignored.Drone not dead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tyran wrote:
Like once every ten million blue moons.

For the fun of maths, it is one in 14.89 billion, meaning you are more likely to win the lottery by a factor of 50 (1 in 300 million) than killing a blight drone with 9 bolter.

Yes, it's astronomically unlikely it will ever happen. It's however possible.
It used to be impossible.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Tycho wrote:

And super heavys have existed in 40k since 3rd edition. Want to go back to 2nd do you?

Point of order - technically, super heavies were in 2nd as well ...

Ah, my apologies. I started in 3rd. Which super heavys were available in 2nd?

White Dwarf 132 (December 1990) had rules for the Baneblade and Shadowsword, eight years before the release of 3rd edition.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

 Kall3m0n wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
High T, Invun Saves and -Damage are considered glass cannons now?

Okay T, 5+ inv, -1D.
9 non-rapid firing bolters is enough to take down a drone now.

What have you been smoking? I need it.

Of course a few bolters can kill it if they're rolling like an Irishman with a horseshoe up their arse, but that's all but irrelevant in game terms.

It used to be impossible for that ammount of bolter shots to kill it.

The relevency (spelling?) is that the drone has lost more than 25% durability.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Tycho wrote:

And super heavys have existed in 40k since 3rd edition. Want to go back to 2nd do you?

Point of order - technically, super heavies were in 2nd as well ...

Ah, my apologies. I started in 3rd. Which super heavys were available in 2nd?

White Dwarf 132 (December 1990) had rules for the Baneblade and Shadowsword, eight years before the release of 3rd edition.

Did those carry over to 5th?

 Kall3m0n wrote:

Yes, it's astronomically unlikely it will ever happen. It's however possible.
It used to be impossible.

And it is such an astronomically unlikely edge case that it doesn't deserve consideration, because it makes you look that you are complaining for the sake of complaining.

There are situations where the change to DR will hurt, mostly vs MW spammy armies and extra high damage weapons. 9 bolters is not one of those situations.

 Kall3m0n wrote:
Did those carry over to 5th?

The Baneblade rules for 5th edition can be found in the Imperial Armor series of books, the first of which came out during 3rd (2001 IIRC). The 2nd edition -> 3rd edition changeover necessitated a rewrite of the Baneblade's rules, which stayed largely the same throughout 3rd-7th.

In those editions, it was roughly 3 times as durable as a Leman Russ while having thicker armor. (3 structure points -> 9 hull points in 6th)
The main gun was was dramatically improved to keep pace with firepower escalation (regular battle cannon in 3rd, earned strength 9 AP2 in 4th, earned apocalyptic blast (10" when APOC came out, then persisted with that profile through 7th).
The number of sponsons varied (started as mandatory 1 set. Then zero or one set, with zero giving +1 armor on the side, then zero-2 sets with no benefit other than points costs to bring 0).

The points cost varied wildly (starting at 634 in 3rd, hitting 500 in 5th, then zipping back to 600ish depending on loadout in 6th and 7th).

Otherwise the rules were consistent until 8th, when it dramatically lost durability and firepower relative to the Leman Russ.

In fact, 5th edition represents a sea change in Baneblade employment. In 3rd, it could only be taken in games larger than 2k points. In 4th, the same. In 5th, three of them could be taken in a 1500 pts army (as the army, with nothing else), though they had to play their own special mission.

 Tyran wrote:

 Kall3m0n wrote:

Yes, it's astronomically unlikely it will ever happen. It's however possible.
It used to be impossible.

And it is such an astronomically unlikely edge case that it doesn't deserve consideration, because it makes you look that you are complaining for the sake of complaining.

There are situations where the change to DR will hurt, mostly vs MW spammy armies and extra high damage weapons. 9 bolters is not one of those situations.

That I do agree with. And my point wasn't that it is relevant. However, my point was that they have lost a lost of survivability.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Kall3m0n wrote:
Did those carry over to 5th?

The Baneblade rules for 5th edition can be found in the Imperial Armor series of books, the first of which came out during 3rd (2001 IIRC). The 2nd edition -> 3rd edition changeover necessitated a rewrite of the Baneblade's rules, which stayed largely the same throughout 3rd-7th.

