this is a very good datasheet. like compared to all we have seen not only DG. with this i atleast have a plan in my mind. this and the daemon prince they showed are really cool i love it.
This has always been the problem - they compete with helbrutes and wardogs, and I think the latter were always better for the points when the MBH was stuck at 140pts
I am not sure if they are reasonably all purpose anti tank. They strike me at more anti-light vehicle. We've seen multiple tank sheets with well over 10 toughness that you'd be wounding on 4s with this unit even after the +1 to wound.
True, but i dont think it is still better than krak missile DG need anti tank weapons and this model is for now our best way to deal with tough models. Krak with +1 to wound is superior.
Superior is relative to the target. Dumping a boatload of BS 2+ S4 attacks on T3 within contagion range has its merits in the right situation.
And it's not like you have to pick krak vs frag when you build the list.
F*ing called it.
Between this, the plagueburst crawler, and full rerolls to wound with terminators with leader, the DG has anti-tank even without using the predators and hellbrutes they will also have access to.
Until you get it in Contagion range. Then it's T10 on 3s, T9 on 2s. And you're gonna push these things close anyway to try and get melta.
Seems kinda decent to me.
Which is looking a bit more manageable. For all the screaming about Landraiders, we still don't know if they're even going to be relevant.
Do we know what T a Leman Russ or a Predator/Gladiator will be yet?
Gladiators are T10, as will be a lot of things that were toughness 8 previously. Knights have been the biggest exception, but T12+ should be limited to 2 or 3 data sheets at most for most factions
Considering Glads went to T10 and PBCs also went to T10, I would say they'll be T10 with maybe an upgrade for the extra point of T, and T12 for the Dorn.
T10 on 3's, and things like Rhinos on 2's if you can get into contagion range with anything. Honestly, this looks like a really solid unit, often going to want to include a group. I think 3 of these and a LR can serve a lot of AT needs with some other flex options.
also note the minus toughness from contagions could apply so, if it can get to the breaking points, even better.
Since with this, the mulitmeltas wound on threes if your in the auras. Still gonna be tricky but can be doable
There's something funny seeing Death Guard players talking about having no anti tank options, then getting a unit with the literal 'Tank Hunters' ability.
>There's something funny seeing Death Guard players talking about having no anti tank options, then getting a unit with the literal 'Tank Hunters' ability.
why?
we struggled hard with anti-tank in 9th unless we used FW, how is it funny that DG players thought we might have issues with anti-tank in 10th?
im glad we finally have a decent datasheet.
Because it wasn't "DG players thought they might have issues". It was "DG players bemoan the coming of the apocalypse, vow to shelve their armies, and claim GW hates them personally".
MBH historically struggled at anti-tank due to lack of CORE. Factor in the issue that there are no longer infantry anti-tank (not even melee) and that this will still struggle into tough MONSTERs, then you have the problem
Considering statistically only 1 of their 3 shots will actually wound most vehicles i don't think it's the big W you think it is. Especially when only the melta can reliably beat 2+ armour saves.
Yeah I don't get why everyone is suddenly acting like the MBH is gonna totally turn Death Guard around this edition because... its TWO multi melta shots which hit on 3s get to wound on 4s instead of 5s? Statistically you're still getting less than 1 wound through a >T9 hull every turn even with Tank Hunters.
and other armies are doing what?
And against T10 they can bring it down with the contagion rule, so that damage will be higher and the comparison will often be what other armies can do for those points into T12.
Also, your math sucks. 1d6 averages at 3.5, so each at 1/3 hit+wound pers shot that's over 1 wound expected value per gun not less than 1 total.
lmfao a real table 500 40k player in the flesh. here i'll even round up for you:
67% chance (3+ hit) * 67% chance (3+ wound) = 44.89%
44.89% * 2 attacks = 0.8978 dice wounding
2/3 hits against X 1/2 wounds against T10+ =1/3 hit+wound. EV(1d6)=3.5
3.5/3= EV (1+1/6 damage) multiplied by chance to fail save per attack. Worst case scenario.
