Death guard feel no pain changed (drukhari going to be similar?)

So Death guard are all 1 reduction in damage taken now to a minimum of 1 with feel no pain/resilience gone
Given how coven work and all dice rolls I'm expecting a similar mechanic for grotesques and Talos / Cronos etc
It's done to make games faster with less dice rolling
What do you all think?

I absolutely expect the same for Coven units. We’ve basically already got it with the custom Coven trait from our PA which is a pretty good indicator we’ll get it in some form in the codex. The real question is if we’ll be allowed to take it with a PoF-like ability as well as nobody really uses it now because PoF and DT are so much better.

I sincerely doubt it.

you have to think about the overall reason for the change. It was a bit of a "give" for when the second wound kicks in for deathguard marines. with 2 wounds, the 5+ feel no pain was too powerful.

We only have a 6+ and only have 1 wound on most of our units that have power from pain. So the impact on our army would be completely different than on the death guard.

I think it was probably due to plague marines getting 2 wounds apiece, which would make rolling FNP saves for D2 weapons a massive pain.

Then again, Iron Hands still have their 6+ FNP so who knows.

I could only see it being a rule for Coven units. In light of the newly announced DG increasing aura of -1 Toughness I wouldn’t be surprised at all if Coven got this.

We already have a topic about this, https://www.thedarkcity.net/t19104-how-might-drukhari-resilience-change

I gladly lose the entire PfP table for a more synergistic army wide ability. Defensive or not.

Don't get me wrong, PfP bonuses are nice to have, but they are all over the place and, in General, pretty meh. Plus some of them just don't work with some units.

Denegaar wrote:

I gladly lose the entire PfP table for a more synergistic army wide ability. Defensive or not.

Don't get me wrong, PfP bonuses are nice to have, but they are all over the place and, in General, pretty meh. Plus some of them just don't work with some units.

Yeah, I'm really not a fan of the current FNP rules.

6+++ is obviously useful.

reroll charges is sometimes useful, though almost never for Kabal units or Scourges. Same goes for hitting on 2s in melee, which is also useless for all characters bar the Glaive Succubus.

I don't remember the final abilities being relevant in any game I've ever played.


I think the weirdest thing is that they split our book into 3, so you'd think it would be the perfect opportunity to give different subfactions different PfP tables. Instead, Kabal is still stuck with a melee-based PfP table.

It also seems a shame because Covens had a really great PfP table in 7th, which really rewarded them if they could survive into the late game (stuff like It Will Not Die, Zealot, and finally Eternal Warrior).

The 8th edition one, meanwhile, seems almost an acknowledgement of the fact that games were often decided by turn 3, as everything after that wasn't even worth remembering.

I have played at least a few games where Turn 4 PfP kept crucial units on objectives, and won me the game.

Current PfP table is fine, its one of the least things that needs to be looked at for our codex IMO. Turn 2 rr advance and charges is just amazing, i use this every game, the +1WS is also really nice, and OFC 6+++ is amazing for free.

I like the idea of PfP, don't get me wrong. But I would like to see the bonuses changed to something that has someting to do with our enemies pain and usable for all our units.

Honestly what I see the problem is now, its a 5 turn game and not a 6 turn maybe a 7th game now, most of the games were 6 turn games, and 1/2 were 7 turn games, which means the PfP chart doesn't last as long now.

If it were to be change I would want our current 5 rolled into turn 4 and have 4 and 5 together turn 4.

Let's improve the table then, while we wait.

Turn 1: 6+++
Turn 2: Reroll charge and advance
Turn 3: Increase AP by 1 to all Poison Weapons
Turn 4: Both allies and enemies roll 2 dice for Morale, you always choose the dice.
Turn 5: All units gain Objective Secured, if already have the rule, you always win when determining who controls the objective.

I need some leaks already... XD

krayd wrote:

I have played at least a few games where Turn 4 PfP kept crucial units on objectives, and won me the game.

So you actually rolled the morale checks every time for Fearless units?

Soulless Samurai wrote:

krayd wrote:

I have played at least a few games where Turn 4 PfP kept crucial units on objectives, and won me the game.

So you actually rolled the morale checks every time for Fearless units?

What ridiculous leap of logic brought you to that conclusion?

krayd wrote:

Soulless Samurai wrote:

krayd wrote:

I have played at least a few games where Turn 4 PfP kept crucial units on objectives, and won me the game.

So you actually rolled the morale checks every time for Fearless units?

What ridiculous leap of logic brought you to that conclusion?

Because unless you rolled a morale test each time just to see what would have happened, I fail to see how you could know for certain that being Fearless kept you on an objective.

Or am I failing to pay appropriate due to your powers of clairvoyance?

I really hope the 6+++ goes away.
Not that it isn't useful, but because it is bad game design.