In those editions, it was roughly 3 times as durable as a Leman Russ while having thicker armor. (3 structure points -> 9 hull points in 6th)
The main gun was was dramatically improved to keep pace with firepower escalation (regular battle cannon in 3rd, earned strength 9 AP2 in 4th, earned apocalyptic blast (10" when APOC came out, then persisted with that profile through 7th).
The number of sponsons varied (started as mandatory 1 set. Then zero or one set, with zero giving +1 armor on the side, then zero-2 sets with no benefit other than points costs to bring 0).

The points cost varied wildly (starting at 634 in 3rd, hitting 500 in 5th, then zipping back to 600ish depending on loadout in 6th and 7th).

Otherwise the rules were consistent until 8th, when it dramatically lost durability and firepower relative to the Leman Russ.

And the Imperial Armour stuff was legal to play with in a normal game of sub 2000p 40k?

 Kall3m0n wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Kall3m0n wrote:
Did those carry over to 5th?

The Baneblade rules for 5th edition can be found in the Imperial Armor series of books, the first of which came out during 3rd (2001 IIRC). The 2nd edition -> 3rd edition changeover necessitated a rewrite of the Baneblade's rules, which stayed largely the same throughout 3rd-7th.

In those editions, it was roughly 3 times as durable as a Leman Russ while having thicker armor. (3 structure points -> 9 hull points in 6th)
The main gun was was dramatically improved to keep pace with firepower escalation (regular battle cannon in 3rd, earned strength 9 AP2 in 4th, earned apocalyptic blast (10" when APOC came out, then persisted with that profile through 7th).
The number of sponsons varied (started as mandatory 1 set. Then zero or one set, with zero giving +1 armor on the side, then zero-2 sets with no benefit other than points costs to bring 0).

The points cost varied wildly (starting at 634 in 3rd, hitting 500 in 5th, then zipping back to 600ish depending on loadout in 6th and 7th).

Otherwise the rules were consistent until 8th, when it dramatically lost durability and firepower relative to the Leman Russ.

And the Imperial Armour stuff was legal to play with in a normal game of sub 2000p 40k?

Not in sub 2k in the case of the Baneblade from 3rd and 4th, but it was otherwise legal for normal 40k played above these levels (e.g. 2500, which was the standard for the GW-run 'ard boyz tournaments). As legal as anything in the game was - which is to say, your opponent had to agree/the event rules had to permit it.

In 5th you could take 3 in 1500.

 Kall3m0n wrote:
You DO know what a proverbial "glass cannon" is defines as, right?

i do, since i play eldar aspect warriors


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kall3m0n wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
High T, Invun Saves and -Damage are considered glass cannons now?

Okay T, 5+ inv, -1D.
9 non-rapid firing bolters is enough to take down a drone now.

yeah and 24 grots can take down a knight. How often does that happen tho?

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Kall3m0n wrote:
You DO know what a proverbial "glass cannon" is defines as, right?

i do, since i play eldar aspect warriors

Glass featherdusters aren't the same thing as glass cannons.

 Kall3m0n wrote:


Yes, but let's assume every single shot hits and wounds and isn't saved Drone dead.
. And let's add an additional single bolter shot. and add the fact that every single shot has a 1/3 chance of being ignored.Drone not dead.

or lets assume that the drone failed all his DR saves and show how the rule change did nothing at all.

Seems like we're in fantasy land where probability doesnt matter at that point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kall3m0n wrote:


It used to be impossible for that ammount of bolter shots to kill it.

The relevency (spelling?) is that the drone has lost more than 25% durability.

Got the math to support that claim?

 Kall3m0n wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
All big things require 2-3 less damage to kill, only Mortarion and the drone lost more, the later only because it lost an additional wound from its profile.

That's hardly being a glass cannon.

2-3 less dmg to be killed. For a 10 wound model, that's 20-30%.

Nonsense. The loss in durability is between 12% and 20% against common dedicated anti-tank weapons (d6, d3+3, d6+2), equal or better against allrounder weapons (1d3, 2 and 3 damage) and significantly higher against weapons that usually have low AP and wound the drone of 5s or 4s or would have killed most of the DG models anyways (4+ damage). The drone is an exception because it went down by a wound to no longer degrade, which was a rather large issue for a model that lost three relevant stats. It's also worth noting that the MBH went up by a wound and that a least defilers and possessed no longer require CP to gain DR.