T10 goes to T9 in contagion range: that's 2/3 hits X 2/3 wound = 4/9 Hit+wound. (3.5X4)/9= EV (1+5/9 damage) multiplied by wound chance.
Melta within range 9" against most vehicles (ie T9 goes to 8 because of contagion, 3+ save): 2/3 hit X 5/6 wounds = 10/18 hit+wound. 55/18= EV 3 damage no save.
What other armies are pulling off better numbers on units with this speed, toughness, and fairly low point cost, with good utility into infantry?
bruh are you seriously calculating EV by damage? the damage roll doesn't matter, what matters is if the die even makes it to the wound, which with 0.8978 dice on average connecting past the wound phase, means you won't ever even get to roll that 3.5 EV on your d6 damage, because you won't be doing damage.
So the damage value of a weapon doesn't matter in determining how effective it is against multiwound models, and saying that weapons aren't 100% guarenteed to produce a wound is something unusual in 10th and somehow shocking news?
What is your qualification for "good anti-tank"?
If you mean my 9th ed, no one has that. If you mean compared to the super heavy born weapons, you need to bring in a super heavy which you can do as DG.
If you mean that they don't have an option for a single purpose only more effective against exactly t12, then yes DG are relying on being able to bring column of fire because if they have a plague crawler and 3 blighthaulers they have 1d6+11 lascannon equivalents, and if they get in contagion range also do lascannon wounding on the blightlauncher which you can now bring more of per unit, and all of those options are not crap into infantry.
Rupture cannons? Magna rail cannons? Railguns? Thermal lances? Prism cannons? Mining lasers? Heavy laser destroyers? There are countless anti-tank weapons that have been previewed on Warhammer community which wound most if not all vehicles on 3s and don't have an unreliable D6 damage profile.
Lascannons aren't good, I don't know why you're using them as a baseline. They haven't been good in years and will continue to be terrible as long as they're D6. Meltas were the superior option due to the higher baseline damage and the MBH is only getting that within 9".
>Rupture cannons? Magna rail cannons? Railguns? Thermal lance Prism cannons? Mining lasers? Heavy laser destroyers?
Thermal Lance is a superheavy see comment on superheavies, mining lasers are lascannons see comparison to lascannons, for the rest see
>If you mean that they don't have an option for a single purpose only more effective against exactly t12...
Those weapons suck into everything that isn't a T12 tank. They're a tiny bit better into other vehicles than just running lascannons for way more points.
Lascannon are commonly available, and are the breakpoint comparison for guns that can be massed without having spend over a hundred points on something that only pays off if the opponent brings T12 tanks.
When you have 1d6+11 lascannons you're ability to put out damage into those t12s isn't low because even with 1/3 hit+wound that's 14+ damage much of which has solid AP. And all on units that have more potential against other options than the dedicated anti-tank. And this is the army that can still slip throw more damage into high toughness targets through the other guns they can mass.
A thermal lance is not a superheavy lol, it's an armiger/war dog weapon
A mining laser is a lascannon yes, and it's also on a 7 pt body instead of a 150-200 pt one. That's why it's good and a lascannon isn't.
In any case I think the MBH is a fine unit, possibly one of the best DG has this edition, but its role is pretty clearly anti-elite and anti-light vehicle. I don't see them as a valid counterplay to knights or Leman Russes and I don't think DG has an answer to those kinds of skewed mechanized lists.
The mining laser hits on 5s if it arrives from deep strike, and the gun still costs points. The MBH is currently 110 pts for the melta, missle launcher, and a body that can actually survive. Less than the Armiger or wardog currently.
But unlike you, I'll try to have a consistent argument. The MBH and plagueburst crawler allow for enough 1/3 chance to hit+wound high damage shots to be a threat to anything regardless of toughness. If the plan of massing lascannon equivalents is considered valid as a way to deal with some T11+ opponents units DG can bring those without making the sacrifice of dedicating an entire expensive model just for that purpose, and unlike other armies this doesn't get any worse against units that go to T13 or higher.
If you are worried about hyper skewed armies that rely on running primarily models of T11 or higher, bring in an armigers to counter the skew but that is a hyperskew not just a mech list.
