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.

As the topic title says what would you do to fix these two indexes? Only points will not be enough.

Thanks for sharing your ideals

Throw Votann into that discussion as well. They are currently awful, with no synergy, bad accuracy, short range and an army ability you have almost no control over.

Also Sisters. Our leadership doesn't make any sense, we only have 2 meaningful guns that shoot longer than 18", we're costed like marines with statlines like Conscripts, and our melee got nerfed across the board.
Twice.

What is the problem with Death Guard? Their faction ability is thematic and useful, their Detachment ability interacts with their faction ability.

Lethal hits is better than re-rolling 1s to wound and they lost Disgustingly Resilient so the army is going to be more balanced than skewed toward being tanky but that's not going to make them worse.

So if Death Guard are trash it is because their points are too high and not a problem with their rules. If you want tougher Death Guard or deadlier Death Guard instead of objective controlling Death Guard then you should design a Detachment that does that.

Adepta Sororitas might have anti-synergy between their army ability and their Detachment ability, but it punishes me for leaving your units alive to avoid proccing Miracle Dice generation. I get that it feels bad that Eldar have a superior army ability, but from what I've read Index Eldar is not a healthy Index to emulate so if we were to change SoB rules it wouldn't be to make them more like Eldar. The answer to being overcosted is just a points reduction.

The Adeptus Mechanicus Detachment is truly cursed. From letting your opponent just choose to ignore the rule to requiring dozens of dice rolls over the course of the game and worst of all it incentivises your opponent to get out of their deployment zone turning off the conqueror imperative, I really don't think any other faction can complain with the existence of this Detachment. Make it reduce the OC and LD of all enemy units by 1 to a minimum of 1. Then inflict a mortal wound to each enemy turn 3, 4 and 5.

Would it be a devastating effect? No, but Necrons just adds 1 to hit for units led by Characters and that's good enough, so I don't think tonnes of power is needed for a Detachment to be thematic and fun. Both players know that the enemy's units are going to be taking 3 mortal wounds over the course of the last 3 battle rounds, how will this affect decision-making? Will units be sent into reckless charges, will the AdMech player choose to soften units up in the earlier battle rounds and rely on lowered enemy OC to hold objectives and then deal a killing blow turn 4 or 5?

I really love that AdMech's faction ability is binary, it's thematic and it's much simpler than having 6 effects to choose from, rolling for it and sometimes choosing but only once per game and doesn't affect X, Y and Z...

I can't find flaws within the Votann rules either.

You really shouldn't have been surprised that points are all over the place, GW gave up on pre-release game testing because they had too many leaks in 9th and the game designers cannot be bothered to set up a spreadsheet that tells them the rough efficiency of a unit or which options are side-grades and which options are upgrades.

I believe there is something of a phrase that a customer can tell you what the problem is but the designer should fix it?

So, problems with Death Guard.

Army ability (-1T) is short range (3/6/9) and sometimes weak on high T targets.

Detachment ability (sticky objectives and contagion from those objectives) is weak.

Detachment strategem and enhancement suite are weak. Examples:
- A strategem that gets more powerful if you have an infected objective AND you get a critical wound. Not more powerful from one condition, two hard to achieve conditions!
- A spotter strat for out of line of sight shooting that lets you get HEAVY and IGNORE COVER shooting at one a unit, but the DG requirement is you get one of your units within 3/6/9 of it.
- Heal d3 or 3 wounds (if you jump through the infected objective hoop). Compare this to the CSM heal strat, flat 3 wounds AND a model back.
- Gain stealth when shot, but missing the CSM half of the same strat that gives lone operative for the rest of the phase.

Army wide theme (lethal hits and anti-infantry 2+/4+) doesn't synergise with their army ability, making it weak. There is also only one way to make lethal hits work on a 5 rather than a 6 which is only available to Plague Marines.

Army wide theme missing - survivability. Examples:
- Power armour, terminator and tank hulls have no special rules to prevent damage other than +1T in a game with higher strength shooting.
- In a game with several other factions with 6+++s and 5+++s littering their indexes, someone went to a lot of trouble to keep it away from DG units.

Army wide theme no one wants - OC. Every DG unit is at the minimum expected OC for that unit, e.g. power armour 2, terminators 1, vehicles 3~5 and their is only one attachment to Plague Marines that boosts it. So the army theme for the relentless Death Guard is they are really bad at taking or holding objectives. This has anti synergy with their detachment rules related to holding objectives.

