Plague Marine heavy forces

[Wayniac]

 

 

I have to agree with Emicus here. One unit of Plague Marines, no matter its size is not Plague Marine heavy.

 

A proper Death Guard army, should be about the Death Guard. 3-4 units of 7 Plague Marines, 1 unit (or more) of 7 (or more) Blightlords, a unit of Deathshroud, and enough characters to go along with them. PBCs, Drones, and Haulers should have a supporting role (and not the focus), with cultists, Poxwalkers, and maybe some daemons for flavor.

 

So much of the internet community (all gaming communities, across the internet) is so hyperfocused on what is optimal or competitive that 90% of the game is either outright ignored, or is trampled underfoot and forgotten... It really makes me sad to see the hobby I've been apart of for 35 years turned more into a sport than a game...

 

How many games did you play this month with your deathguard?

 

When I make that sort of statement ("plague marine based armies aren't valid) it isn't based on what someone told me, something someone posted, or "all gaming communities across the interent". It's based on a LOT of games. I've never, ever played one game with an idea and posted: Well that sucks. It doesn't work.

 

Your broad sweeping statement is really disappointing. I've been apart of 40K as long as anyone I know and I can't disagree with you more. For every hyper competitive ITC player I know, I'd have to guess there are 5+ non-ITC players. In ALL my time being a part of 40K I have never seen as many well painted armies as I do today. We still have local tournaments that have 'soft scoring'. I can think of 8 regulars I play with that have been using the same armies for years. (they may take a break, but who doesn't?)

 

The big difference I see personally is that Frontline gaming has combined with social media to really push their 'system' (for lack of a better term). But that category of player is still far in the minority as far as my experience is concerned.

 

Specfically towards this subject the reason I find your statement hard to swallow is I play in a universe where I don't know if I'm playing against Tau, Astra, Necrons, Dark Eldar, Orks, Eldar, Ynnarri, or Nids -everytime- I am at a table. Those are the most common opponents I run into. Note the lack of marines.

 

Marines (widely accepted) are in a horrible spot (and by GW's own admission). So a "fun" list from one of those armies above can often, quite unintentionally, annihilate a "space marine" based army. But yet if they faced each other, it would probably be a pretty even, fun, eventful game for the xenos player.

 

So yea after a LOT of experimenting with overpriced marines and using every gimmick I can reasonably come up with, I feel it's safe to say a Plague Marine based army is largely pushing the difficulty level extremely high in a lot of meta's. But I stress, that does -not- mean my Xenos opponent is 'hyper focused' on being competitive.

 

There's a huge difference between being hyper competitive and trying to eek out a competitive game vs some of the better codexes in the game. That being said here I am still plugging away with 2-3 of the worst codexes in the game, no allies.

 

And by the way even 15 years ago I was going to tournaments with "star cannon/Mind War/Black Guardian" Spam was considered massively overpowered.... The names have changed but the hobby is still extremely healthy from my point of view.

Sorry it's taken so long to reply to you, been dealing with continuing illness, a funeral, surgical teeth extractions, and then a holiday. I wasnt ignoring you. I'm also not very eloquent, so making myself understood can be problematic, I'm sorry for that as well.

 

When I said what a Death Guard army should be, I meant it. Yes, the current rules might mean it isnt competitive, or even fairly matched with other factions is irrelevant... This is partly a rules problem, and to a lesser degree a perception problem. Rules wise, we cannot do anything about, and I'll touch on perception in a bit.

 

As to my other statements; yes they are blanket statements. I freely admit that. And yes, they are based on subjective impressions and experiences I've encountered and trends I've seen grow in the gaming community over the last 20 years. When I say gaming community, I mean ALL games, from RPGs, to Board Games, and Miniatures gaming. I've been gaming for 35 years now, and frankly there are times I really want to just give up... Gaming has changed. There is a growing undercurrent of cutthroat competitiveness that frankly makes me weep. I blame MTG and the ttg boom of the 90s, as well as proliferation of RTS games like Starcraft. With the prevalence of the Internet, this trend has only been added too and compounded.

