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.

 Yarium wrote:

Leggy wrote:
Heavy nerf to Power from pain, but I like what I see for everything else. Poison Tongue getting 3+ to wound every non-vehicle in the game looks tasty, and a master archon with a dijon blade can dish out a lot of damage

Not sure it's a nerf - might actually be a buff!! Look at the abilities side by side:

Turn 1: 6+ Inv vs 6+ FnP
Sideways transition. In a world of multi-damage weapons, this is actually a buff!

...

Turn 4: Morale Immunity vs 5+ Inv
Definite upgrade. Morale seems to rarely come up, which means that the 5+ Inv will be better almost all the time. But... there's that almost. There will absolutely be times where losing that final model to morale will give you some salt, but then you just gotta remember the extra 100 models over your other games that the improved Inv has saved, and I think you'll be okay.

[


So yeah. This is an upgrade in pretty much every way that matters, no?

Nope you don't know the army I guess, about 80-90% of the army had a 6++ or better already would say about 50% of the army was a 5++ or better even. So outside of say kabalites/incubi on foot, you won't get much mileage out of the 6++ as DE. Even the turn 4 that you throw out as so good is kinda meh for DE specifically, here only will really effect non coven non in combat wyches non vehicles (which if you know anything about DE you are always in transports, or you are dead) Its not that the morale immunity was good, it wasn't the 5++ is better, but its kinda a mediocre buff, as half the army doesn't really care, and would have preferred the 6+++ still. The turn 1 is a straight up nerf to dark eldar though.

DG lost the 5+++ FNP and gained -1 damage which is actually ok on an army comprising 90% multiwound models worse in some situations better in others. DE lost a 6+++ and get nothing for 90% of the army on a mid tier faction. Gotta love GWs hatred of xenos.

The rest of the PfP stuff is fine, the reroll charge vs advance and charge is kinda a side grade,makes longer charges more risky while making what would have been midrange charges safer, makes an entire wych cult obsolete turn 2 unless they have changed (and I would hope they have.) But it is not an upgrade in every way that matters, its actually worse overall honestly, with some slight wording tweaks to account for new rules and such.

Rest of the preview though was reasonable and cause for some hope so we will see I guess, but the PfP change was NOT a good thing.

Some better stuff today but am I the only one who doesn't like how they have to twist the system into knots just to keep the different DE subfactions different ?

I mean we lost platoons for Guard because it was " too confusing " yet running a bunch of patrols because all the DE hate each other is somehow better execution ? I just feel like this needs to be done away with, it felt stupid before, its more cost effective now but still very stupid.

At least it makes more sense but it would be best if they just did away with it.

Makes me wonder if they will do a similar thing with guard, break it up to Core Guard forces, storm troopers/commissars being their own groupings as they can already combine but the storm troopers then don't get their extra power. I guess that would be a better solution for them given the current state of the game.

This is all me just thinking out loud on what we've heard btw. Feel free to love needing all these other deatchments or maybe the only one we'll see now is the real space raid group.

If RSR ends up being "you pick one Kabal, Cult and Coven trait, and it applies to the relevant units" (Which I think is more likely than every unit being able to pick from all available options) - it raises the obvious question why this couldn't just be an army wide rule that applies to all DE detachments.

"We've given you the tools to get around the hole we created" isn't great. Just delete the hole.

Tyel wrote:
If RSR ends up being "you pick one Kabal, Cult and Coven trait, and it applies to the relevant units" (Which I think is more likely than every unit being able to pick from all available options) - it raises the obvious question why this couldn't just be an army wide rule that applies to all DE detachments.

"We've given you the tools to get around the hole we created" isn't great. Just delete the hole.

That is what I'm thinking.

GrinNfool wrote:
Nope you don't know the army I guess, about 80-90% of the army had a 6++ or better already would say about 50% of the army was a 5++ or better even. So outside of say kabalites/incubi on foot, you won't get much mileage out of the 6++ as DE. Even the turn 4 that you throw out as so good is kinda meh for DE specifically, here only will really effect non coven non in combat wyches non vehicles (which if you know anything about DE you are always in transports, or you are dead) Its not that the morale immunity was good, it wasn't the 5++ is better, but its kinda a mediocre buff, as half the army doesn't really care, and would have preferred the 6+++ still. The turn 1 is a straight up nerf to dark eldar though.

