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.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:

Klickor wrote:
As a BA player this is really disturbing for me. Most of my damage comes from flat 2 damage weapons and at most 4 or 5 flat 3 damage.

In practice this means that except for the few str 4 d1 bolters, that are bad against t5+ 3+ multi wound, it will be like DG got an improvement to 4+++. Add extra wounds on top and it will be a real hassle to come out on top against Death Guard units.

To be fair as a Blood Angel player you'll be outmaneuvering Death Guard most of the time. Unless Death Guard is about to get some movement shenanigan or psychic powers they will still be affected by their slow movement.

You know we're playing the "sit in the middle of the table" edition, right?

Not much of a problem in AoS, unless the enemy brings out firepower, something that Blood Angels shouldn't lack considering their toolkit. Blood Angel's toolkit is going to dwarf whatever Death Guard is going to be able to bring to the table. It might mean some players will be forced to create an all-comers list, but people should be doing that anyway.

The proof is going to be in the pudding when the book comes out, but people seem to easily forget that Death Guard wasn't exactly a Space Marine level army(apparently the measure stick for this edition) in 8th or beginning of 9th. The winning lists were usually using FW stuff(that is now gone) or adding Daemons that would eliminate the DG mono-bonus(daemons might become a part of the army in 9th, but so far we have no hints of that).

We'll see how it all turns out come January.

Abaddon303 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


deathguard don't have the "heretic astartes" keyword anymore, so no, VotLW cant target them.

Yep - some forward thinking there.
.

VOTLW is in the Death Guard codex and affects DG infantry

Context is important. The discussion was assuming that VotLW is gone from the new codex.

Why would that assumption be made?

 ArcaneHorror wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 ArcaneHorror wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
lol, no. We did the math and DG plague marines are tougher against D1 and D2, they only lose durability against D3+ but they to from something like 1% chance of survival to a flat 0%. Theyre effectively tougher against the weapons that matter for them.

Ok, I didn't know that.

Question of curiosity, why did you think the old 1 wound version would be tougher?

I wasn't referring to the wounds, but to the old DR rule with the FNP. Non-Death Guard Plague Marines still have it.

Yes, but the old Non-Death Guard Plague Marines also only have 1 wound.

GW can either FAQ non-Death Guard Plague Marines to use the new datasheet, giving them 2 wounds and nu-DR, or they don't FAQ it and non-Death Guard Plague Marines would remain 1-wound, 5+++

 alextroy wrote:
Do they? What makes you think GW won't follow the pattern of the Imperial weapon updates and issue a temporary updated datasheet for CSM Plague Marines?

Given that they're not going to FAQ Daemon Engines shared between the books, it doesn't exactly seem likely that they'd provide an updated datasheet for Plague Marines.

Abaddon303 wrote:
Why would that assumption be made?

From the changes to loyalist and necron stratagems, it seems like GW is massively cutting back on stratagems that are just flat damage increases unless they are tied to some very specific units. They are also out for damage-stacking combos.

So I assume that VotLW will either be completely gone, or limited to basic chaos marines or something like that.

 Jidmah wrote:

Abaddon303 wrote:
Why would that assumption be made?

From the changes to loyalist and necron stratagems, it seems like GW is massively cutting back on stratagems that are just flat damage increases unless they are tied to some very specific units. They are also out for damage-stacking combos.

So I assume that VotLW will either be completely gone, or limited to basic chaos marines or something like that.

Fingers crossed. It is far too broad and obvious in its application at present.

Fair enough. It does create issues where high volume small arms fire are the most powerful option against armour which never really sat right with me...

Not Online!!! wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
I miss old fnp4+ a secondary armour roll that could be bypassed by Double s correlating to t value.
It was fast protected against small and in PM case medium weaponry and not slowing down since it was all or nothing.

Yeah but it eventually became you ignore Lascannons 33% of the time, which I hope you agree is slightly absurd.

Considering i am talking from the old ruleset where t5 was t4(5) aka only t5 up to s7 i'd say that that would be a no issue and a Way to still Block MW Spam.
After that we just would need an actually Working to Sound Table and we'd all be better off..

That's what it started as, but not what it eventually became. I think even in 5th the bracketed Toughness was gone, meaning there was a precedence for quite a long time. If I'm remembering the Blood Angels codex correctly of course.

In fact, the biggest fix with the last two editions was was the whole goddamn awful Instant Death mechanic and the damage characteristic of a weapon. Autocannons are big enough of a shot that it SHOULD knock even a Primaris on the ground potentially dead, but an Ogryn takes maybe two shots. It was a good change. I feel that is related here for how we look at those past rules. FNP still has a place but the new mechanic is a solid rule and good to try out. Hell, as I stated earlier, my homebrew I was working on actually gave Iron Hands this as a core part of their Chapter Tactic. I'm not sure why it hasn't been explored more.

Also Mortal Wounds are basically a non-issue at this point, so the complaint there I honestly couldn't care less about.