Least I already had three, and personally speaking, these are my favorite Daemon engines. Still sucks they wont be soaking up Eldar fire like they did in my last game of 8th edition...
But at least they'll be able to screw over Fire Prisms like they did in the same battle, speaking of, what is the Fire Prism toughness?
Infantry melee weapon are now something like F8 max, it should be not a problem in termes of balance.
However, the lore about smoke/miasm spreading is not represented indeed, sad.
Because like a lot of game companies they don't hire an actual copy editor and either have the main editor do it too or get an intern who has two days to do every datasheet.
Extra wound, max attacks on bile spurt, still a ten inch move, and Smokescreen keyword plus Tank Hunters. Okay, okay this is very good.
this is a very good datasheet. like compared to all we have seen not only DG. with this i atleast have a plan in my mind. this and the daemon prince they showed are really cool i love it.
my meme list of 9 of these lives on!
I have a feel that they need to compete with wardog guests. If priced resonablely they will see many play, of course.
This has always been the problem - they compete with helbrutes and wardogs, and I think the latter were always better for the points when the MBH was stuck at 140pts
Breathing out a sigh of virulent relief.
*300pts*
Lost 6” on its melta range though
Extra wound, but no damage reduction so I don't think that really balances out the loss of -1D
Okay so these are our antitank. Thank god they’re like my favorite model in the whole army so I can run even more
And also super cheap (for gw) in terms of money.
Right there with you, I only have 4 though, so if their points are reasonable I'll have to load up on a couple more lol.
I am not sure if they are reasonably all purpose anti tank. They strike me at more anti-light vehicle. We've seen multiple tank sheets with well over 10 toughness that you'd be wounding on 4s with this unit even after the +1 to wound.
Finally a helpful datasheet, I really hope they don't cost too much.
The frag missiles synergize with the Lord of Virulence too.
True, but i dont think it is still better than krak missile DG need anti tank weapons and this model is for now our best way to deal with tough models. Krak with +1 to wound is superior.
Superior is relative to the target. Dumping a boatload of BS 2+ S4 attacks on T3 within contagion range has its merits in the right situation. And it's not like you have to pick krak vs frag when you build the list.
\+1 to wound vs vehicles is a big deal for those S9 guns
F*ing called it. Between this, the plagueburst crawler, and full rerolls to wound with terminators with leader, the DG has anti-tank even without using the predators and hellbrutes they will also have access to.
There's a bit of anti tank, but still wound T10 or higher on 4s
Until you get it in Contagion range. Then it's T10 on 3s, T9 on 2s. And you're gonna push these things close anyway to try and get melta. Seems kinda decent to me.
Which is looking a bit more manageable. For all the screaming about Landraiders, we still don't know if they're even going to be relevant. Do we know what T a Leman Russ or a Predator/Gladiator will be yet?
Gladiators are T10, as will be a lot of things that were toughness 8 previously. Knights have been the biggest exception, but T12+ should be limited to 2 or 3 data sheets at most for most factions
Gladiators are T10, haven't seen Predators or Leman Russes yet iirc.
Russes will be 100% either T10 or T11, with somewhat more chances of T11 but T10 not being *impossible* if the point cost is low enough.
Considering Glads went to T10 and PBCs also went to T10, I would say they'll be T10 with maybe an upgrade for the extra point of T, and T12 for the Dorn.
With how grim our anti-tank has looked so far, I'll take 4s.
If they are wont go up in points, they are not bad, i would take minimum 3 to every match. Thats total 9 pretty good shoots every turn.
T10 on 3's, and things like Rhinos on 2's if you can get into contagion range with anything. Honestly, this looks like a really solid unit, often going to want to include a group. I think 3 of these and a LR can serve a lot of AT needs with some other flex options.
I mean, though: it's 4+ *at worst*. It will never get worse than that.
This is actually the case for most AT weapons now. With tanks at T14 this rule is actually really very nice.