You don't actually know whether those units still have invuls, and if they do it's possible that those rules stack with the invuls you get from PfP. If harlequins have 4++ dodge saves, it doesn't seem like wide stretch that empowered wyches get the same.

DG lost the 5+++ FNP and gained -1 damage which is actually ok on an army comprising 90% multiwound models worse in some situations better in others. DE lost a 6+++ and get nothing for 90% of the army on a mid tier faction. Gotta love GWs hatred of xenos.

Sorry, but that's wrong. -1 damage is strictly worse than 5+++, so that also was an army-wide nerf. The army as a whole still turned out to be better when you look at the full picture, and units like pox walkers got additional buffs to not only stay relevant, but turn into one of the best units, despite completely losing DR.

 Jidmah wrote:

GrinNfool wrote:
Nope you don't know the army I guess, about 80-90% of the army had a 6++ or better already would say about 50% of the army was a 5++ or better even. So outside of say kabalites/incubi on foot, you won't get much mileage out of the 6++ as DE. Even the turn 4 that you throw out as so good is kinda meh for DE specifically, here only will really effect non coven non in combat wyches non vehicles (which if you know anything about DE you are always in transports, or you are dead) Its not that the morale immunity was good, it wasn't the 5++ is better, but its kinda a mediocre buff, as half the army doesn't really care, and would have preferred the 6+++ still. The turn 1 is a straight up nerf to dark eldar though.

You don't actually know whether those units still have invuls, and if they do it's possible that those rules stack with the invuls you get from PfP. If harlequins have 4++ dodge saves, it doesn't seem like wide stretch that empowered wyches get the same.

DG lost the 5+++ FNP and gained -1 damage which is actually ok on an army comprising 90% multiwound models worse in some situations better in others. DE lost a 6+++ and get nothing for 90% of the army on a mid tier faction. Gotta love GWs hatred of xenos.

Sorry, but that's wrong. -1 damage is strictly worse than 5+++, so that also was an army-wide nerf. The army as a whole still turned out to be better when you look at the full picture, and units like pox walkers got additional buffs to not only stay relevant, but turn into one of the best units, despite completely losing DR.

I suppose you are right they could have just straight gutted the already limited survive-ability, so ya in your situation you outlined there DE lost our 6+++ and our 5++ in the same move, if your intent here was to say it could be even worse I guess but you seem to be implying you it would be mana from heaven somehow to get a 6++ and a 5++ turn 4 and them remove the 5++ we already have in addition to taking away the 6+++. No clue where you were going with that man, unless its to say it could always be worse, and it certainly could. They do that though and DE are DoA. Your suggestion that you can improve the 6++ is exceedingly unlikely as the 5++ is given an entirely different name instead of simply saying improve the inured to suffering roll by 1, up to x. Instead DE will get 2 different invuln rules possibly 3 if they keep things like night shields, ghost plate, etc. All I was saying is that the guy trying to say the PfP changes were completely positive was just objectively incorrect, barring some absolute mental gymnastics that GW went through to make rules are complicated as possible instead of just leaving rules in place. Which its GW so can't rule it out I guess but still, expecting that is kinda silly.

And no the -1 damage is not strictly worse people need to stop repeating that and do some math, it is strictly better vs 2 damage weapons for infantry or vehicles while being strictly worse vs 1 damage or 3 damage vs infantry vehicles have different break points but a 10 wound vehicle would have 14 effective wounds 15 if lucky with the fnp being shot by 3 damage weapons requires 5 hits to go through either way so thats a break even. I didn't say it was an upgrade or even better for that matter I said it was just an ok side grade, and it happens to work just fine in the context of the meta of 2 damage being prevalent and DG rules.

GrinNfool wrote:
I suppose you are right they could have just straight gutted the already limited survive-ability, so ya in your situation you outlined there DE lost our 6+++ and our 5++ in the same move, if your intent here was to say it could be even worse I guess but you seem to be implying you it would be mana from heaven somehow to get a 6++ and a 5++ turn 4 and them remove the 5++ we already have in addition to taking away the 6+++. No clue where you were going with that man, unless its to say it could always be worse, and it certainly could. They do that though and DE are DoA. Your suggestion that you can improve the 6++ is exceedingly unlikely as the 5++ is given an entirely different name instead of simply saying improve the inured to suffering roll by 1, up to x. Instead DE will get 2 different invuln rules possibly 3 if they keep things like night shields, ghost plate, etc. All I was saying is that the guy trying to say the PfP changes were completely positive was just objectively incorrect, barring some absolute mental gymnastics that GW went through to make rules are complicated as possible instead of just leaving rules in place. Which its GW so can't rule it out I guess but still, expecting that is kinda silly.