Abaddon303 wrote:
Fair enough. It does create issues where high volume small arms fire are the most powerful option against armour which never really sat right with me...

It should 100% be a unit upgrade stratagem that you use pregame. It never made sense to me that my Veterans of the long war only shined for one shooting/fight phase instead of throughout the whole game.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Abaddon303 wrote:
Fair enough. It does create issues where high volume small arms fire are the most powerful option against armour which never really sat right with me...

It should 100% be a unit upgrade stratagem that you use pregame. It never made sense to me that my Veterans of the long war only shined for one shooting/fight phase instead of throughout the whole game.

Many of the offensive/defensive Strats are like that. Remember Duty Eternal as a Strat? Remember how silly True Grit is, in that just ONE squad in the fight remembered they can shoot in melee? Hell, even the basic Helfire/Flakk strats are just as silly. This isn't just confined to the Loyalist Marines either, as you pointed out with Vets of the Long War, and the Daemonforge Strat. Eldar have one for just one unit rerolling against Slaanesh units.

It's all just.......silly. it isn't Strategic like the term Stratagem would lead you to believe.

 Marshal Loss wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Do they? What makes you think GW won't follow the pattern of the Imperial weapon updates and issue a temporary updated datasheet for CSM Plague Marines?

Given that they're not going to FAQ Daemon Engines shared between the books, it doesn't exactly seem likely that they'd provide an updated datasheet for Plague Marines.

That probably depends on if they are going to be just generic Daemon Engine or Death Guard Daemon Engine. They've already spoiled there will be Death Guard Possessed which can then be different from Possessed without causing cognitive dissonance.

Time will tell. Could just be fanciful thinking on my part.

 alextroy wrote:

 Marshal Loss wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Do they? What makes you think GW won't follow the pattern of the Imperial weapon updates and issue a temporary updated datasheet for CSM Plague Marines?

Given that they're not going to FAQ Daemon Engines shared between the books, it doesn't exactly seem likely that they'd provide an updated datasheet for Plague Marines.

That probably depends on if they are going to be just generic Daemon Engine or Death Guard Daemon Engine. They've already spoiled there will be Death Guard Possessed which can then be different from Possessed without causing cognitive dissonance.

Time will tell. Could just be fanciful thinking on my part.

As with the improvements to Plague Marines, the upgrades to Daemon Engines will also be carried over to the other Heretic Astartes armies when they get their new codex.

Nevermind, I misremembered. GW explicitly said that CSM won't get the new PM statline until their book launches. Case closed

Don't want to clog the site with extra threads, but this is related to both DG and csm units traits.

considering all DG stuff, including their vehicles get the inexorable advance rules, which let them be counted as if they didn't move as long as they didn't fall back or advance that turn.

And the rules for disembarking say that you can only disembark from a transport, if it remained stationary. Does it mean that DG can move their rhino, not advance, and them disembark their dudes ?

Karol wrote:
Don't want to clog the site with extra threads, but this is related to both DG and csm units traits.

considering all DG stuff, including their vehicles get the inexorable advance rules, which let them be counted as if they didn't move as long as they didn't fall back or advance that turn.

And the rules for disembarking say that you can only disembark from a transport, if it remained stationary. Does it mean that DG can move their rhino, not advance, and them disembark their dudes ?

We don't know, because we only have a summary, not the actual rules. It's also a highly inflammatory topic, so better start a new thread for it.

I would check the rules for disembarking as counting as not moving is not the same as disembarking before a vehicle moves.

(I don't have the book so don't know how disembarking mechanically functions)

Ah okey, thanks. Got kind of a scary for me.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Abaddon303 wrote:
Fair enough. It does create issues where high volume small arms fire are the most powerful option against armour which never really sat right with me...

It should 100% be a unit upgrade stratagem that you use pregame. It never made sense to me that my Veterans of the long war only shined for one shooting/fight phase instead of throughout the whole game.

Wait, what? It isn't bad enough that we have to pay CP for our Legion vehicles, now you want to pay CP for our Legion infantry to have veteran stats and abilities? No. Either our infantry should have the appropriate stats and abilities to make them play like true Veterans of the Long War on their datasheets, with the appropriate points costs, or Veterans of the Long War and/or Veteran Abilities should be optional upgrades payed for in points like in previous editions. The Legions shouldn't need to use extra command resources in order to have actual Legionnaires in their armies.

Lets just hope GW knocks it out of the park with the new chaos dex, whenever it comes out. The army should be terrifying, let's hope they feel the same way this time around.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Abaddon303 wrote:
Fair enough. It does create issues where high volume small arms fire are the most powerful option against armour which never really sat right with me...

It should 100% be a unit upgrade stratagem that you use pregame. It never made sense to me that my Veterans of the long war only shined for one shooting/fight phase instead of throughout the whole game.

