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.

Who ever is at the studio that writes DG rules, must have a real hate boner for them. 9th ed for DG was like 8th was for GK. new FAQ, DG get new nerfs and buffs are side grades or stuff that should have been there from day one of codex.

Condolances to the DG players. Maybe their HQ will somehow turn this around.

 Tyran wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Your options are T, W, Sv, or FnP. If we want to streamline life a little, damage reduction is a conditional extra wounds, FnP is also a form of conditional extra wounds. So what would you have them do without giving them 3w plague marines via one method or another? Or is that the answer? If so what points does that attract?

IMHO that is kinda the answer. 3W Plague Marines are mathematically mostly the same as giving them a 5+ FNP, but without needing the extra roll.

And IMHO Plague Marines should be expensive.

Ya an extra wound across the board looks to be the simplest fix. Also they are already pillow fisted look at the Melle profile compared to loyalists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dysartes wrote:
Question - what OC do people think Poxwalkers will end up with?

Most likely 0 at most they will be 1

 Dysartes wrote:
Question - what OC do people think Poxwalkers will end up with?

I’m also in the 1 or 0 camp.

Boosykes wrote:
Ya not impressed. Where is the FNP?

Maybe that's where the Plague Surgeon comes in?

Dudeface wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
People who wanted a fnp profile extra in a world of reduced lethality, would you accept being utterly pillow fisted and/or horribly expensive to compensate?

A single extra point of T really isn't a lot for the Marine variant specifically known for resilience, though.

They could have done more than that without making them so skewed into toughness that they have to become offensively weak for their points to compensate.

Your options are T, W, Sv, or FnP. If we want to streamline life a little, damage reduction is a conditional extra wounds, FnP is also a form of conditional extra wounds. So what would you have them do without giving them 3w plague marines via one method or another? Or is that the answer? If so what points does that attract?

I would just give them an extra wound. 3W Plague Marines sounds fine to me. Could even leave them at T4 (T5 for Termies) and have the extra wound be the sole durability buff.

Poxwalkers could be OC0 but with characters bumping them to 1.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Poxwalkers could be OC0 but with characters bumping them to 1.

I wouldn't be terribly shocked if that ended up being a Typhus-only thing.

Voss wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Poxwalkers could be OC0 but with characters bumping them to 1.

I wouldn't be terribly shocked if that ended up being a Typhus-only thing.

That would actually be a really cool mechanic for wraith guard/blades and spirit seers. Represent their wraith sight problems in a relatively mild but still fluffy sort of way.

Karol wrote:
Who ever is at the studio that writes DG rules, must have a real hate boner for them. 9th ed for DG was like 8th was for GK. new FAQ, DG get new nerfs and buffs are side grades or stuff that should have been there from day one of codex.

Condolances to the DG players. Maybe their HQ will somehow turn this around.

I'll reserve any real judgment - for DG or any other force - until their actual codex arrives.
This crap may persist. Or it might get modified. Or change radically....

I think it is a good mind set to have about the first books we know we are going to get. So if custodes rules are meh, waiting 5-6 months isn't that bad. For other armies it could be a bumpy ride though. Waiting 2+ years for a new rule set, while till it drops you are playing index vs codex, can be harsh.

I wonder if Custodes end up being "down graded" by staying with the stats they have now, or will we see them running around with t6. It could be fun to watch.

The eldar and DG psykers make me really worried about my dudes.

DG have been a real decent army for almost all of 9th and I see nothing wrong with the malignant plague caster. Sure, he can't cast Miasma anymore, but outside of that? His witchfire is powerful, the debuff makes anyone without a decent melee weapon wound terminators on 6s and slowing down units actually has a lot of value for an army full of slow units with powerful melee.

Outside of the weirdboy it's the best psyker we have seen so far.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Boosykes wrote:
Ya not impressed. Where is the FNP?

I don't think they should get FNP, but the rules for DG are very meh.

The Plague replacement of Lethal Hits doesn't give a crap about -1T.

I hope that what we're going to see is that characters joining will grant FNP or other abilities that will make everything come together, but right now this is the worst preview.

The -1T isn't bad. I would have preferred a different mechanic for altering the radius. 3 inches normally, 6 inches on an objective, 9 inches for (Troops) on the objective to continue the theme they're trying to get started) The real snooze is looking like Spreading The Sickness. Sticky Capping is nice, but if you're not on the objective, and the other player is close enough to get the aura they're usually going to be in range to cap it - this is usually going to be done on their turn when you can't benefit from their lowered Toughness - Unless there's something we haven't seen yet (More attacks on the other players turn, a bunch of or populular units without OC and Nurgle's Gift, etc). - Its just hard to see many scenarios where they'll be close enough to get sick, too far to cap an empty objective, and vulnerable to your attacks between the start of their turn and the end of their turn.

ccs wrote:

Karol wrote:
Who ever is at the studio that writes DG rules, must have a real hate boner for them. 9th ed for DG was like 8th was for GK. new FAQ, DG get new nerfs and buffs are side grades or stuff that should have been there from day one of codex.

