No super doctrine, no unique litany, no unique stratagems, no new relics or traits, a stratagem that will be errata'd out (the doctrine rewind), the old version of Combat Doctrines (so that needs to be errata'd too).

This could have literally been a few lines in the errata.

I didn't realise it was out yet.

I doubt anyone was expecting anything different, honestly.

Wayniac wrote:
I doubt anyone was expecting anything different, honestly.

I was hoping for more. Maybe expecting somewhere in between, but from the preview, sounds like the faction is pretty gimped.

pm713 wrote:
I didn't realise it was out yet.

Nor did I. Looks like it's not actually out until the 2nd of May according to Warhammer Community and all we have at the moment is a preview, which is your standard limited-info preview by the looks of things. Unless BCB has seen the full rules release somewhere else I think it's a bit early to tell how extensive the changes will be for DW. The indications from the article all seem to point to a fairly light-touch update though.

my biggest dissappointment is with social distancing in place it's going to be really hard to get these rules if you don't like digital

Slipspace wrote:

pm713 wrote:
I didn't realise it was out yet.

Nor did I. Looks like it's not actually out until the 2nd of May according to Warhammer Community and all we have at the moment is a preview, which is your standard limited-info preview by the looks of things. Unless BCB has seen the full rules release somewhere else I think it's a bit early to tell how extensive the changes will be for DW. The indications from the article all seem to point to a fairly light-touch update though.

Look in the thread in News and Updates. We have the full update.

Slipspace wrote:

pm713 wrote:
I didn't realise it was out yet.

Nor did I. Looks like it's not actually out until the 2nd of May according to Warhammer Community and all we have at the moment is a preview, which is your standard limited-info preview by the looks of things. Unless BCB has seen the full rules release somewhere else I think it's a bit early to tell how extensive the changes will be for DW. The indications from the article all seem to point to a fairly light-touch update though.

*cough*

 Galas wrote:
Everybody says they want viable snipers but really no one wants viable snipers because what viable snipers means for most people out there are snipers that are popping out 1-2 characters per turn. And thats just toxic.


In other news, the deathwatch rules:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

From Warhamer Community:

* The release date is Saturday the 2nd of May – you’ll find it on shelves of any open stockists from this date, or soon after once they re-open.

* The digital edition will be also available to download on the 2nd of May.

* Many subscribers will still get their copies at the usual time – around the middle of April – though they will probably arrive nearer to the end of April in some places, so don’t worry too much if it doesn’t show up on time.

So unless this has changed there may be a few subscription copies out there at this time.

Who else is looking forward to everyone taking a Patrol of Deathwatch to rewind doctrines again for their Iron Hands until GW errata their errata in 6 months?

Well, there go any hopes I had of the Harlequin update being worth a damn.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Who else is looking forward to everyone taking a Patrol of Deathwatch to rewind doctrines again for their Iron Hands until GW errata their errata in 6 months?

Given Deathwatch break superdoctrines, I dont know that a second turn of additional Heavy weapon AP is worth it.

 vipoid wrote:
Well, there go any hopes I had of the Harlequin update being worth a damn.

I really have to ask what did you expect? They're in a white dwarf they aren't going to be high quality.

Although seeing how spectacularly bad DW is I have to wonder why they couldn't have just been slotted into another Marine PA.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
No super doctrine, no unique litany, no unique stratagems, no new relics or traits, a stratagem that will be errata'd out (the doctrine rewind), the old version of Combat Doctrines (so that needs to be errata'd too).

This could have literally been a few lines in the errata.

No superdoctrine? They still got normal doctrines, which is more than any of the non-Marine factions got in PA.

No unique litany? See above. Also Blood Angels didn't get one. Dark Angels neither.

No unique stratagems? Again Drukhari and Ynnari didn't get any stratagem (not just not any unique ... none at all).

No new relics or traits? Again, just like Craftworlds, Drukhari, etc..

Stuff that needs to be errata'd? Same for Space Wolves (notwithstanding errata for pretty much any PA).


I don't think the Deathwatch PA-loot is bad. Is it just plain Grey Knight-levels amazing? No, probably not. But it's not even in the bottom 10 worst PA-treatments thus far.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
No super doctrine, no unique litany, no unique stratagems, no new relics or traits, a stratagem that will be errata'd out (the doctrine rewind), the old version of Combat Doctrines (so that needs to be errata'd too).

This could have literally been a few lines in the errata.

No superdoctrine? They still got normal doctrines, which is more than any of the non-Marine factions got in PA.

No unique litany? See above. Also Blood Angels didn't get one. Dark Angels neither.

No unique stratagems? Again Drukhari and Ynnari didn't get any stratagem (not just not any unique ... none at all).

No new relics or traits? Again, just like Craftworlds, Drukhari, etc..

Stuff that needs to be errata'd? Same for Space Wolves (notwithstanding errata for pretty much any PA).