Wait, what? It isn't bad enough that we have to pay CP for our Legion vehicles, now you want to pay CP for our Legion infantry to have veteran stats and abilities? No. Either our infantry should have the appropriate stats and abilities to make them play like true Veterans of the Long War on their datasheets, with the appropriate points costs, or Veterans of the Long War and/or Veteran Abilities should be optional upgrades payed for in points like in previous editions. The Legions shouldn't need to use extra command resources in order to have actual Legionnaires in their armies.

Ideally the stratagem would just not exist anymore IMO. But realistically GW is probably going to keep it. IF they do, i'd rather it be a permanent thing because it fits better thematically than being a temporary wombo combo boost.

In a perfect world, we'd get Veterans as a unit (chosen with obsec basically). And wouldnt need to pay CP for our units, i agree.

 bullyboy wrote:
Lets just hope GW knocks it out of the park with the new chaos dex, whenever it comes out. The army should be terrifying, let's hope they feel the same way this time around.

I am sure they'll make CSM have a stratagem that deals 2 damage with bolters, because that seems to be GW's direction after buffing Marines to ludicrous levels, just buff everyone else to counter it while not realising the knock on effects it has to every other multi-wound unit in the game.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
Lets just hope GW knocks it out of the park with the new chaos dex, whenever it comes out. The army should be terrifying, let's hope they feel the same way this time around.

I am sure they'll make CSM have a stratagem that deals 2 damage with bolters, because that seems to be GW's direction after buffing Marines to ludicrous levels, just buff everyone else to counter it while not realising the knock on effects it has to every other multi-wound unit in the game.

And then SM will get a stratagem that gives them 3-damage bolters, because it's obviously unfair that they can't one-shot Plague Marines anymore.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
Lets just hope GW knocks it out of the park with the new chaos dex, whenever it comes out. The army should be terrifying, let's hope they feel the same way this time around.

I am sure they'll make CSM have a stratagem that deals 2 damage with bolters, because that seems to be GW's direction after buffing Marines to ludicrous levels, just buff everyone else to counter it while not realising the knock on effects it has to every other multi-wound unit in the game.

the only army that should ever get a 2d bolter strategem should be SoB... though GW made the only unit who could effectively use that strategy terrible when they removed scouting in vehicles...

SoB aren't the only one in w40k who run around with blessed or cursed bolts.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Abaddon303 wrote:
Fair enough. It does create issues where high volume small arms fire are the most powerful option against armour which never really sat right with me...

It should 100% be a unit upgrade stratagem that you use pregame. It never made sense to me that my Veterans of the long war only shined for one shooting/fight phase instead of throughout the whole game.

With 9e codexes style seems to be more toward point upgrades than stratagem upgrades

tneva82 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Abaddon303 wrote:
Fair enough. It does create issues where high volume small arms fire are the most powerful option against armour which never really sat right with me...

It should 100% be a unit upgrade stratagem that you use pregame. It never made sense to me that my Veterans of the long war only shined for one shooting/fight phase instead of throughout the whole game.

With 9e codexes style seems to be more toward point upgrades than stratagem upgrades

did they make the death company intercessors cost pts instead of CPs now?

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Abaddon303 wrote:
Fair enough. It does create issues where high volume small arms fire are the most powerful option against armour which never really sat right with me...

It should 100% be a unit upgrade stratagem that you use pregame. It never made sense to me that my Veterans of the long war only shined for one shooting/fight phase instead of throughout the whole game.

With 9e codexes style seems to be more toward point upgrades than stratagem upgrades

did they make the death company intercessors cost pts instead of CPs now?

Yes, as well as the captain/LT upgrade to Death Company.

They always costed points. You are thinking about Veteran Intercessor. They used to be a CP upgrade and switched to being their own unit entry.

 Oaka wrote:
Psychic phase mortal wounds bypass the Necron reanimation protocols, as well, so there is definitely a move towards these being automatic wounds.

Which I think is a good way to go about it since most MW sources do D3 wounds and that was made worse with a lot of things gaining a wound.

There will be a similar problem that is seen with reanimation protocols, though, which funneled lists into single wound models. I think the same will happen towards DG terminators.

Where does it say mortal wounds can do that? I don't recall that rule.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Oaka wrote:
Psychic phase mortal wounds bypass the Necron reanimation protocols, as well, so there is definitely a move towards these being automatic wounds.

Which I think is a good way to go about it since most MW sources do D3 wounds and that was made worse with a lot of things gaining a wound.

There will be a similar problem that is seen with reanimation protocols, though, which funneled lists into single wound models. I think the same will happen towards DG terminators.

Where does it say mortal wounds can do that? I don't recall that rule.

I suggest you read the reanimation protocols rule. You dont get to do any RP rolls after suffering MW in the psychic phase. You dont get to do any RP rolls after suffering MW from a vehicle explosion. You dont get to do any RP rolls after suffering MW in the movement phase from bombs when an enemy unit moves over your necrons.