Very bad special rule on the core battleline unit (Plague Marines) that has seven different attachable characters, which has a significant effect on the viability of that unit. The special rule is... 1 better leadership (battleshock only) when on an objective. It should be either a damage increase rule like is commonly seen on other battleine, e.g. re-roll 1s/all hits/wounds when on/targetting an objective.

More non synergy in the other two core terminator units. The Blightlords get re-roll 1s to wound when shooting at the closest target but are the long ranged shooting of the infantry side of the army. One of the characters you would like to attach to them gives re-roll all wounds in shooting negating their rule. The Deathshroud need a character to activate their conditional -1 to wound, while Scarab Occult don't.

The Blightlord Terminators are I think the cheapest around at 175 for 5, but they still look expensive. Plague Marines at 100 for 5 are more expensive than a few other marine types.

So, normally you can fix the army issue with points but this will give some funky looking DG armies, as I would say if the rules are untouched:
- Plague Marines should be 90 for 5 and may need to go lower than that.
- Deathshroud should be 120 for 3.
- Most of the attaching characters need dropping by 10 points.
- FBD, MBH and PBC will probably need migrating towards their end of 9th points (again!)

On points, just thought I would do a quick catch up on my favourite GW points bugbear, the same unit in multiple Space Marine factions being the same points. Someone clearly got a memo saying make the points different for 10th but appears to have chosen +5 and -5 randomnly for many.

CSM - Dark pacts and a Mark of Chaos lets you get lethal or sustained hits and a good strategem to build around per Mark.
DG - Sometimes your target will have -1T, bad strategems. Their bolters/heavy bolters do get lethal hits.
GK - Don't benefit from army rule or detachment rule. Only benefit from one strat, but good strat.
SM - Oaths of Faceroll and 2 very relevant doctrines for shooting or melee units and very good strategems (including the GK one).
TS - Turn off your targets armour sometimes but most strategems require a psyker unit. Their bolters/heavy bolters do get +1 AP.
WE - Blessings work on the vehicles, most are melee only but 6+++ and 2" move are relevant on shooting units. And melee focused strategems.

Predator Annihilator, CSM 135, DG 130, SM 130, TS 120, WE 130. SM should be most expensive, CSM next, the other three roughly equal.
Predator Destructor, CSM 130, DG 140, SM 135, TS 125, WE 130. Lol, DG is suddenly more expensive? Should be same as above.
Land Raider, CSM 255, DG 250, GK 270, SM 275, TS 250, WE 255. I have to assume they factor in the quality of the unit being transported otherwise the GK price makes little sense.
Rhino, CSM 85, DG 80, GK 80, SM 85, TS 75, WE 85. Suddenly they don't seem to be factoring in the quality of the unit being transported...

Chaos Spawn, CSM 80, DG 75, TS 65, WE 65. You wouldn't guess the TS one gets a 5++ compared to the other identical Spawn.
Defiler, CSM 210, DG 205, TS 200, WE 210. Looking forward to the EC Defiler, will the d3 roll result in a 1 to make it 200, a 2 to make it 205 or a 3 to make it 210?

So another way to fix Death Guard would be to revisit these points and make DG the cheapest option.

Also, now that we have seen Oaths of Moment in action, are we agreed that it is in fact as good as expected to everyone but the people who argue about everything on here?

So another way to fix Death Guard would be to tone down the other Space Marine variants to match, but you would need to change so many things it makes more sense to buff up the Death Guard at this point.

Great post EightFoldPath, I haven't seen anyone else explain the problems so clearly and now I much better understand the difficulties the faction faces. You don't have to understand how to fix something to point out it is broken and just because someone can tell something is broken does not mean they understand how to fix it. But just because you don't know how to fix it does not mean you cannot make a guess.

I think having infected objectives blow up when they get cleared might be a fun alternative to having them spread Nurgle's gift, since to infect something you will have needed to be nearby and if you've been nearby with a M5 unit then you're probably still nearby when the enemy tries to take it, so having Nurgle's gift isn't a big deal. If anything it'd be funny to have the mushrooms or whatever plants you imagine the Death Guard cultivate on objectives blow up when the enemy tries to control the objective. In the end balance comes down to pts, so I think the most important thing about the rules is that they are fun and thematic.

I can understand the lack of durability feeling bad when it's such a core part of the Death Guard identity, giving them all an extra Wound might work, it'd be the same mathematically as a 5+ FNP but with less hassle. The -1 Damage effect from 9th just felt weird to me. Increasing durability wouldn't really make Plague Marines better, points efficiency is what matters there. I think lowering the Plague Surgeon to 40 pts so people that want a more durable Death Guard army can get that would be a good start at least, looking at the Surgeon makes me wince comparing him to my amazing Necron Leaders.