I don't think the Deathwatch PA-loot is bad. Is it just plain Grey Knight-levels amazing? No, probably not. But it's not even in the bottom 10 worst PA-treatments thus far.

This is complete bs.

Sterling191 wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
No super doctrine, no unique litany, no unique stratagems, no new relics or traits, a stratagem that will be errata'd out (the doctrine rewind), the old version of Combat Doctrines (so that needs to be errata'd too).

This could have literally been a few lines in the errata.

No superdoctrine? They still got normal doctrines, which is more than any of the non-Marine factions got in PA.

No unique litany? See above. Also Blood Angels didn't get one. Dark Angels neither.

No unique stratagems? Again Drukhari and Ynnari didn't get any stratagem (not just not any unique ... none at all).

No new relics or traits? Again, just like Craftworlds, Drukhari, etc..

Stuff that needs to be errata'd? Same for Space Wolves (notwithstanding errata for pretty much any PA).


I don't think the Deathwatch PA-loot is bad. Is it just plain Grey Knight-levels amazing? No, probably not. But it's not even in the bottom 10 worst PA-treatments thus far.

This is complete bs.

Is it?

Than show me those Psychic Awakening Ynnari stratagems, Drukhari WL traits, GSC doctrines, etc..

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Than show me those Psychic Awakening Ynnari stratagems, Drukhari WL traits, GSC doctrines, etc..

Ive got a better idea. Stop trying to gak on Deathwatch players.

Sunny Side Up wrote:


No unique litany? See above. Also Blood Angels didn't get one. Dark Angels neither.t.

Actually the blood angels and dark angels did get a unique Litany.

the blood angels is the "Invocation of destruction" and the dark angels is "Stotic persecution"

An odd number of players are also sustained purely by bitterness as well. It's a funny market.

The push to mono armies in general has me pretty out on the game as a whole. The difference between owning 2000 points of a single codex and 1000 or so of 2-3 is enough that everything just feels spammy and bland.

DW as a concept is crippled by the move. Getting rules that punish us for fitting in with other factions means we have to compete as a mono faction and just... don't. 2000 points of pure DW is just too limited to function. A single Battalion has been fine for all of 8th, but you rapidly run out of things to take.

I'm definitely disappointed in the direction the game's taken since the Space Marine codex as a whole.

You can still soup. You just don't get the goodies.

Martel732 wrote:
You can still soup. You just don't get the goodies.

Which makes you egregiously subpar, particularly as a power armor option.

The thread does actually have a topic.

Stick to it.

Further off topic posts will be treated as spam.

....deleted

Losing combat doctrines affects DW the least, though Doctrines are mainly there to kill other marines ever deader in my experience so far.

I'm disappointed that it's not as much as it could have been, but I'm also glad to have gotten access to the doctrines, litanies, and stratagems. I guess my real level of satisfaction will be determined by what's FAQ'd out or left in. Will the old version of combat doctrines and the stratagems stand for DW, or will they be changed? Will SIA stack and be usable with Bolter Discipline?

I enjoy playing mono dw and have been playing them without this update. This update improves things.

Things I'm looking forward to exploring: I might start using some of my Intercessor Bolt Rifle squads again for the Rapid Fire stratagem during the tactical doctrine. I like the idea of beaconing a chaplain over to a teleporting squad to get off a charge in the assault doctrine. Duty Eternal might help keep my dreadnoughts alive longer. Is Big Guns Never Tire enough to make the Corvus more viable?

DW is already better than every other SM faction. Now they get combat doctrines and additional SM stratagems.

They even get duty eternal in its old glory, where damage is halved, instead of -1. And they get adaptive strategy, a stratagem no other SM faction has.

 p5freak wrote:
DW is already better than every other SM faction. Now they get combat doctrines and additional SM stratagems.

They even get duty eternal in its old glory, where damage is halved, instead of -1. And they get adaptive strategy, a stratagem no other SM faction has.

Which will be quickly errata'd once GW get around to it. It'll be a fun few weeks until they do, however.

I mean, compared to other space marine codexes this kinda does suck ass. But compared to other non-marines, it's definitely more stuff that Im going to use with my deathwatch than with my drukhari, Eldar or GSC. I would say that probably my orks and thousand sons got better deals in terms of usability, mostly because it is PAAAAAINFULLY obvious that this is a lazy copy-paste update and there are a number of huge anti-synergies with how deathwatch armies are typically structured.

And, we do have an answer as to how bolter discipline interacts with SIA. The rules text for SIA says:

"When this unit fires any ranged weapons from the following list, you can choose for it to fire special ammunition. If you do so, the Bolter Discipline ability does not apply when resolving their shots, but you instead choose one kind of ammunition from the table to the right and apply the corresponding modifier."

It doesn't. That's cut and dry. People saying "it's unclear" now for some reason are just trying to snag new bonuses.

So, what are the big problems with the release?