Or, in more practical terms: It used to take 15 lascannons to kill a drone, no it takes "just" 14 lascannons to kill it - and this is the model that lost by far the most durability.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Kall3m0n wrote:
You DO know what a proverbial "glass cannon" is defines as, right?

i do, since i play eldar aspect warriors


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kall3m0n wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
High T, Invun Saves and -Damage are considered glass cannons now?

Okay T, 5+ inv, -1D.
9 non-rapid firing bolters is enough to take down a drone now.

yeah and 12 grots can take down a knight. How often does that happen tho?

I had no idea knights only has 12 wounds! :O

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Kall3m0n wrote:
You DO know what a proverbial "glass cannon" is defines as, right?

i do, since i play eldar aspect warriors

Glass featherdusters aren't the same thing as glass cannons.

dark reapers tho...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kall3m0n wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Kall3m0n wrote:
You DO know what a proverbial "glass cannon" is defines as, right?

i do, since i play eldar aspect warriors


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kall3m0n wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
High T, Invun Saves and -Damage are considered glass cannons now?

Okay T, 5+ inv, -1D.
9 non-rapid firing bolters is enough to take down a drone now.

yeah and 12 grots can take down a knight. How often does that happen tho?

I had no idea knights only has 12 wounds! :O

yeah, i thought grots had rapid fire 1.

(or they could be firing at armigers)

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Kall3m0n wrote:
You DO know what a proverbial "glass cannon" is defines as, right?

i do, since i play eldar aspect warriors

Glass featherdusters aren't the same thing as glass cannons.

dark reapers tho...

Str 8 AP-2 3 flat damage with 1 shot per model is the standard for not a glass cannon?

SM Devastators can manage better than that while being more durable to boot - though they hit on 4s in some situations where the DRs would hit on 3s.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Kall3m0n wrote:
You DO know what a proverbial "glass cannon" is defines as, right?

i do, since i play eldar aspect warriors

Glass featherdusters aren't the same thing as glass cannons.

dark reapers tho...

Str 8 AP-2 3 flat damage with 1 shot per model is the standard for not a glass cannon?

SM Devastators can manage better than that while being more durable to boot - though they hit on 4s in some situations where the DRs would hit on 3s.

? im pointing out that Dark reapers ARE a glasscannon unit. I thought you were saying that aspect warriors did no damage and therefore didnt qualify as glass "cannons" with your "featherduster" quip.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Kall3m0n wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
All big things require 2-3 less damage to kill, only Mortarion and the drone lost more, the later only because it lost an additional wound from its profile.

That's hardly being a glass cannon.

2-3 less dmg to be killed. For a 10 wound model, that's 20-30%.

Nonsense. The loss in durability is between 12% and 20% against common dedicated anti-tank weapons (d6, d3+3, d6+2), equal or better against allrounder weapons (1d3, 2 and 3 damage) and significantly higher against weapons that usually have low AP and wound the drone of 5s or 4s or would have killed most of the DG models anyways (4+ damage). The drone is an exception because it went down by a wound to no longer degrade, which was a rather large issue for a model that lost three relevant stats. It's also worth noting that the MBH went up by a wound and that a least defilers and possessed no longer require CP to gain DR.

I do belive 2 of 10 is 20%, and 3 of 10 is 30%. My maths can be way off though.

The average there is 16%. I for one think 16% is very much noticable when it comes to 9-10 wounds.
How is their durability " significantly higher against weapons that usually have low AP and wound the drone of 5s or 4s or would have killed most of the DG models anyways (4+ damage)" when they lose one wound and lose 5+ FNP? What does low AP have to do with -1D and 5+ FNP?

Yes, the fact that MBH went up a wound is great!

Yeah, but nobody uses possessed anyway. Now that it seems like all DG Daemon Engines are getting WS/BS 3, the -1D is actually relevant on Defilers, because now they're actually worth fielding. Assuming the points stay.