 

If this trend is only a minority, then where on the internet is the majority talking about narrative or open play? I cannot find it... All I see is discussion on is my list competitive, or how do I break this edition of D&D, or How do I kill "said" Warcaster" in first turn. This is the perception I am talking about.This focus on breaking the game, and not playing the game is the problem. These attitudes filter down and people start to think this is how these games are played. That there is no other way. I started seeing it early when MSU Las/Plas Squads in Las/Plas Razorbacks, and it only got worse to me as each new edition came out... 7th killed all enjoyment in 40k for me after only two games.... And frankly, I've been too scared to go to a store to play a game of 8e yet. Why? Because all I see being discussed is the current meta. I dont want to game the game. I want to play a game...

 

Yes, I'm bitter, yes I'm old, yes I am jaded. Yes all this is my personal feelings. But I cant be the only one who sees it... Am I? I know I am not explaining myself well. I'm sorry. I wish I could articulate this all more clearly. Gaming has been a big part of my life since I was 11 years old. I hate feeling alone in this.

This resonates very much with me. I miss the days when people didn't care about the latest and greatest min/max list or focusing on being the "best" and wanting recognized competitive rankings with world championships. It just feels so far from the mark of what the game is meant to be. And it makes me incredibly sad to see all this talk about "competitive" lists that have barely anything that the army would actually have in the background and, worse, try to justify it with excuses.

 

I fondly recall White Dwarf articles talking about how this was the wrong way to play, and how the "spirit of the game" mattered more than trying to win at all costs and max out on all the best units in the book while ignoring the staples.

 

You are absolutely right., At some point things shifted from wanting a varied collection that represented the army as described in the fluff, to trying to find the next game-winning uber combo that lets you curbstomp the opponent as fast as possible to show how "leet" you are. I'm reminded more and more about a quote from White Dwarf about the definition of the term "beardy" which has now become synonymous with "cheesy":

 

 

Someone who pushes the rules to th e limit or does not adhere to the background image of their army.

 

And from the Godfather of Warhammer Rick Priestly himself:

 

Someone who is more interested in playing the rules than playing the game.

 

That mindset now seems to be more of the norm in the game. You rarely see anyone talk about open/narrative because of the fear that it's unbalanced (and being unwilling to take the steps to make it less unbalanced by having a conversation). Anything that isn't matched play is largely ignored or dismissed as worthless; GW could release Chapter Approved with just the matched play section and it would make little to no difference.

 

This is veering off-topic, but it's something that's been on my mind for about 15 years now and I had to reply to say that no, you're not alone in your thoughts. The game has changed from us old timers; I started playing in 1996 and while I haven't played constantly since then, I've followed the game and the way it's changed over the years certainly doesn't feel like it's for the better, despite the increase in popularity.

[DuskRaider]

Death Guard are Plague Marines. You can make a list using the Death Guard codex and field no Plague Marines, but that is not a Death Guard army. You may not like this, it may irk you that someone has the gall to tell you that you're wrong, but it's true. A Death Guard army without Plague Marines isn't Death Guard.

[BlackTriton]

Death Guard are Plague Marines. You can make a list using the Death Guard codex and field no Plague Marines, but that is not a Death Guard army. You may not like this, it may irk you that someone has the gall to tell you that you're wrong, but it's true. A Death Guard army without Plague Marines isn't Death Guard.

While Thats demonstrably false, I will agree that the rules we have did a bad job at representing the narative of the army. Thats a problem with the codex, not the players.

 

I play in tournament and spend a lot of time thinking on how to optimise my army.

I also play a themed Dark Angel army in a casual league with a lot of new players.

 

Both ways to play are a lot of fun, but there are much more discution to be had with the competitive players. They are by nature a lot more involved in the game.

 

I guess what im saying is there isnt much difference between "competitive" player and "casual" as some like to beleive.

That distinction is mostly made up, its much more a gradiant that shift depending of context.

[DuskRaider]

But it's not false. You aren't playing Death Guard if your army lacks Death Guard.

[brother_b]

Very well said Welles, and my feeling just the same. There are many companies and groups that are making money or trying to push a tournament style gaming experience to make side money. Frontline gaming really comes to mind. Not bad guys but they have a vested interest in pushing tournaments.

 

The truth of the matter is that in my experience at least, the vast majority of players are gaming at clubs and with friends. People like to play matched points play, because it gives a setting we can all agree upon. That being said the games are usually competitive, but in my experience fun and the story is still a big part

 

Nobody plays open, nobody plays narrative. Every now and then your good buddies will get together and throw a scenario together but even then usually it is a matched point type of scenario.

 

Anyway I feel much the same as you do but now my kids are playing with me and I'm enjoying it all over again. Norming the game and rules to tournament play and players in my opinion was a very bad move.