1) Deathwatch very commonly includes units that aren't entirely made up of one unit keyword, which many of the new strats require. A unit with 5 Terminators and 5 Veterans cannot use the Veterans Fury stratagem, nor can a combat-squadded unit of 3 vanvets and 2 bikers use Hammer of Wrath. The exception is the Intercessor stratagems, because they're keyed to the unit entry name of "Deathwatch Intercessors" A unit of 5 DW intercessors, 2 hellblasters, 1 inceptor and 1 aggressor can still use Rapid Fire if they want to. The only drawback is that for each add-on member you stick into a fortis kill team, you lower the number of Intercessors you'll have in that team.

2) SIA explicitly does not interact with bolter discipline. This means that another new stratagem is weakened to the point where DW are unlikely to make use of it.

3) SIA also does not play nice with Combat Doctrines. Two of the SIA types are AP improvements, which won't stack with CDs, Wound on 2s ammo is always an option, but I've very commonly run into situations where you can either get an extra wound shift from AP-2 ammo or you can get into rapid fire range with AP-1+6" range, which is important because as mentioned deathwatch effectively don't get Bolter Discipline. This would lead most DW armies to stick to Devastator, but I think it's pretty obvious that this is a pre-FAQ document that will just get FAQed.

Now, what are the things that are pretty solid for the DW?

1) Litanies. This is the big one in my eyes, litanies can be very handy for DW. In my experience DW tend toward huge squads with tons of crazy crap in them, and the single-target litanies can be very handy even if it is just the base 6 and DW didn't get special snowflake litanies. Another source of +1 to wound allowing for easier access to that wound on 2s reroll 1s goodness, a charge boost that can synergize quite nicely with the "teleport a squad to me" relic, there's a lot more reason to consider chaplains now and DW really didn't have a go-to second HQ beyond the one Smashcap/watchmaster that you'd get for the reroll to hit bubble. I generally took either a libby, but found myself super frustrated by the hugely lackluster base marine book powers, or a chaplain, and he never did much. Good to have a salient reason to feel good about my 2nd HQ.

2) Vet Intercessor powers, particularly ABR one. With no bolter discipline and fortis kill teams having a tighter engagement range since you want to get the add-on units in rane I see tons of DW players leaning heavily on ABRs, and the value of this stratagem jumps up hugely when you're talking about strength: wound on 2s possibly rerolling 1s instead of strength 4.

3) Dreadnought strats. Even with the probable nerf to duty eternal coming deathwatch have to lean heavily on dreads for antitank. You're not gonna be taking a land raider or its flying and somehow worse cousin the deathwatch flyer...

4) transhuman phys. Deathwatch kill teams are often the only non-character targets I present to my opponent, they slice, they dice, they 2+, they 3++. And now I can cut down damage from weapons they'd get wounded on 2s and 3s by even more? Nice. I'll personally be getting a lot of mileage out of this, because my army is typically no more than 4-5 units plus characters. That's good that there's at least one good defensive stratagem we can use, because deathwatch are extremely spare in terms of good stratagem access.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 p5freak wrote:
DW is already better than every other SM faction. Now they get combat doctrines and additional SM stratagems.

They even get duty eternal in its old glory, where damage is halved, instead of -1. And they get adaptive strategy, a stratagem no other SM faction has.

I mean objectively that's just wrong. DW has basically never been the highest winrate imperial faction. everyone had a little conniption when their codex dropped thinking about SB/SS vet squads in the midst of the whole castellan soup meta, but they pulled like a 45% winrate.

yeah got my Wd this morning....

Its definately very very weak in terms of content.

There is no lore - considering that they crammed yet more DA lore into a recent White Dwarf even though they were also taking up most of a so called campign book this or even the Tome Celstial in the same book it is just poor
The rules are the minimum possible for a Marine faction, so better than some Xenos but still surprised no relic etc....

However they should have, like Wolves and Angels got a SM suplement with all the Marine sub factions rather than just yet again reprinting stuff - that yet again needs its own unique FAQ to fix the same old issues.

But hey - at least you can also now use a Watch Master in Blackstone.

I guess you have to say Ynnari have gotten the worst of all PA updates, in that it was almost a straight reprint of their WD. They did get some hefty point drops however, to take the edge off that.

Drukhari come next in the terribad ranking, but you do have to bear in mind that they were utterly bossing the meta at the time that their PA rules were being written. GW's inherent lag problem with their insistence on sticking to printed rules messed that release up a bit, but they still got a boatload of new rules - there was, at least, someone there in GW writing rules for them, assigning names, working out the mechanics, judging how much power creep they should be awarded (almost zero being the answer). And they got the potent rebirth of Drazhar and his wacky Incubi sidekicks.