The design behind Drukhari is that we are a fragile army that compensates with good offensive power (through speed/quickness and damage)

When Power From Pain was introduced, in our 5ed codex, the Feel No Pain effect (or FNP for short, nowadays usually reffered to as ”x+++”) it made sense. Since the mechanic back then was every unit started at zero, and then leveled up their personal PFP-benefits by destroying an enemy unit. So gaining a higher survivability was a way to reward aggressive play, and helped to make sure the individual units that started ranking up pain-points/growing stronger had a chance to stay around for longer.
(The added survivability also had a place, since the rule was written with the assumption/understanding that the army was deadly enough, through the huge buffs that codex brought on other fronts, that more survivability would be the most appreciated/sought after reward. Which was true in the context of the game at that point. Though the lack of any greater rework of our rules and equipment since then has really left us behind in damage output, relative to most other armies. Something it sounds like they are adressing in the upcoming codex! So let's hold our thumbs for that=) )

When the 7ed codex came around it changed PFP from individual score-keeping to an armywide buff that progressed turn by turn (the way we have it now). But they kept the same benefits. And in the 8th codex they changed up the benefits a bit, but they still kept FNP as the first one, and let it activate at round 1.

Which means that we are now an army that is designed/supposed to be fragile and hard hitting, but one of our most iconic rules starts of the game by trying to help ”fix” our fragility (that is to say; it goes against the original design/concept of the army) when it should embrace it and lean more into helping us with the offensive part.

My hope is that the upcoming codex has seen some thorough rework and reevaluation. To bring us more in line with the concept we originally embodied, in the updated context of the current edition and its codexes. And I can't see a place for +++-saves (for us) there.

Anyway! Hoping for the best ^_^
Sorry for the tall post!

Soulless Samurai wrote:

krayd wrote:

Soulless Samurai wrote:

krayd wrote:

I have played at least a few games where Turn 4 PfP kept crucial units on objectives, and won me the game.

So you actually rolled the morale checks every time for Fearless units?

What ridiculous leap of logic brought you to that conclusion?

Because unless you rolled a morale test each time just to see what would have happened, I fail to see how you could know for certain that being Fearless kept you on an objective.

Or am I failing to pay appropriate due to your powers of clairvoyance?

Alright, being fearless saved me from having to make morale checks, which *may* have won me the game... which is far better than needing to make the check and risk losing the game as a result. There. Better?

ursvamp wrote:

I really hope the 6+++ goes away.
Not that it isn't useful, but because it is bad game design.

The design behind Drukhari is that we are a fragile army that compensates with good offensive power (through speed/quickness and damage)

Completely disagree, it shows we love pain and torture, also we have drugs all over to mass the pain. Its perfect for us fluff wise.

amishprn86 wrote:

Completely disagree, it shows we love pain and torture, also we have drugs all over to mass the pain. Its perfect for us fluff wise.

Totally get your point, and I agree that it fits super well story-wise!

krayd wrote:

Soulless Samurai wrote:

krayd wrote:

Soulless Samurai wrote:

krayd wrote:

I have played at least a few games where Turn 4 PfP kept crucial units on objectives, and won me the game.

So you actually rolled the morale checks every time for Fearless units?

What ridiculous leap of logic brought you to that conclusion?

Because unless you rolled a morale test each time just to see what would have happened, I fail to see how you could know for certain that being Fearless kept you on an objective.

Or am I failing to pay appropriate due to your powers of clairvoyance?

Alright, being fearless saved me from having to make morale checks, which *may* have won me the game... which is far better than needing to make the check and risk losing the game as a result. There. Better?

Fair enough. xD

Fearless was better last edition when you could auto-fail. No rolls needed.
Now? for just 2 turns of the game?
meh.

My heart sinks a bit every time I see a GW rules preview where they note that an army has immunity to attrition modifiers - because I'm 99% certain that the ability to modify attrition rolls is what our Fear-based wargear is probably going to get in the new codex.

Skulnbonz wrote:

Fearless was better last edition when you could auto-fail. No rolls needed.
Now? for just 2 turns of the game?
meh.

Yeah, if it was from turn 1 it might be something you could occasionally build around, maybe make use of Warriors being max 20, for example. But by turn 4 I'd expect most such squads to have been substantially whittled already.

Honestly, especially by turn 4, when my opponent shoots at one of my units, i don't need Fearless I need a spatula to clean up their remains.

krayd wrote:

My heart sinks a bit every time I see a GW rules preview where they note that an army has immunity to attrition modifiers - because I'm 99% certain that the ability to modify attrition rolls is what our Fear-based wargear is probably going to get in the new codex.

Ah, that takes me back. Remember how awsome the Fear ability was in 7th edition, when 90% of factions either rerolled Morale tests on Ld9/10 or else were just outright immune?

Soulless Samurai wrote:

krayd wrote:

My heart sinks a bit every time I see a GW rules preview where they note that an army has immunity to attrition modifiers - because I'm 99% certain that the ability to modify attrition rolls is what our Fear-based wargear is probably going to get in the new codex.

Ah, that takes me back. Remember how awsome the Fear ability was in 7th edition, when 90% of factions either rerolled Morale tests on Ld9/10 or else were just outright immune?

Yeah. PGLs *looked* awesome on paper.. until you realized how many units were immune to their effects.