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.

Yes, DG is a new 9th ed codex. They are resilient, they are good in Melee and they have some tricks. But they are slow moving and their shooting is nothing to write home about. If you play against DG, you will always have a game. They are unlikely to table you unless you let them.

Say you try and fight and lose the midboard. Then you retreat back deep into own your deployment zone and just focus on shooting them the rest of the game. Maybe they will still win in the end due to having more VP, but they are unlikely to table you. DG aren't really a leaf blower kind of list. Maybe you even end up killing more of their army than losing your own. It might still a loss due to VP, but it would hardly be the kind of crushing loss where your army gets tabled by turn 2 or 3.

Maybe its irritating to shoot a lot and kill only a few models. but in return, you won't lose many models either because DG just aren't that much of a shooty army. I think this is a lot more fun than seeing who can shoot who off the table within two or three turns because 40k has become so lethal.

It is hard to write a list against them that is also good against Marines.

Isn't winning via VP how all armies are supposed to win? DG seem really strong at controlling space and holding objectives which should make them extremely good in a system that encourages playing for objectives.

This game isn't solely about tabling, you know. I mean I've tabled 9th edition Necrons with 8th Edition PA DG and can't imagine they've gotten weaker with the Codex, but still.

I'd say OP is something that only looses to a very good counter (a counter that might loose against the whole field)

 Manchild 1984 wrote:
It is hard to write a list against them that is also good against Marines.

This is also not a problem as we will see when more codexes come out. Because of how many SM players there are it is easy to create anti-SM lists and call it a day, but with more armies getting updated people will be forced to create more all-comers list, which is the natural state of the game imo.

DGs are surely very strong, but after the FAQ I wouldn't consider them OP.

I really wouldn't want to face them with an horde melee list though...

Eldenfirefly wrote:

Say you try and fight and lose the midboard. Then you retreat back deep into own your deployment zone and just focus on shooting them the rest of the game. Maybe they will still win in the end due to having more VP, but they are unlikely to table you. DG aren't really a leaf blower kind of list. Maybe you even end up killing more of their army than losing your own. It might still a loss due to VP, but it would hardly be the kind of crushing loss where your army gets tabled by turn 2 or 3.

If you retreat to home then you have lost game. You have home, he has home+midfield. 9e is all about midfield combat. You can't give up on midfield. Many scenarios if you retreat at home you score 0 primary often enough, 5 at BEST. Forget scoring 10 and 15 is laughable.

 Manchild 1984 wrote:
It is hard to write a list against them that is also good against Marines.

??
Not really? I mean, if I can kill a DG I can kill a SM....

ccs wrote:

 Manchild 1984 wrote:
It is hard to write a list against them that is also good against Marines.

??
Not really? I mean, if I can kill a DG I can kill a SM....

I think he's referring to the fact that the 2 damage weapons that are optimal against a lot of Marine lists are highly suboptimal against DG.

Eldenfirefly wrote:
Yes, DG is a new 9th ed codex. They are resilient, they are good in Melee and they have some tricks. But they are slow moving and their shooting is nothing to write home about. If you play against DG, you will always have a game. They are unlikely to table you unless you let them.

So long as I end the game with more VP than the opponent, I don't give a damn if they table me.

 CEO Kasen wrote:

ccs wrote:

 Manchild 1984 wrote:
It is hard to write a list against them that is also good against Marines.

??
Not really? I mean, if I can kill a DG I can kill a SM....

I think he's referring to the fact that the 2 damage weapons that are optimal against a lot of Marine lists are highly suboptimal against DG.

Exactly this, Dg require double firepower to be killed

 InVerno wrote:

 CEO Kasen wrote:

ccs wrote:

 Manchild 1984 wrote:
It is hard to write a list against them that is also good against Marines.

??
Not really? I mean, if I can kill a DG I can kill a SM....

I think he's referring to the fact that the 2 damage weapons that are optimal against a lot of Marine lists are highly suboptimal against DG.

Exactly this, Dg require double firepower to be killed

Only if you exclusively deal in D2 damage weapons. Those D2 weapons are utterly wasted on 1 wound models that make up a good portion of the game. The reason D2 are popular now is because the game skews horribly towards Space Marines, but normally you should have a plethora of 1D shots that Disgustingly Resilience does nothing against.

CEO Kasen got my drift. I will try to explain:

In the Necron codex: a D1 weapon with 2x attacks often time has a drawback to a D2 weapon with one attack.

So..
D1 is perfect against W1 and ok-ish for others (see wraiths)
D2 is bad-ish vs W1 and perfect vs W2 and bad vs DG
D3 is really bad against W1 and bad against W2 and perfect against DG.

So... are wraiths with claws better then whips?