Then there's DW. They are functionally third-worst in the PA, but to DW players it's going to feel particularly bad for two reasons: 1) lack of all of the new releases for marines since their codex dropped two years ago and 2) utter disregard for the faction's health or identity - not a single new rule, not a single new relic, power, trait, strat, doctrine or unit. It's a non-release.

Those whining about how DW aren't a faction: I ignore you and your ineffable grievances. Those whining about how DW are totally OP and the best marinez already gosh: I scratch my head at how anyone could come to that conclusion from the 8th data.

 grouchoben wrote:
I guess you have to say Ynnari have gotten the worst of all PA updates, in that it was almost a straight reprint of their WD. They did get some hefty point drops however, to take the edge off that.

Drukhari come next in the terribad ranking, but you do have to bear in mind that they were utterly bossing the meta at the time that their PA rules were being written. GW's inherent lag problem with their insistence on sticking to printed rules messed that release up a bit, but they still got a boatload of new rules - there was, at least, someone there in GW writing rules for them, assigning names, working out the mechanics, judging how much power creep they should be awarded (almost zero being the answer). And they got the potent rebirth of Drazhar and his wacky Incubi sidekicks.

Then there's DW. They are functionally third-worst in the PA, but to DW players it's going to feel particularly bad for two reasons: 1) lack of all of the new releases for marines since their codex dropped two years ago and 2) utter disregard for the faction's health or identity - not a single new rule, not a single new relic, power, trait, strat, doctrine or unit. It's a non-release.

Those whining about how DW aren't a faction: I ignore you and your ineffable grievances. Those whining about how DW are totally OP and the best marinez already gosh: I scratch my head at how anyone could come to that conclusion from the 8th data.

This covers it for the most part. I am extremely disappointed, mostly due to the absolute lack of effort. I would have much preferred if GW just didn't list DW as getting an update in PA, then there wouldn't have been any hope or expectation.

As mentioned...zero lore and how they are operating within PA.
Basic SM update with old versions of rules/strats
Zero new additions (relics, WTs, strats, litany, super doc)
No access to vanguard (we knew this was coming, but still disappointing at this stage)

It definitely ranks as one of the worst PA updates. I don't even consider Ynnari an update, it was just putting the rules in a more permanent place. Craftworlds is far better, even without new relics, traits and strats. Drukhari is probably worse, they got shafted.
All other marine updates are far, far better.

One thing DW did get, by default getting nothing, the ability to still soup and really not lose much. So there is that.

 grouchoben wrote:
Then there's DW. They are functionally third-worst in the PA, but to DW players it's going to feel particularly bad for two reasons: 1) lack of all of the new releases for marines since their codex dropped two years ago and 2) utter disregard for the faction's health or identity - not a single new rule, not a single new relic, power, trait, strat, doctrine or unit. It's a non-release.

Those whining about how DW aren't a faction: I ignore you and your ineffable grievances. Those whining about how DW are totally OP and the best marinez already gosh: I scratch my head at how anyone could come to that conclusion from the 8th data.

Thats the problem of being both a Subfaction and also a Standalone Codex Faction. Stuff does not get updated with the primary faction as it should.

DW pre codex 2.0 certainly out played marines in win rates.
Codex 2.0 esentially haded out a more iffy GW version of specialist ammo to marines plus new units strategums.

The issue is when an army is as bad as marines 1.0 was the only people taking them to events are let's be blunt noy hoping for a 0 loss or 1 loss finish in that event.

So the data looks terrible from a wr perspective as the good players never use the faction, those of us trying for a mid table 50% win rate go oh non of the top players are playing it and swap armies, so your left with the die hard fluff fans and the this is my army I'll see what i can do guys being the only people playing the codex and realisticly they aren't the people likely to be able to push a 1 loss or draw result from an event.

GW over buffed marines, becuase of the above. but they also gave half of that overbuff by giving marines something DW already had which was additional AP.

DW yeah might not have the oh look at all the shiny new rules stuff but when your army isn't that bad and marines have already had to be nerfed more than once ofcourse you weren't going to get codex 2.0 levels of buff as that would have just been 3 months of utter og yannari cheese before being nerfed down to new yannari.

Anyone saying them gaining litanies is a Boon is actually wrong. Litanies are randumb and need a 3+ to go off. Any strategy relying on them is a non-winning Strategy. They also don't get the more reliable Master of Sanctity, which is really the only reason that Litanies as is come close to even working.

 LunarSol wrote:
The push to mono armies in general has me pretty out on the game as a whole. The difference between owning 2000 points of a single codex and 1000 or so of 2-3 is enough that everything just feels spammy and bland.

DW as a concept is crippled by the move. Getting rules that punish us for fitting in with other factions means we have to compete as a mono faction and just... don't. 2000 points of pure DW is just too limited to function. A single Battalion has been fine for all of 8th, but you rapidly run out of things to take.

I'm definitely disappointed in the direction the game's taken since the Space Marine codex as a whole.

Not every enjoys being forced to take Guard or admech to make their supposed codex army actually functional either.