Condolances to the DG players. Maybe their HQ will somehow turn this around.

I'll reserve any real judgment - for DG or any other force - until their actual codex arrives.
This crap may persist. Or it might get modified. Or change radically....

Well, we've seen less than a smidgen of the whole picture, but I really don't expect any of the listed books on the roadmap to change radically. Certainly Marines, Tyranids, Necrons and Ad Mech are locked in tight.

The main divergence will be detachment abilities for the additional detachments we know nothing about (which imo is a positive thing for Necrons and AdMech, I really dislike the feel of a necron army with a lot of characters on babysitting duty). The faction abilities will barely change (if at all), and I don't expect a major departure from the initial datacards to the first 9 books.

Voss wrote:

ccs wrote:

Karol wrote:
Who ever is at the studio that writes DG rules, must have a real hate boner for them. 9th ed for DG was like 8th was for GK. new FAQ, DG get new nerfs and buffs are side grades or stuff that should have been there from day one of codex.

Condolances to the DG players. Maybe their HQ will somehow turn this around.

I'll reserve any real judgment - for DG or any other force - until their actual codex arrives.
This crap may persist. Or it might get modified. Or change radically....

Well, we've seen less than a smidgen of the whole picture, but I really don't expect any of the listed books on the roadmap to change radically. Certainly Marines, Tyranids, Necrons and Ad Mech are locked in tight.

The main divergence will be detachment abilities for the additional detachments we know nothing about (which imo is a positive thing for Necrons and AdMech, I really dislike the feel of a necron army with a lot of characters on babysitting duty). The faction abilities will barely change (if at all), and I don't expect a major departure from the initial datacards to the first 9 books.

For whatever it's worth they did say back at the reveal the stats on the cards wouldn't be changing when the codexes came out.

Iirc they said the codexes would just be lore, crusades and detachments with the strategems.

Playing codex vs index won't be that harsh.

You have the same amount of rules for your army both with and without codex. You will just get different packages of stratagems + detachment rule + enchantments, which will replace the default one. Honestly if it wasn't for the fact that with more detachments there are higher chances of one being broken, I would even dare to say that dexes will not affect balance. Which would be a first.

 Hellebore wrote:

Voss wrote:

ccs wrote:

Karol wrote:
Who ever is at the studio that writes DG rules, must have a real hate boner for them. 9th ed for DG was like 8th was for GK. new FAQ, DG get new nerfs and buffs are side grades or stuff that should have been there from day one of codex.

Condolances to the DG players. Maybe their HQ will somehow turn this around.

I'll reserve any real judgment - for DG or any other force - until their actual codex arrives.
This crap may persist. Or it might get modified. Or change radically....

Well, we've seen less than a smidgen of the whole picture, but I really don't expect any of the listed books on the roadmap to change radically. Certainly Marines, Tyranids, Necrons and Ad Mech are locked in tight.

The main divergence will be detachment abilities for the additional detachments we know nothing about (which imo is a positive thing for Necrons and AdMech, I really dislike the feel of a necron army with a lot of characters on babysitting duty). The faction abilities will barely change (if at all), and I don't expect a major departure from the initial datacards to the first 9 books.

For whatever it's worth they did say back at the reveal the stats on the cards wouldn't be changing when the codexes came out.

Iirc they said the codexes would just be lore, crusades and detachments with the strategems.

Yes, and 2 - 3 of those things could considerably change one's experience with an army.
Thus I'll wait to pass judgment until I have all the rules for a faction.

And then of course there's whatever changes will occur as knee jerk reactions to player complaints & trying to manipulate the tourney win %s.... or do you think these things will magically disapear?

Spoletta wrote:
Playing codex vs index won't be that harsh.

You have the same amount of rules for your army both with and without codex. You will just get different packages of stratagems + detachment rule + enchantments, which will replace the default one. Honestly if it wasn't for the fact that with more detachments there are higher chances of one being broken, I would even dare to say that dexes will not affect balance. Which would be a first.

In 8th it worked for about 3 Codizes, SM, DG and IIRC GK weren't that far off. Then it went downhill and needed FAQs and CAs to help the Index factions.
But we'll see how it works out in the end, as you say it's very likely that some of the detachment boni will be very strong and others not. The usual: Nurgle detachment gets 4+ FNP for everyone, Nightlords gets -1 ld for opponents in CC on thursdays .

ccs wrote:

Karol wrote:
Who ever is at the studio that writes DG rules, must have a real hate boner for them. 9th ed for DG was like 8th was for GK. new FAQ, DG get new nerfs and buffs are side grades or stuff that should have been there from day one of codex.

Condolances to the DG players. Maybe their HQ will somehow turn this around.

I'll reserve any real judgment - for DG or any other force - until their actual codex arrives.
This crap may persist. Or it might get modified. Or change radically....

I'll wait until we get full army rules and points.