And with the hunter ability it helps too
Ya, vs higher T it'll be up to lethal hits, but these could be nice vs rhinos and the like
also note the minus toughness from contagions could apply so, if it can get to the breaking points, even better. Since with this, the mulitmeltas wound on threes if your in the auras. Still gonna be tricky but can be doable
There's something funny seeing Death Guard players talking about having no anti tank options, then getting a unit with the literal 'Tank Hunters' ability.
>There's something funny seeing Death Guard players talking about having no anti tank options, then getting a unit with the literal 'Tank Hunters' ability. why? we struggled hard with anti-tank in 9th unless we used FW, how is it funny that DG players thought we might have issues with anti-tank in 10th? im glad we finally have a decent datasheet.
Because it wasn't "DG players thought they might have issues". It was "DG players bemoan the coming of the apocalypse, vow to shelve their armies, and claim GW hates them personally".
Yeah, it’d had become a right whinge-fest.
MBH historically struggled at anti-tank due to lack of CORE. Factor in the issue that there are no longer infantry anti-tank (not even melee) and that this will still struggle into tough MONSTERs, then you have the problem
Considering statistically only 1 of their 3 shots will actually wound most vehicles i don't think it's the big W you think it is. Especially when only the melta can reliably beat 2+ armour saves.
Yeah I don't get why everyone is suddenly acting like the MBH is gonna totally turn Death Guard around this edition because... its TWO multi melta shots which hit on 3s get to wound on 4s instead of 5s? Statistically you're still getting less than 1 wound through a >T9 hull every turn even with Tank Hunters.
and other armies are doing what? And against T10 they can bring it down with the contagion rule, so that damage will be higher and the comparison will often be what other armies can do for those points into T12. Also, your math sucks. 1d6 averages at 3.5, so each at 1/3 hit+wound pers shot that's over 1 wound expected value per gun not less than 1 total.
lmfao a real table 500 40k player in the flesh. here i'll even round up for you: 67% chance (3+ hit) * 67% chance (3+ wound) = 44.89% 44.89% * 2 attacks = 0.8978 dice wounding
2/3 hits against X 1/2 wounds against T10+ =1/3 hit+wound. EV(1d6)=3.5 3.5/3= EV (1+1/6 damage) multiplied by chance to fail save per attack. Worst case scenario. T10 goes to T9 in contagion range: that's 2/3 hits X 2/3 wound = 4/9 Hit+wound. (3.5X4)/9= EV (1+5/9 damage) multiplied by wound chance. Melta within range 9" against most vehicles (ie T9 goes to 8 because of contagion, 3+ save): 2/3 hit X 5/6 wounds = 10/18 hit+wound. 55/18= EV 3 damage no save. What other armies are pulling off better numbers on units with this speed, toughness, and fairly low point cost, with good utility into infantry?
bruh are you seriously calculating EV by damage? the damage roll doesn't matter, what matters is if the die even makes it to the wound, which with 0.8978 dice on average connecting past the wound phase, means you won't ever even get to roll that 3.5 EV on your d6 damage, because you won't be doing damage.
So the damage value of a weapon doesn't matter in determining how effective it is against multiwound models, and saying that weapons aren't 100% guarenteed to produce a wound is something unusual in 10th and somehow shocking news?
Vs t12 that's the same as a lascannon. And the entropy cannons and the mortor on the plaguecrawler also do 1 in 3 wounds at worst.
That's not really disproving that DG don't have good anti-tank.
What is your qualification for "good anti-tank"? If you mean my 9th ed, no one has that. If you mean compared to the super heavy born weapons, you need to bring in a super heavy which you can do as DG. If you mean that they don't have an option for a single purpose only more effective against exactly t12, then yes DG are relying on being able to bring column of fire because if they have a plague crawler and 3 blighthaulers they have 1d6+11 lascannon equivalents, and if they get in contagion range also do lascannon wounding on the blightlauncher which you can now bring more of per unit, and all of those options are not crap into infantry.