GW has made a mess of the allies mechanic with it being all benifits and no downsides. They had to hand out mono faction bonuses to be able to correct their earlier mistake.

I agree with Ice_can. Soup had too many upsides. Being able to bolt on 4 pt dum dums to marines is very powerful. There should be a penalty.

Ice_can wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
The push to mono armies in general has me pretty out on the game as a whole. The difference between owning 2000 points of a single codex and 1000 or so of 2-3 is enough that everything just feels spammy and bland.

DW as a concept is crippled by the move. Getting rules that punish us for fitting in with other factions means we have to compete as a mono faction and just... don't. 2000 points of pure DW is just too limited to function. A single Battalion has been fine for all of 8th, but you rapidly run out of things to take.

I'm definitely disappointed in the direction the game's taken since the Space Marine codex as a whole.

Not every enjoys being forced to take Guard or admech to make their supposed codex army actually functional either.

GW has made a mess of the allies mechanic with it being all benifits and no downsides. They had to hand out mono faction bonuses to be able to correct their earlier mistake.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^so much this.

I can understand the draw of armies with allies, but they need to have downsides or you're basically just giving everyone extra tools they may not have been designed to have, either through CP batteries, unit types or abilities, or other such things. In practice, pretty much every army I saw running allies over the last several editions was doing so purely for power purposes, not because people had a smattering of stuff laying around from different factions they wanted to play together (and GW is *atrocious* at supporting non-competitive style narrative play despite their unending obsession with it). GW's unfortunate but pretty typical design response to opening those floodgates was to instead pump even more power options into mono-armies to shift away from soup, opening up yet more issues.

spam deleted.
Reds8n

spam deleted.

reds8n

It's pretty sad but I've been in a "wait till 9th" holding pattern since they entered the terrible Astartes/PA phase of this edition. Kill Team is still fun.

I am disappointed GW did not extend the new marine rules & units to all the various sub-codex via errata when the new codex first dropped, which would still have left room for PA to add new relics & stratagems for specific factions.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I am disappointed GW did not extend the new marine rules & units to all the various sub-codex via errata when the new codex first dropped, which would still have left room for PA to add new relics & stratagems for specific factions.

Just make them all Supplements - saves all this half assed crap, only one printing of each element plus the ineviatable FAQ to fix them

 Mr Morden wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I am disappointed GW did not extend the new marine rules & units to all the various sub-codex via errata when the new codex first dropped, which would still have left room for PA to add new relics & stratagems for specific factions.

Just make them all Supplements - saves all this half assed crap, only one printing of each element plus the ineviatable FAQ to fix them

No.
Two big marine books. Codex compliant and non-compliant. GK and DW go into Imperial Agents.

 Apple Peel wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I am disappointed GW did not extend the new marine rules & units to all the various sub-codex via errata when the new codex first dropped, which would still have left room for PA to add new relics & stratagems for specific factions.

Just make them all Supplements - saves all this half assed crap, only one printing of each element plus the ineviatable FAQ to fix them

No.
Two big marine books. Codex compliant and non-compliant. GK and DW go into Imperial Agents.

So anyone who wants to just play Space Wolves has to pay £50 extra for rules they don't want or need? I guess we can just throw all the Eldar into one book too. How about putting Orks and Eldar in the same book since they were both creations of the Old Ones? Hell, put Necrons in there too because they were part of the War in Heaven. Then lets put T'au in the book too because they were made by the Eldar.

Lack of a super doctrine is a lame.

I'm sure they will get Primaris Second Wave at some point. Not really sure why its now. Just say there will be an upgrade kit out soon?
Will they get the Faith and Fury bonuses? Maybe.

Right now though, yeah. You are basically playing SM minus. Or, depending on how you rate veterans, Primaris minus.

I still think the faction is okay for casual games based on the raw power of Marines now - but yeah. Its not going anywhere, there is very little flavour to the faction. Just say they are Iron Hands.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I am disappointed GW did not extend the new marine rules & units to all the various sub-codex via errata when the new codex first dropped, which would still have left room for PA to add new relics & stratagems for specific factions.

Just make them all Supplements - saves all this half assed crap, only one printing of each element plus the ineviatable FAQ to fix them

No.
Two big marine books. Codex compliant and non-compliant. GK and DW go into Imperial Agents.

So anyone who wants to just play Space Wolves has to pay £50 extra for rules they don't want or need? I guess we can just throw all the Eldar into one book too. How about putting Orks and Eldar in the same book since they were both creations of the Old Ones? Hell, put Necrons in there too because they were part of the War in Heaven. Then lets put T'au in the book too because they were made by the Eldar.

So anyone who wants to just play Imperial Fists has to pay £50 extra for rules they don't want or need?
So anyone who wants to just play Ultramarines has to pay £50 extra for rules they don't want or need?
So anyone who wants to just play White Scars has to pay £50 extra for rules they don't want or need?
So anyone who wants to just play Militarum Tempestus has to pay £50 extra for rules they don't want or need?