Based on what we know now dg can be worst or best army or anything in between.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:
DG have been a real decent army for almost all of 9th and I see nothing wrong with the malignant plague caster. Sure, he can't cast Miasma anymore, but outside of that? His witchfire is powerful, the debuff makes anyone without a decent melee weapon wound terminators on 6s and slowing down units actually has a lot of value for an army full of slow units with powerful melee.

Outside of the weirdboy it's the best psyker we have seen so far.

Making units impossible to shoot outside 18" aura is pretty decent psychic power as well.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Playing codex vs index won't be that harsh.

You have the same amount of rules for your army both with and without codex. You will just get different packages of stratagems + detachment rule + enchantments, which will replace the default one. Honestly if it wasn't for the fact that with more detachments there are higher chances of one being broken, I would even dare to say that dexes will not affect balance. Which would be a first.

In 8th it worked for about 3 Codizes, SM, DG and IIRC GK weren't that far off. Then it went downhill and needed FAQs and CAs to help the Index factions.
But we'll see how it works out in the end, as you say it's very likely that some of the detachment boni will be very strong and others not. The usual: Nurgle detachment gets 4+ FNP for everyone, Nightlords gets -1 ld for opponents in CC on thursdays .

that is because the GK codex was the index copy pasted, with stuff added that was in the codex. The real GK codex, was the the PA book that came out at the end of 8th. That one had actual rules, that made GK something more then just overcosted marines with bad rules. It made terminators valid and paladins an actualy OP unit for a few seconds, before covid closed and killed a lot of stores. Later on playing stuff like Index anything vs the new mechanicus or DE required a certain mind set from the index player. One not many share.

Spoletta wrote:
Playing codex vs index won't be that harsh.

You have the same amount of rules for your army both with and without codex. You will just get different packages of stratagems + detachment rule + enchantments, which will replace the default one. Honestly if it wasn't for the fact that with more detachments there are higher chances of one being broken, I would even dare to say that dexes will not affect balance. Which would be a first.

I'd say that holds until they split out some detachments and potential faction abilities for Iron Hands, Word Bearers etc the subfactions of the CM/CSM - especially ones that probably should get split off but haven't.

They need to keep playing testing against the first, say, four codexes in each edition. That would have a better chance at maintaining an even playing field.

One theory that I've heard is that any abilities similar to that of DR might be connected to the Nurgle keyword.

 Souleater wrote:
They need to keep playing testing against the first, say, four codexes in each edition. That would have a better chance at maintaining an even playing field.

the fact that over how many editions now have they not done that and used "ohhh new shiny!!!" to sell models, to then nerf them slightly before they repeat the cycle tends to suggest they won't.

whats needed is for on a desk at GW right now there to be the outline rules for all factions already laid out and designed as a single set

won't happen, this is the 10th edition, most games are pretty good by the 2nd and more or less as good as they will get by the 3rd

Imperial Knight Preview

At first glance that battlecannon seems like a huge glow-up. Certainly more punishing than the old one, which always felt limp. Is it too much though?

 Daedalus81 wrote:
At first glance that battlecannon seems like a huge glow-up. Certainly more punishing than the old one, which always felt limp. Is it too much though?

against a 30 man unit with perfect rolls, 24 shots? I think it might be a bit much, the low AP does help keep it under control though.

Dudeface wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
At first glance that battlecannon seems like a huge glow-up. Certainly more punishing than the old one, which always felt limp. Is it too much though?

against a 30 man unit with perfect rolls, 24 shots? I think it might be a bit much, the low AP does help keep it under control though.

New rapid fire battle cannon kills 3 new blightlords on average.

Old rapid fire battle cannon killed 0-1 old blightlords on average.

Make of that what you will.

 Jidmah wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
At first glance that battlecannon seems like a huge glow-up. Certainly more punishing than the old one, which always felt limp. Is it too much though?

against a 30 man unit with perfect rolls, 24 shots? I think it might be a bit much, the low AP does help keep it under control though.

New rapid fire battle cannon kills 3 new blightlords on average.

Old rapid fire battle cannon killed 0-1 old blightlords on average.

Make of that what you will.

Napkin time:

It's more 2-3 but that feels better in honesty? The question there is the RFBC that much better now or is the blighlords that are that bit worse? I don't feel a kight battle cannon should struggle to kill 1 terminator though either way.

 Jidmah wrote:

New rapid fire battle cannon kills 3 new blightlords on average.

Old rapid fire battle cannon killed 0-1 old blightlords on average.

Make of that what you will.

My math gives me 2 dead blightlords.

Roll (average): 2D6+6 (13 shots), 3+ hits (8.67 hits), 3+ wounds (5.78 wounds), 3+ save (1.93 failed saves).

Yea 2 on average ( when shooting at 10 ). 3 ( 20% ) or 4 ( 11% ) seems pretty likely, too. But there's also 33% for 0-1. Not crazy although at the moment these are roughly equal cost units. Perhaps it's irrelevant, but those BL termies have no good way to pull down a knight with the combi-weapon issue. Maybe that's their goal?