[Prot]

Welles you don’t have to apologize to me or make public your personal issues.... it’s just a game. We all play it with how we see fit and that’s part of my point.

Part of what I was saying is 40k is exactly what you make of it. You find like minded individuals and enjoy your 40k however you like it. GW has given us a sand box, it’s a social contract with your opponent on how you choose to participate in that sandbox. Honestly, that’s been true for me for the last 20+ years of playing 40 k.

But I’m coming full circle here because playing narrative doesn’t care about ‘competitive ‘ so there are no questions about ‘ making Plaguemarines work’ ..everything works playing narrative. But if someone is asking me with intention of going to an ITC event, that’s a different scenario and I’m going to be honest with them.

The funny thing is a lot of power armoured armies in the forum have similar conversations. Can I compete with marines? Right now the scout is the most economical, and therefore most ‘competitive’ choice for loyalists.

So the problem here isn’t unique to Deathguard and I really, truly hope we can lay this particular conversation to rest after the CA!

[CastellanDeMolay]

 

I fondly recall White Dwarf articles talking about how this was the wrong way to play, and how the "spirit of the game" mattered more than trying to win at all costs and max out on all the best units in the book while ignoring the staples.

 

You are absolutely right., At some point things shifted from wanting a varied collection that represented the army as described in the fluff, to trying to find the next game-winning uber combo that lets you curbstomp the opponent as fast as possible to show how "leet" you are. I'm reminded more and more about a quote from White Dwarf about the definition of the term "beardy" which has now become synonymous with "cheesy":

Ah, "Points values, who needs 'em", by Jervis Johnson. 

I agree with everything Jervis wrote in that particular column, at one point I spent so much time theoryhammering and worrying about what works on the tabletop I completely lost sight of why I got into the hobby to begin with. I actually had a real sit-down and worked back through my early memories of 40k to figure out what I actually enjoyed about it to begin with, and it turns out that it was the narrative and the visuals that really hooked me initially, aswell as the creative element, rather than the maths and mental-masturbation exercises. 

 

I think the reason that balance discussions (that's really what I think net-listing and theoryhammer boil down to) dominate online, is because most people aren't developing compelling narratives, and the thing that changes most often is the rules, and therefore the metagame. It's a symptom of the game design, and the nature of a product line with regular releases, and I think it's just something people get stuck on, losing sight of the forest for the sake of each new tree that gets planted. 

 

I think it is important to have those balance discussions though, as matched play provides the simplest basis on which to agree a social contract with players whom you may not know at all well (tournaments are a perfect microcosm of the larger issue I'm describing) so it's the type of game that will have by far the largest impact on the enjoyment of the largest number of players. 

 

Mahatma Gandhi once said that sometimes you must create the thing of which you wish to be a part. I think if we want to have more discussions and content, and therefore more visibility of the elements of the hobby that we really enjoy, then its incumbent upon us to promote them alongside the balance discussions that will happen with or without our input. 

[DominikB]

For me matched play is just the easiest for pick up, what you get for 75PL is just too varied, I guess I also at least recently play mostly ITC...

 

Anyway, part of the issue I have with PM heavy lists is the lack of a suitable HQ for them. The LoC/Typhus are too slow really and lack a reroll bubble, and the lords cause me great pain when I see they’re only T4 and no DR...I don’t understand it i don’t really wanna run either. This means I feel compelled to run DPs which slowly gets old and repetitive for me. Hence I feel I just struggle to have a leader to lead my PMs and hence go for PW usually which have historically served me well as fearless objective holders too

[CastellanDeMolay]

For me matched play is just the easiest for pick up, what you get for 75PL is just too varied, I guess I also at least recently play mostly ITC...

 

Anyway, part of the issue I have with PM heavy lists is the lack of a suitable HQ for them. The LoC/Typhus are too slow really and lack a reroll bubble, and the lords cause me great pain when I see they’re only T4 and no DR...I don’t understand it i don’t really wanna run either. This means I feel compelled to run DPs which slowly gets old and repetitive for me. Hence I feel I just struggle to have a leader to lead my PMs and hence go for PW usually which have historically served me well as fearless objective holders too

A thousand times this. I can't imagine why the Chaos Lord and the Terminator variant didn't just get a slight points adjustment, -1" movement, T5 and DR. It's like we're borrowing an HQ from a chaos-undivided army, like they're some kind of substitute teacher or something. I think it really hurts the narrative of the army, as I can't really see Mortarion "outsourcing" command of his armies like that. It would be nice to get an errata, or something in CA. 