My intent was that there might be more to it than meets the eye. GW is currently experimenting a lot with alternate ways to make units more survivable that do not require a dice roll (see Belakor preview), and at least for the codices so far they took care to eliminate weird interactions like giving units with invuls when their army-wide trait does the same.

And no the -1 damage is not strictly worse people need to stop repeating that and do some math, it is strictly better vs 2 damage weapons for infantry or vehicles while being strictly worse vs 1 damage or 3 damage vs infantry vehicles have different break points but a 10 wound vehicle would have 14 effective wounds 15 if lucky with the fnp being shot by 3 damage weapons requires 5 hits to go through either way so thats a break even. I didn't say it was an upgrade or even better for that matter I said it was just an ok side grade, and it happens to work just fine in the context of the meta of 2 damage being prevalent and DG rules.

Sorry, did the math, played the army, you're still wrong. The only time it comes out ahead if more than 50% of your unsaved wounds over the course of a game are 2 damage. Infantry only got more durable because they gained a wound. Big models have lost 10-20% effective health compared to before, meltas and d3+3 weapons cut through them like hot butter. Feel free to dig up the math on the relevant threads.
Even if 2 damage were as prevalent as you say (it's not), the presence of DG in the meta would reverse that trend.

I can see how losing their "army rule" for it to be their "doctrine" anti-soup rule can feel a little meh.

But at the same time, Deathguard have basically no sub-faction rule and they work extremely well. In the same way, the "anti-soup" bonus for Necrons is extremely meh and they work just fine.

I definitely anticipate that a lot of abilities are going to be shifting away from invulns to account for the new 6++. Probably not on vehicles - which usually don't get PFP anyway - theyll probably just change the Black Heart trait to something different for vehicles.

For example: Inured from Pain, the 5++ that alll haemie coven units have. That'll either become a FNP, or something like -1 damage, which would suck for wracks. but we know wracks are going from 12ppm to 8ppm, I doubt theyll be seeing buffs.

......it is still endlessly funny to me that people are like "GW is moving away from army wide fnp!" and iron hands just sitting there like "um..... but it's OK for us right? like literally army-wide feel no pain, on every single model, all of them."

Eh, let them have it. I think everyone can agree that Codex: Space Marines isn't exactly a great book. A 6+ FNP doesn't really do a lot anyways.
As a DG player I'm really glad about no longer having to resolve every multi-damage shot one by one, rolling for every single damage I suffer.

 Jidmah wrote:

Sorry, did the math, played the army, you're still wrong. The only time it comes out ahead if more than 50% of your unsaved wounds over the course of a game are 2 damage. Infantry only got more durable because they gained a wound. Big models have lost 10-20% effective health compared to before, meltas and d3+3 weapons cut through them like hot butter. Feel free to dig up the math on the relevant threads.
Even if 2 damage were as prevalent as you say (it's not), the presence of DG in the meta would reverse that trend.

Well duh. You don't compare 5+++ W2 plague marines vs current. Those never existed.

Infantry got buff and DR is part of that. D2 weapons is such a huge part of 40k that you basically doubled your infantry durability. Try 5+++ W1 plague marines vs current ones and say which is more durable. Anybody comparing current to W2 5+++ plague marines is being dishonest.

 Jidmah wrote:
Eh, let them have it. I think everyone can agree that Codex: Space Marines isn't exactly a great book. A 6+ FNP doesn't really do a lot anyways.
As a DG player I'm really glad about no longer having to resolve every multi-damage shot one by one, rolling for every single damage I suffer.

...I mean I can't. Playing vs marines still feels solidly in the 'bullcrap' territory with the majority of the armies I own, though admittedly I have somehow managed to thread the needle of just one single army I own having gotten a codex so far in 9th. And that army is marines, so they do feel fair to play against marines.

tneva82 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Sorry, did the math, played the army, you're still wrong. The only time it comes out ahead if more than 50% of your unsaved wounds over the course of a game are 2 damage. Infantry only got more durable because they gained a wound. Big models have lost 10-20% effective health compared to before, meltas and d3+3 weapons cut through them like hot butter. Feel free to dig up the math on the relevant threads.
Even if 2 damage were as prevalent as you say (it's not), the presence of DG in the meta would reverse that trend.