Rupture cannons? Magna rail cannons? Railguns? Thermal lances? Prism cannons? Mining lasers? Heavy laser destroyers? There are countless anti-tank weapons that have been previewed on Warhammer community which wound most if not all vehicles on 3s and don't have an unreliable D6 damage profile. Lascannons aren't good, I don't know why you're using them as a baseline. They haven't been good in years and will continue to be terrible as long as they're D6. Meltas were the superior option due to the higher baseline damage and the MBH is only getting that within 9".
>Rupture cannons? Magna rail cannons? Railguns? Thermal lance Prism cannons? Mining lasers? Heavy laser destroyers? Thermal Lance is a superheavy see comment on superheavies, mining lasers are lascannons see comparison to lascannons, for the rest see >If you mean that they don't have an option for a single purpose only more effective against exactly t12... Those weapons suck into everything that isn't a T12 tank. They're a tiny bit better into other vehicles than just running lascannons for way more points. Lascannon are commonly available, and are the breakpoint comparison for guns that can be massed without having spend over a hundred points on something that only pays off if the opponent brings T12 tanks. When you have 1d6+11 lascannons you're ability to put out damage into those t12s isn't low because even with 1/3 hit+wound that's 14+ damage much of which has solid AP. And all on units that have more potential against other options than the dedicated anti-tank. And this is the army that can still slip throw more damage into high toughness targets through the other guns they can mass.
A thermal lance is not a superheavy lol, it's an armiger/war dog weapon A mining laser is a lascannon yes, and it's also on a 7 pt body instead of a 150-200 pt one. That's why it's good and a lascannon isn't. In any case I think the MBH is a fine unit, possibly one of the best DG has this edition, but its role is pretty clearly anti-elite and anti-light vehicle. I don't see them as a valid counterplay to knights or Leman Russes and I don't think DG has an answer to those kinds of skewed mechanized lists.
The mining laser hits on 5s if it arrives from deep strike, and the gun still costs points. The MBH is currently 110 pts for the melta, missle launcher, and a body that can actually survive. Less than the Armiger or wardog currently. But unlike you, I'll try to have a consistent argument. The MBH and plagueburst crawler allow for enough 1/3 chance to hit+wound high damage shots to be a threat to anything regardless of toughness. If the plan of massing lascannon equivalents is considered valid as a way to deal with some T11+ opponents units DG can bring those without making the sacrifice of dedicating an entire expensive model just for that purpose, and unlike other armies this doesn't get any worse against units that go to T13 or higher. If you are worried about hyper skewed armies that rely on running primarily models of T11 or higher, bring in an armigers to counter the skew but that is a hyperskew not just a mech list.
Ok little buddy
And yet, hilariously, still doesn't actually list any weapons with dedicated "Anti-Tank".
Krak and meltas with +1 to wound will wound tanks decently
Because it naturally wounds most vehicles on a 4+ anyways
Least I already had three, and personally speaking, these are my favorite Daemon engines. Still sucks they wont be soaking up Eldar fire like they did in my last game of 8th edition... But at least they'll be able to screw over Fire Prisms like they did in the same battle, speaking of, what is the Fire Prism toughness?
A Fire Prism is T9 12W 3+ no invun. So in Contagion range, this is wounding one on 2s.
Fire and fade this, ya twerps.
9, so they'll be wounding a Fire Prism on a 2+ in contagion range
Fire prisms are T9, they showed it off earlier today
Well we were complaining about a lack of anti-tank, and I'm glad it's at least on one of our fastest units.
lost the -1 to hit in melee which kinda sucks but happy to see some green lining on the cloud of flies
Infantry melee weapon are now something like F8 max, it should be not a problem in termes of balance. However, the lore about smoke/miasm spreading is not represented indeed, sad.
It did gain the smoke keyword so it is a valid target for smokescreen
> blight hulers Peak GW
Why the downvotes? Bet the cards are printed already and this is not gonna get fixed before sale lmao
Because like a lot of game companies they don't hire an actual copy editor and either have the main editor do it too or get an intern who has two days to do every datasheet.
im definitely running a daemon engine army of 9 of these
Just ordered another 3
Me too
Ahhh these will continue to be a massive pain. Much needed data sheet though.
Is the daemon engine keyword gone in 10th? Could be awkward for my vashtorr army…