It might be a good idea to replace Nurgle's Gift with something cyclical and recycle Nurgle's Gift as a Detachment ability later on for a melee-focussed Detachment, so you get a grow, bloom, wither, grow, bloom, wither effect and you choose which one you start with. -1 T still increases damage of plague bolters by 20% against Space Marines, that's pretty close to Necrons getting 25% more hits on Lychguard and Immortals with their Detachment ability. Perhaps units kind of bonuses against units with lower T could make it feel better, while the 1-2 punch of reduced toughness and re-rolling 1s to wound is simple and satisfying I don't think it's good game design because it requires re-rolls for all your weapons.

Fixing Stratagem power levels would be trivial. I think devastating wounds instead of -2 AP on critical wounds against units near your objective might be interesting, I didn't come upon any units that would become broken by it I don't think.

Step 1.

Wait for your Codex.

/thread

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Step 1.

Wait for your Codex.

/thread

But in the mean time buy more things from a different faction, maybe one that's been shuffled to the top of the pile for that very reason, as all this has happened before, and all this will happen again, nut they it's just a ride...

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Step 1.

Wait for your Codex.

/thread

Bluntly, without a shift in design ethos or some significant releases?

AdMech are going to have a real issue even with a codex.

I remember reading the Death Guard detachment ability and going from DAMN that's good to damn that is bad when I realized the opponent just needed to control the objective to remove the Nurgle's Rot from it. Make that last until the end of the game and you might have a compelling detachment ability.

Thanks EightFoldPath for this analysis, this are exactly my problems with this index, but I couldn't write them down like this because of my lacklustering english. Especially the cross comparison between the chaos indexes was insightful. Another excample woult be the TS hellbrute for 145P which is 10P cheaper than the DG hellbrut AND gets a 5++ on top. So in your excample TS is allways the cheapest unit entry even if the get extra rules on top.

In my opinion the fraction rule for chaos demons would be a good detatchment rule. The plaque spreads and you fight over the control of the gaming table.

Its hard to tell which will fix death guard, because a lot of the rules are anti-synergic, but with only points you are right it would give some strange values.

Could I ask you to make a similar breakdown of the ad mech issues. Thanks in advance!

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Step 1.

Wait for your Codex.

/thread

Which can be 2+ years or more waiting. That is a bit like telling people that they should quit or buy another army. On top of that GW already opened the pandoras box of "fixing" armies before them being officialy out. I am sure someone could rewrite rules for an army over a weekend. No matter how bad the end result would be, if it worse it wouldn't matter, and it if the armies suddenly were OP, then GW already made OP armies, with OP rules and undercosted units, at the same time.

Fix the DG by tripling the range of their -1T and giving them FnP back. Rethink ad mecha weapon stats and maybe do some ad hoc fixes, like a priest attached to big robots not making the whole unit infantry. Let SoB take msu again. Make the Votan characters actualy work, or do a slash 35% of troop cost, because an army that has to die to work, can not be elite.

Sninsch wrote:
Could I ask you to make a similar breakdown of the ad mech issues. Thanks in advance!

Sorry not a AdMech player so haven't spent as much time trying to build lists as I have with Death Guard, who are ranked 5th out of 5 for my 5 playable armies. But someone else has gone off on a nice rant here https://www.goonhammer.com/goonhammer-unhinged-an-adeptus-mechanicus-rant/

The issue with the army rule is you have two halves and can only pick one per turn, so half your units are missing out. Did I say half your units, I meant more than half, as some units don't have your army rule (this has always been a mistake when GW have done this in past editions as well).

Detachment rule issue is described very well in the article.

The points on the Vanguard (100) and Rangers (125) stand out as you can get 2 x 10 Guardsmen for 130, 10 Sisters for 110, 10 infinite respawn Neophyte Hybrids for 80, 10 Kabalite Warriors for 120. I thought when they previewed the datasheets for Vanguard and Rangers with a Sv 5+ and BS4 that they were planning on have them be closer in price to Guardsmen. Seems like that was not the plan. Comparing Rangers to Kabalites they have a 1 better save, same invuln, 1 better BS, 1 better Ld, 2 better move, double the attacks in combat. I prefer their special weapons and their anti-infantry 3+ base guns but I could see some very squinty arguments for the AdMech specials.