Well duh. You don't compare 5+++ W2 plague marines vs current. Those never existed.

Infantry got buff and DR is part of that. D2 weapons is such a huge part of 40k that you basically doubled your infantry durability. Try 5+++ W1 plague marines vs current ones and say which is more durable. Anybody comparing current to W2 5+++ plague marines is being dishonest.

Yes, that's exactly my point. Thank you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Eh, let them have it. I think everyone can agree that Codex: Space Marines isn't exactly a great book. A 6+ FNP doesn't really do a lot anyways.
As a DG player I'm really glad about no longer having to resolve every multi-damage shot one by one, rolling for every single damage I suffer.

...I mean I can't. Playing vs marines still feels solidly in the 'bullcrap' territory with the majority of the armies I own, though admittedly I have somehow managed to thread the needle of just one single army I own having gotten a codex so far in 9th. And that army is marines, so they do feel fair to play against marines.

Sure, but I doubt the reason for that is the 6+++ save. I think the reason for making FNP a less common mechanic is more aimed at making games run smoother than reducing power.

Not sure if this is the right spot or not, but Armies of Renown System preview.

Legendary Legions in LOTR are awesome, so happy to see it come to 40k!

Hate it. This system is bad, has always been bad and will always be bad.

Gain free power-ups by not taking things you weren't building around anyway is a crazy 'trade-off.' Has been since the old chapter/regiment tactics back in... 5th? edition

This is pure rules bloat for the sake of having power sets to push sales of a $60 junk book.

I think people are opening themselves for a letdown if they expect Covens to keep their 5++(or 4++ if you are Prophets). It made the choice of Drukhari Detachment very lopsided as 4++ was such a strong trait and even with 5++ Covens were out-surviving everything else in the codex.

So I fully expect the 4++ and 5++ will go.

Oh really? Are they seriously doing 7th all over again? Ffs...

Voss wrote:
Gain free power-ups by not taking things you weren't building around anyway is a crazy 'trade-off.' Has been since the old chapter/regiment tactics back in... 5th? edition

Even before that. 3.5 Chaos Codex and 3.5 Imperial Guard Codex both had the same probelm.

As you said. If you're giving up things you were never going to take in the first place, then you're not really giving anything up.

Voss wrote:
This is pure rules bloat for the sake of having power sets to push sales of a $60 junk book.

US$60 book. Oof...

Voss wrote:
Hate it. This system is bad, has always been bad and will always be bad.

Gain free power-ups by not taking things you weren't building around anyway is a crazy 'trade-off.' Has been since the old chapter/regiment tactics back in... 5th? edition

This is pure rules bloat for the sake of having power sets to push sales of a $60 junk book.

Death guard weren’t taking any vehicles, and Ad Mech weren’t taking any Skitarii?

Really?

It's a bit of a cynical way to sell campaign books to people who wouldn't otherwise be interested in campaign books as a general concept. Bundle in some free boons for your army!

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Voss wrote:
Hate it. This system is bad, has always been bad and will always be bad.

Gain free power-ups by not taking things you weren't building around anyway is a crazy 'trade-off.' Has been since the old chapter/regiment tactics back in... 5th? edition

This is pure rules bloat for the sake of having power sets to push sales of a $60 junk book.

Death guard weren’t taking any vehicles, and Ad Mech weren’t taking any Skitarii?

Really?

I'm not sure how much Admech were taking Skitarii but their boons also seem... less stellar. Death Guard not bringing vehicles is kinda crippling, though.

Looks like a swing and a miss, especially if the master of the Zombie plague doesn't even ignore the Poxwalker restrictions.

Billicus wrote:
It's a bit of a cynical way to sell campaign books to people who wouldn't otherwise be interested in campaign books as a general concept. Bundle in some free boons for your army!

Basically it's a lose for a type custommer atleast.

Not narratively inclined players which want to play somewhat competitively are forced to buy another book and narratively inclined ones can expect probably less quality because gw knows that the former will buy anyways.

It's also really really annoying, that we only just recently cut down all the books needed only to see it again expanded just for having the rules and it reeks of miliking the customerbase.