Yes. Those definitely extra “50” on top of what’s being paid now. With rules for making custom non-compliant chapters, too. It’s come with a unit editor that gives a unit a maybe good boon with either a higher points cost and/or a nerf in another area. This unit is exclusive to <Your Dudes> chapter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, quite sure Eldar making Tau has been retconned out.

the_scotsman wrote:
[snip]3) SIA also does not play nice with Combat Doctrines. Two of the SIA types are AP improvements, which won't stack with CDs, Wound on 2s ammo is always an option, but I've very commonly run into situations where you can either get an extra wound shift from AP-2 ammo or you can get into rapid fire range with AP-1+6" range, which is important because as mentioned deathwatch effectively don't get Bolter Discipline. This would lead most DW armies to stick to Devastator, but I think it's pretty obvious that this is a pre-FAQ document that will just get FAQed.[/snip]

Combat Doctrines for DW explicitly lists SIA as one of the things that does stack with it. That's great for Primaris, and DW pretty much ignored Primaris in favor of Storm Shield / Stormbolter Vets. Not everyone brings an arny that can handle an army-wide 3++ save after all. Now that Intercessors can stack the extra AP they bring by default with CDs and SIA and the Primaris-specific strats there's a reason to at least look at them.

Although it's weird that DW who are supposed to be the anti-xenos Marines are actually the best Marines for killing Power Armor but aren't noticably better than vanilla Marines at killing Xenos.

The Newman wrote:

Combat Doctrines for DW explicitly lists SIA as one of the things that does stack with it.

Kraken and Vengeance are still hard capped at specific AP values. Doctrines dont change that.

That really isn't true, sure you can mitigate a little but you cannot make something auto. A Chaplain is a boost but not something that you must rely one.

 Apple Peel wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I am disappointed GW did not extend the new marine rules & units to all the various sub-codex via errata when the new codex first dropped, which would still have left room for PA to add new relics & stratagems for specific factions.

Just make them all Supplements - saves all this half assed crap, only one printing of each element plus the ineviatable FAQ to fix them

No.
Two big marine books. Codex compliant and non-compliant. GK and DW go into Imperial Agents.

So anyone who wants to just play Space Wolves has to pay £50 extra for rules they don't want or need? I guess we can just throw all the Eldar into one book too. How about putting Orks and Eldar in the same book since they were both creations of the Old Ones? Hell, put Necrons in there too because they were part of the War in Heaven. Then lets put T'au in the book too because they were made by the Eldar.

So anyone who wants to just play Imperial Fists has to pay £50 extra for rules they don't want or need?
So anyone who wants to just play Ultramarines has to pay £50 extra for rules they don't want or need?
So anyone who wants to just play White Scars has to pay £50 extra for rules they don't want or need?
So anyone who wants to just play Militarum Tempestus has to pay £50 extra for rules they don't want or need?

Yes. Those definitely extra “50” on top of what’s being paid now. With rules for making custom non-compliant chapters, too. It’s come with a unit editor that gives a unit a maybe good boon with either a higher points cost and/or a nerf in another area. This unit is exclusive to <Your Dudes> chapter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, quite sure Eldar making Tau has been retconned out.

This, also bcb seems to be mixing up the keywords. For example, putting all eldar (<aeldari&gt into one book would be the same as putting all marines, guard, sisters and all the other <imperium> factions in one book. Craftworlders for example already have all of their "chapters" bundled in a book, it's called codex: craftworld eldar.

I do find it strange - because this isn't entirely unique to this thread - that people seem to think 3+ to use an ability is low odds, but WC7 is something worth pitching for.

I think the main whinge is the power creep.
On his own a chaplain would be so-so.
In a world where other SM factions can spend 2 CP to get an additional power and make the odds of failure on both 1/9 rather than 1/3, he's just obsolete.

Which is why I think stratagems to make units better full stop at the outset of games is a bad direction for the game to go in - but its too late now.

Tyel wrote:
I do find it strange - because this isn't entirely unique to this thread - that people seem to think 3+ to use an ability is low odds, but WC7 is something worth pitching for.

I think the main whinge is the power creep.
On his own a chaplain would be so-so.
In a world where other SM factions can spend 2 CP to get an additional power and make the odds of failure on both 1/9 rather than 1/3, he's just obsolete.

Which is why I think stratagems to make units better full stop at the outset of games is a bad direction for the game to go in - but its too late now.

Well, it's OK, only codex space marines gets to do that. In other factions, when you have that kind of ability, it's something like 2CP to give a captain aura to a troupe master, not "double the number of powers you get and halve the odds of failure, WooOOOoooOO!"

the_scotsman wrote:
Well, it's OK, only codex space marines gets to do that. In other factions, when you have that kind of ability, it's something like 2CP to give a captain aura to a troupe master, not "double the number of powers you get and halve the odds of failure, WooOOOoooOO!"