 

For now, I think a Malignant Plaguecaster is the best alternative. 

[DominikB]

 

 

For me matched play is just the easiest for pick up, what you get for 75PL is just too varied, I guess I also at least recently play mostly ITC...

 

Anyway, part of the issue I have with PM heavy lists is the lack of a suitable HQ for them. The LoC/Typhus are too slow really and lack a reroll bubble, and the lords cause me great pain when I see they’re only T4 and no DR...I don’t understand it i don’t really wanna run either. This means I feel compelled to run DPs which slowly gets old and repetitive for me. Hence I feel I just struggle to have a leader to lead my PMs and hence go for PW usually which have historically served me well as fearless objective holders too

A thousand times this. I can't imagine why the Chaos Lord and the Terminator variant didn't just get a slight points adjustment, -1" movement, T5 and DR. It's like we're borrowing an HQ from a chaos-undivided army, like they're some kind of substitute teacher or something. I think it really hurts the narrative of the army, as I can't really see Mortarion "outsourcing" command of his armies like that. It would be nice to get an errata, or something in CA.

 

For now, I think a Malignant Plaguecaster is the best alternative.

Yes I hope for CA...it would be a small thing that goes far...but we will see. Not sure I get the point of the normal sorcerer either bar being able to take an axe or sword over the staff.

 

I’ve been trying make a normal Chaos lord fluffy and I really struggle tbh it just feels wrong. I even tried something comical but no :/

[CMDR_Welles]

My biggest problem with the Lord, Sorcerer, Possessed, and even Helbrutes is they feel tacked on... Like they were just tossed into the codex to fill space.

 

I feel like they shouldnt have ever been in included to begin with. The LoC, Plaguecaster, Blight Hauler and Drone were all replacements in their requisite slots; including the bog standard options cheapens the new models/units justification for existing.

 

but that is just me...

[CastellanDeMolay]

My biggest problem with the Lord, Sorcerer, Possessed, and even Helbrutes is they feel tacked on... Like they were just tossed into the codex to fill space.

 

I feel like they shouldnt have ever been in included to begin with. The LoC, Plaguecaster, Blight Hauler and Drone were all replacements in their requisite slots; including the bog standard options cheapens the new models/units justification for existing.

 

but that is just me...

I would guess they were thrown in since they were common units in a number of pre-DG-Codex DG armies and GW wanted people to be able to continue using existing units that they've bought, but then other things like Bikers with the MoN which were popular a few years ago seem conspicuous by their absence. 

[Azekai]

My biggest problem with the Lord, Sorcerer, Possessed, and even Helbrutes is they feel tacked on...

Well, they were. The datasheets weren't altered much at all from the index. Should have just added a couple of points and given 5+ DR to all of them, that would have done wonders, but no.

[CMDR_Welles]

 

My biggest problem with the Lord, Sorcerer, Possessed, and even Helbrutes is they feel tacked on... Like they were just tossed into the codex to fill space.

 

I feel like they shouldnt have ever been in included to begin with. The LoC, Plaguecaster, Blight Hauler and Drone were all replacements in their requisite slots; including the bog standard options cheapens the new models/units justification for existing.

 

but that is just me...

I would guess they were thrown in since they were common units in a number of pre-DG-Codex DG armies and GW wanted people to be able to continue using existing units that they've bought, but then other things like Bikers with the MoN which were popular a few years ago seem conspicuous by their absence.

 

Not just bikers, Nurgle Havoks,Oblits, MaulerFiends, Heldrakes... All gone... Admittedly, none of those feel Death Guard to me, but they were overly popular...

 

I could see a reason for Nurgle Lords in Power Armor, to fill that slot which the LoC doesnt fit as it fills the Termie Lord role. The Sorcerer, is just hands down redundant with the existence of the Plaguecaster.

 

And it isnt like there isnt a Lord in Power Armor model available. The PM Champion clampack is a PERFECT fit for a PA Lord.

 

I just boggle sometimes at their decisions...

[DuskRaider]

Death Guard Havocs were their own unique unit in 3.5... mainly that they were Plague Marines with Assault Weapons (Plasma, Melta, Flamer). That a similar unit didn't make it over to the new book was a bit of a disappointment. 