Also lol at literally stealing the "purge" special stratagem for the harbringers, much recycling, many rejoice

 Eldarsif wrote:
I think people are opening themselves for a letdown if they expect Covens to keep their 5++(or 4++ if you are Prophets). It made the choice of Drukhari Detachment very lopsided as 4++ was such a strong trait and even with 5++ Covens were out-surviving everything else in the codex.

So I fully expect the 4++ and 5++ will go.

Do you expect them to get anything to replace it, or are Covens just not meant to be used in 9th?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Voss wrote:
Hate it. This system is bad, has always been bad and will always be bad.

Gain free power-ups by not taking things you weren't building around anyway is a crazy 'trade-off.' Has been since the old chapter/regiment tactics back in... 5th? edition

This is pure rules bloat for the sake of having power sets to push sales of a $60 junk book.

Death guard weren’t taking any vehicles, and Ad Mech weren’t taking any Skitarii?

Really?

Yep, really, really.
No. Obviously 'no one was ever taking those' isn't the point. But if you present a system where you can trade off optional things that are merely average to make other things better, you aren't presenting a meaningful choice. Just a buff.
If you're already considering an infantry heavy DG list, you might as well go all out and commit, and get the free bonuses. If you're not considering it (and don't play any of the other armies that get $pecial DLC rule$ in this book), I guess you save $60

Don't think its 7th level overpowered given those are some real limitations.

But... its not something that should be coming out in the first year of a new edition. If GW wanted Terminus Est Assault Force to be a viable, alternative way to play DG - why not put it in the DG codex? Why do you need alternate ways to play a book that came out a few weeks ago?

Basically its a cool idea, just don't think it should have been done this way.

Also, seems like the only drukhari preview we're getting is gonna be the one from yesterday, rip. I expect the remainder of this week will be 2 regiments of renown per day...though I suppose the RoR for wych cults is a drukhari preview, let us know what our day 1 dlc will be.

How are they gonna further restrict wych cults, I wonder? we have like 6 units total. No vehicles probably.

as a "oh no we need to sell more books" rule system goes, I like these a lot better than 7th ed formations, and also better than the vigilus..thingies from 8th that just costed a CP and then gave you a couple relics and strats.

I'm not going to buy the book - these sorts of rules have the lifespan of soft cheese, and I've got no interest in playing the campaign mode. But I definitely don't mind playing against these rules, the benefits are fairly slight and the restrictions fairly hefty.

How the heck do the Admech benefits work though? Isn't the whole 'set to defend, hold strong' thing just the exact rule for Defensible cover? Are they counted as being in Defensible Cover if they're in their DZ or near an objective, is that the deal?

If so that's kinda a boring playstyle I guess. "here's some rules so you can sit in your DZ and never move, how fun for you and your opponent."

Tyel wrote:
Don't think its 7th level overpowered given those are some real limitations.

But... its not something that should be coming out in the first year of a new edition. If GW wanted Terminus Est Assault Force to be a viable, alternative way to play DG - why not put it in the DG codex? Why do you need alternate ways to play a book that came out a few weeks ago?

Basically its a cool idea, just don't think it should have been done this way.

Because £$CHF/EURO, whatever else you happen to use.

It's a blatant cashgrab.

And there's no easier way to monetise the playerbase at large then via rules.

Voss wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Voss wrote:
Hate it. This system is bad, has always been bad and will always be bad.

Gain free power-ups by not taking things you weren't building around anyway is a crazy 'trade-off.' Has been since the old chapter/regiment tactics back in... 5th? edition

This is pure rules bloat for the sake of having power sets to push sales of a $60 junk book.

Death guard weren’t taking any vehicles, and Ad Mech weren’t taking any Skitarii?

Really?

Yep, really, really.
No. Obviously 'no one was ever taking those' isn't the point. But if you present a system where you can trade off optional things that are merely average to make other things better, you aren't presenting a meaningful choice. Just a buff.
If you're already considering an infantry heavy DG list, you might as well go all out and commit, and get the free bonuses. If you're not considering it (and don't play any of the other armies that get $pecial DLC rule$ in this book), I guess you save $60

It’s still a hefty sacrifice.

No Rhinos, Dreads, Landraiders, PBC, Daemon Engines etc. Without those, what do DG have in the way of anti-tank, for instance? Because you’ll be able to deal with infantry no problem - but big stuff might be a thorn in your side?

Tyel wrote:
Don't think its 7th level overpowered given those are some real limitations.

the first ones in 7th were not overpowered either, as well as the first ones in 3rd

but GW need to start somewhere