To a degree - but while due to the virus I've not been able to see I think you are going to find every Ork army takes advantage of their various Kustom Jobs in fairly predictable ways.

Which isn't to say "omg nerf" - but if a unit is always played in a certain way, it should probably just have those rules on the datasheet and be priced accordingly. Rather than giving the illusion you are some master of list building. See also the various inevitable (and required to vaguely have a chance) GSC combinations.

Creating this non-points based economy makes the game harder to balance, when the main element of doing so is points tweaks in CA.

 Apple Peel wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I am disappointed GW did not extend the new marine rules & units to all the various sub-codex via errata when the new codex first dropped, which would still have left room for PA to add new relics & stratagems for specific factions.

Just make them all Supplements - saves all this half assed crap, only one printing of each element plus the ineviatable FAQ to fix them

No.
Two big marine books. Codex compliant and non-compliant. GK and DW go into Imperial Agents.

Just one book.
In the book you have traits like "Born in the saddle" (you get access to veteran bikers), "Genetic downfall" (you get access to a melee unit of "bestial marines"), ...
They come with a drawback of some short (either you pay points for them, or they prevent you from using certain units...)
There is a small appendix at the end of the book giving you the traits for official chapters (White Scars get "born in the saddle", space wolves and blood angels get "bestial marines", ...) if you want them.

the_scotsman wrote:


Well, it's OK, only codex space marines gets to do that. In other factions, when you have that kind of ability, it's something like 2CP to give a captain aura to a troupe master, not "double the number of powers you get and halve the odds of failure, WooOOOoooOO!"

Lol. I wish Great Harlequin were as good as a Captain Aura, giving re-roll 1s across all phases.

Tyel 787352 10771951 wrote:
To a degree - but while due to the virus I've not been able to see I think you are going to find every Ork army takes advantage of their various Kustom Jobs in fairly predictable ways.

Which isn't to say "omg nerf" - but if a unit is always played in a certain way, it should probably just have those rules on the datasheet and be priced accordingly. Rather than giving the illusion you are some master of list building. See also the various inevitable (and required to vaguely have a chance) GSC combinations.

Creating this non-points based economy makes the game harder to balance, when the main element of doing so is points tweaks in CA.

But why would GW ever do that? instead of buying two books, one with your normal unit and the other with upgrades to it, you would be buying just one book.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I am disappointed GW did not extend the new marine rules & units to all the various sub-codex via errata when the new codex first dropped, which would still have left room for PA to add new relics & stratagems for specific factions.

Just make them all Supplements - saves all this half assed crap, only one printing of each element plus the ineviatable FAQ to fix them

No.
Two big marine books. Codex compliant and non-compliant. GK and DW go into Imperial Agents.

So anyone who wants to just play Space Wolves has to pay £50 extra for rules they don't want or need? I guess we can just throw all the Eldar into one book too. How about putting Orks and Eldar in the same book since they were both creations of the Old Ones? Hell, put Necrons in there too because they were part of the War in Heaven. Then lets put T'au in the book too because they were made by the Eldar.

Not this total BS argument again

All Marines are Marines. they ALL use the same base units. Now some units have different names - as they do in many many chapters, some even have a different weapon option or even a one line rule.

Wolves and Angels are Marines - right?
Ultras, White Scars etc are Marines - right.

They should therefore use the same base Codex and if needed haev a supplement for lore and the very very few actually unique units and the rules that make the Chapter appear a little different to the other 997 Chapters.

NOTHING is lost.

Wolves and Angels players have to buy the Codex and pretend campaign book now - right? Thats a camougn book with some Wolves and Angels lore and rules they don't need.

Seriously no one has answered this - is it a status symbol to have your own Codex as a Wolf/Angels player, is it that important that its not a supplement, do you need to lord it over others that donlt have them and deprieve other factions of more needed support..... is it?

Karol wrote:

shortymcnostrill 787352 10771844 wrote:
This, also bcb seems to be mixing up the keywords. For example, putting all eldar (<aeldari&gt into one book would be the same as putting all marines, guard, sisters and all the other <imperium> factions in one book. Craftworlders for example already have all of their "chapters" bundled in a book, it's called codex: craftworld eldar.

yes, because DW and GK have so much overlap with IG or SoB, or even other marines. Plus what is the problem for eldar guardians and dark eldar have same stat line and costs, dark elder transports being identical to falcons. vypers being copies of venoms etc.

The kind of people who post here are not the normal 40k player. I can tell you from decades of real life experience that the vast, vast majority of players wouldn't have the first clue what's competitive and what isn't and even those who do won't necessarily use what's most powerful. That's true of my local scene and most other local metas I'm aware of. There are some clubs/metas where competitive gaming is king, of course, but when taken as a whole competitive 40k is a very small part of the overall 40k game-playing population.