 

Regarding the garbage that is our HQ selection, perhaps the new Chapter Approved with the DIY HQ portion will help us out a lot. Mind you, not for competitive play but... meh. It's the best chance we have at improving our predicament because it's obvious GW doesn't give a damn otherwise. 

[Charlo]

Aye, considering:

1. DG have a rule to move and fire Heavy weapons with no penalty
2. Heresy DG are known for massed Heavy Weapon Squads

I do with they'd given a havoc equivalent to the DG codex, maybe even instead of one of the Terminator variants or artillery tank.

 

But i'm straying OT. Theres a lot of good discussion here and I think unless you are playing top percentile, cut throat a lot of internet opinion is just that, opinion. Something that takes a long time to learn. While Plague Marines certainly have a ceiling of effectiveness (same as any unit), its down to the individual player to find that and not hear what it is on a forum.

 

I'm guilty of listening to the latter a little too much, and I'm sure everyone else has been at one point!

[Wayniac]

Rumor has it that Chapter Approved will make Chapter/Legion tactics apply army-wide instead of only to specific units.  If true I wonder if that would also apply to Death Guard; having Inexorable Advance on the Plagueburst Crawler, Predator, Land Raider, and Defiler would be pretty nice and immediately raise their stock (along with, if also rumored, the cost of Land Raiders go down).  However, it's dubious at best since the Crawler was abused before.

[Raktra]

I imagine the crawler will go up to be fair, given how widespread its use is.

[BlackTriton]

To be fair, the PBC is not overpointed.

Its a rare case of a tough unit being pointed correctly.

Its all that daemon synergie that push them over the edge.

I could see a point increase to plague spitter though.

 

If they do end up getting inexorable advance, maybe the entropy cannon will be worth another look?

 

I more curious about the blight hauler, poor thing is over pointed and under ruled at the moment!

[Wayniac]

Technically the blight hauler is about right for it's load out; compare to a Helbrute with the same weapons. It's just not good because you need 3 since 4+ to hit is terrible, and if you lose 1 you lose the benefit. That's where it becomes not worth the points.

[ashc]

blight haulers would be a bit better if the rule was something more along the lines that if you start with 3 or more on the battlefield then they start with the boosted BS - and no degradation upon destruction of haulers.

 

To keep relative to topic, perhaps making haulers better would make some plague marine heavy forces that little bit better?

[DominikB]

blight haulers would be a bit better if the rule was something more along the lines that if you start with 3 or more on the battlefield then they start with the boosted BS - and no degradation upon destruction of haulers.

 

To keep relative to topic, perhaps making haulers better would make some plague marine heavy forces that little bit better?

I do like the rule of starting with 3 gives you the 3+, or even if it was if within 7 of another etc...

 

I’d also like if buying more than one gave you the ability to split them into units like other vehicles.

[Charlo]

Rumor has it that Chapter Approved will make Chapter/Legion tactics apply army-wide instead of only to specific units.  If true I wonder if that would also apply to Death Guard; having Inexorable Advance on the Plagueburst Crawler, Predator, Land Raider, and Defiler would be pretty nice and immediately raise their stock (along with, if also rumored, the cost of Land Raiders go down).  However, it's dubious at best since the Crawler was abused before.

 

Oh myyyyyy. Big if true.

[Wayniac]

 

Rumor has it that Chapter Approved will make Chapter/Legion tactics apply army-wide instead of only to specific units.  If true I wonder if that would also apply to Death Guard; having Inexorable Advance on the Plagueburst Crawler, Predator, Land Raider, and Defiler would be pretty nice and immediately raise their stock (along with, if also rumored, the cost of Land Raiders go down).  However, it's dubious at best since the Crawler was abused before.

 

Oh myyyyyy. Big if true.

 

 

I'm pretty sure it will affect Legion tactics, but I don't think it would also affect Death Guard, sadly.

[BlackTriton]

In today Signal from the frontline, we are told that some mis-information spilled with the rumors and that we should not expect rule change in CA, only point change.

But, every unit that is not played competitively will see a point reduction, with only a few point increase across the board.

 

That boad well for the more fluffy death guard options. Our special character tend to pay a lot for their profile, making them hard to include, if things like the biologus would go down by 10-15 pt, along PM expected 2pt drop, that could be a game changer!

 

On another note, cultist aleged increase to 5pt makes the Poxwalker a much more interesting proposition to hold objective. Here is hoping they stay at 6ppm.