What is really bad about those two battleline units being too expensive, is that there are seven datasheets that have rules that require a battleline unit be nearby. So in this case, dropping the points on those two units is a must to help the army synergy.

Bad news for AdMech (sadmech) is their codex might already be written as it is one of the early ones. Either all their detachments are Rad Bombardment bad or if they are better the two pages for Rad Bombardment are wasted paper in that book.

EightFoldPath wrote:

Sninsch wrote:
Could I ask you to make a similar breakdown of the ad mech issues. Thanks in advance!

Sorry not a AdMech player so haven't spent as much time trying to build lists as I have with Death Guard, who are ranked 5th out of 5 for my 5 playable armies. But someone else has gone off on a nice rant here https://www.goonhammer.com/goonhammer-unhinged-an-adeptus-mechanicus-rant/

The issue with the army rule is you have two halves and can only pick one per turn, so half your units are missing out. Did I say half your units, I meant more than half, as some units don't have your army rule (this has always been a mistake when GW have done this in past editions as well).

Detachment rule issue is described very well in the article.

The points on the Vanguard (100) and Rangers (125) stand out as you can get 2 x 10 Guardsmen for 130, 10 Sisters for 110, 10 infinite respawn Neophyte Hybrids for 80, 10 Kabalite Warriors for 120. I thought when they previewed the datasheets for Vanguard and Rangers with a Sv 5+ and BS4 that they were planning on have them be closer in price to Guardsmen. Seems like that was not the plan. Comparing Rangers to Kabalites they have a 1 better save, same invuln, 1 better BS, 1 better Ld, 2 better move, double the attacks in combat. I prefer their special weapons and their anti-infantry 3+ base guns but I could see some very squinty arguments for the AdMech specials.

What is really bad about those two battleline units being too expensive, is that there are seven datasheets that have rules that require a battleline unit be nearby. So in this case, dropping the points on those two units is a must to help the army synergy.

Even with a codex upcoming, AdMech are hosed. A codex won't change the datasheets, which are straight trash. The only thing to make them remotely competitive would be dumb broken detachment abilities or dropping their cost to absurdly low levels. Both of those "fixes" always make the problem worse, when we all know the datasheets need adjusted. Thing is, GW *never* change datasheets between physical publications.

Bad news for AdMech (sadmech) is their codex might already be written as it is one of the early ones. Either all their detachments are Rad Bombardment bad or if they are better the two pages for Rad Bombardment are wasted paper in that book.

Well IDK what happened but everything I typed disappeared when I hit submit:

Anyway, in a nutshell, AdMech need datasheet changes, and GW *never* does that between physical publications or edition changes. AdMech are hosed for 10th competitively without GW tacking on additional rules that will be bad for balance or points drops that don't fix the core issue.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Step 1.

Wait for your Codex.

/thread

Ahh the old FU for a year or two...not especially helpful

An extra wound for deathguard would be a good start. It's faster to roll than fnp

EightFoldPath wrote:
I believe there is something of a phrase that a customer can tell you what the problem is but the designer should fix it?

I'm not familiar with design, but I know that writing (which I am familiar with) has a very similar phrase. It's something to the tune of:

"If the reader tells something doesn't work, they're almost certainly right. If a reader tries to tell you how to fix something that doesn't work, they're almost certainly wrong."

For DG they first need to be tough instead of cheap again. Currently they very much feel like playing an 8th edition primaris only army - you are slightly more durable, but lack essential units and have no real strengths or weaknesses otherwise.

Contagions also need to be better. -1T used to push weapons which were firing at the right targets over one of the toughness thresholds, right now it feels like it never really matters.
Maybe it should be changed to giving +1 to wound when your weapon has less or equal strength to the opponent's toughness. That would also address the problems of struggling against armor.

Sticky objectives with contagions seems like a cute idea, but wasn't really playtested well. Objectives should stay contaminated after an enemy has captured them until the end of your next turn.

Last, make leaders more interesting. Each of the virions used to have two abilities and a third one could be added with relic. Now most of them just add one keyword and that's it. Marines, orks or eldar have leaders which completely change the role of the unit or create interesting opportunities no such thing can be found in the DG books.

So yeah, DG go to the shelf until the codex drops in two years or so. GW might be able to make them competitive with dataslates, but not fun.

Maybe something like -1T, turn 1-2, -1T and -1 Str, t 3-4, and then -1T and Str and save on turn 5-6? For how much they cost it wouldn't even be too good. Or maybe flip it start with sv, then add t and then strenght and start with a 9" range turn 1.