They're not really, and as we get more codices released you'll see them tumble to the bottom.

Like I said, if I can kill a DG, I can kill a SM.

Morty and PBC are OP. That is about it.

 InVerno wrote:

 CEO Kasen wrote:

ccs wrote:

 Manchild 1984 wrote:
It is hard to write a list against them that is also good against Marines.

??
Not really? I mean, if I can kill a DG I can kill a SM....

I think he's referring to the fact that the 2 damage weapons that are optimal against a lot of Marine lists are highly suboptimal against DG.

Exactly this, Dg require double firepower to be killed

Wouldn't this basically ring identically true vs Necrons then? seeing as they're W1 and gain a lot of their durability from Res Prots and high T?

Xenomancers wrote:Morty and PBC are OP. That is about it.

Mortarion is very powerful, but I've read that he can go down very quickly with dedicated firepower, dying in the first or second round.

 Eldarsif wrote:

Only if you exclusively deal in D2 damage weapons. Those D2 weapons are utterly wasted on 1 wound models that make up a good portion of the game. The reason D2 are popular now is because the game skews horribly towards Space Marines, but normally you should have a plethora of 1D shots that Disgustingly Resilience does nothing against.

yes, but they are still t5 with 2W. it is hard to kill them with bolter fire, specially when your dudes cost as much or more then a DG unit of the same kind.

And some armies just have no anwser to something like Mortarion and an entire DG army.

But they are not OP, ugly models and good army for sure, but to be really good they would need some wierd FW interaction with a unit that was not designed for the codex or some mixed up rule. They are just a solid army, and from what a lot DG players say, it seems to be fun to play with.

Thats more of an edition problem. Mortarion is one of, if not the most, durable single models in the game, is also a psycher, and a beatstick in melee, with a load of debuffing auras he can apply.

As a comparison, the Ares gunship is at a similar points level, is not any harder to kill (easier actually), is not a psycher, has no melee, cannot hold objectives, and only does reliable damage to models without an invunerable save. It does move faster, but only because it can only pivot 90 degrees before it moves.



Looking at the above, mortarion is obviously a much better unit to have in your army against almost any target. The ares can however one shot him.

ccs wrote:
Like I said, if I can kill a DG, I can kill a SM.

It's less efficient...

Lightning Claws look ideal. +2 Attacks and rerolling to wound, if I'm not mistaken.

So they are really really good at the things that win games but don't worry it's OK because they might not table you if you stay away from them and effectively concede the match? You're just making them sound OP

Cynista wrote:
So they are really really good at the things that win games but don't worry it's OK because they might not table you if you stay away from them and effectively concede the match? You're just making them sound OP

To be fair, being tabled tends to feel a lot worse than conceding objectives. Watching your army get deleted leads to a different sense of loss and futility.

Being able to reduce 1 damage per successful attack is not game breaking.

 Manchild 1984 wrote:

ccs wrote:
Like I said, if I can kill a DG, I can kill a SM.

It's less efficient...

Wouldn't you 1st need to know what I'm killing DG with before you claim that?

 Insectum7 wrote:
Lightning Claws look ideal. +2 Attacks and rerolling to wound, if I'm not mistaken.

The problem with those is few units get to carry a lot of them and you lock into a melee presence, so if you're not WS / BT you will struggle to use them as effectively. Even WS will have trouble - normally their 5 VV could kill 8.6 Primaris on turn 3 ( 4.3 otherwise ). Against DG that is 2.6.

I would consider HOGC on Redemptors or Reapers or twin asscans if you're an old mariner.

People complaining about how inefficient your units become at killing DG is like, duh, no gak. That's the point.

Necrons and DG are armies that force you to overcommit in terms of points and resources into killing them. That's what being a durable army means. If you can trade evenly and win wars of attrition with armies like that then the design of the army has failed and it becomes non-functional.

Now, whether DG's weaknesses are enough to counterbalance this is another matter entirely. However, their lack of speed, lack of particularly great shooting outside of one specific unit and being a melee army with like 0 bonuses to charges, along with generally weak faction secondaries, do seem like a substantial detriment. Mortarion is a weird one too since I've had a few very good DG players believe he's a trap and think taking lists without him is stronger.

Death Guard are a greatly designed army. Trying to win them in the middle board with meele is futile.

But they are elite enought and slow enough, and their shooting is anecdotal, to basically allow you to counterplay them. Shoot them, outmanouver them, they cannot cover all the board. They need to spread out, and when they are spread out, they lack the speed to reinforce parts of the board where they are weaker. Thats where one has to strike agaisnt them.

Facing Death Guard is fun when you know how to play agaisnt them ,but frustrating when you just sit and shoot at them, or charge them at their 1-2 deathstars units and expect them to die without putting a fight.