Even if you want to argue about the pure numbers, attitudes like Slayer-123's are demonstrably not applicable to a very large number of gamers so any arguments made from that point of view are being made from a set of false assumptions.

It is applicable to everyone living in my country. w40k costs a lot, like a lot, a lot. Avarge salary here is 450$, I have never seen anyone go after a bad army knowingly, nor heard about anyone doing any of the fatastic stuff people talk about here. Like buying whole sets of models just so people with weaker armies can play having chance, buying multiple armies just to have armies to play against those with really strong or weak armies. Buying cars to transport all those models, or having gigantic flats to play at home.

And it is not competitive only thing. Out of all the people at my store, only like 5 go to play at something else then a store event. And some people, like for example me, never play at events at all. So no, your not going to convince me that the possibility of people picking bad armies and bad units is bigger then people playing good armies. Because if it was so, then the number of necron and GK players would be the same as marines or eldar. And stuff like IH being too good, or castellans being too good, would be a non problem, because no one would be taking those in to normal games. Although why we would get constant nerf something that just got good, or marrines should have one codex and always be bad threads, is kind of a hard to explain then.

I mean, speak for your own marine sub-sub-faction, but my deathwatch share all but three of their unit entries with codex: space marines. Grey Knights are the most unique marine sub-faction, but they still share about 10-ish unit entries between all the transports, flyers, dreadnoughts, shared HQs, etc.

Drukhari and Craftworlds share 0. Vypers and Venoms don't have the same stats because they are different models that mount completely different weapons. Why can't Vindicators and Predators be the same statline?

Well I've had a think about it and the good news is this: I honestly think this is a very strong indicator that GW have plans for Deathwach to be substantially changed as a faction.

Their reticence to include the new units that every other SM faction has received (bar the special-tidey-silver boys) suggests they don't want DW moving towards SM factions, and want them to keep a narrow roster, and their total lack of specific rules also suggests that GW don't want to exhaust the design space, in turn suggesting that they might be planning on roling them into an Inquisition faction. I mean, it is quite strange that Inquisition haven't really had any new rules except that WD piece. I think in about a year we'll see a big shakeup.

 grouchoben wrote:
Well I've had a think about it and the good news is this: I honestly think this is a very strong indicator that GW have plans for Deathwach to be substantially changed as a faction.

From your mouth to God's ears.

 grouchoben wrote:

Their reticence to include the new units that every other SM faction has received (bar the special-tidey-silver boys) suggests they don't want DW moving towards SM factions, and want them to keep a narrow roster, and their total lack of specific rules also suggests that GW don't want to exhaust the design space, in turn suggesting that they might be planning on roling them into an Inquisition faction. I mean, it is quite strange that Inquisition haven't really had any new rules except that WD piece. I think in about a year we'll see a big shakeup.

It suggests nothing whatsoever of the kind.

Sterling191 wrote:

 grouchoben wrote:
Well I've had a think about it and the good news is this: I honestly think this is a very strong indicator that GW have plans for Deathwach to be substantially changed as a faction.

From your mouth to God's ears.

 grouchoben wrote:

Their reticence to include the new units that every other SM faction has received (bar the special-tidey-silver boys) suggests they don't want DW moving towards SM factions, and want them to keep a narrow roster, and their total lack of specific rules also suggests that GW don't want to exhaust the design space, in turn suggesting that they might be planning on roling them into an Inquisition faction. I mean, it is quite strange that Inquisition haven't really had any new rules except that WD piece. I think in about a year we'll see a big shakeup.

It suggests nothing whatsoever of the kind.

Hah! Yeah you're right, I'm stretchinnnng. A xenophobic space-fascist can dream though eh?

Let's be honest, the reason for many decisions Games Workshop makes are more business oriented than creative oriented. Nothing wrong with that really. In fact, it can be beneficial in many ways. The problem arises when Games Workshop only relies on playing it safe with their decisions (probably after the burn of AoS release), and playing it safe can stifle the creation of something new or interesting rather than bringing back stuff of old.

So does playing it safe mean they're worried about keeping DW balanced, or does it mean they're trying to direct DW players to buy SMs?

This Deathwatch patch-up is surely just a stop-gap. From a business standpoint, it makes no sense to not add the vanguard line as an option to sell more of the same models, unless they have something completely new in order for them.
However, even though it's been a looong time since shadowspear came out, the line is still incomplete. Suppressors are only available in the start collecting kit and cannot take a deathwatch shoulder pad. If GW wants to expand the Deathwatch by adding a Vanguard kill-team, they will do it when that line is available separately and sell you a new codex at the same time. There may also be new units to add in the forms of speeders/bikes.

It certainly doesn't take anything away from how lame this update was, it was the bare minimum effort required. I do believe that something changed in the design process for this series since Deathwatch was in the original graphic for an update in PA, and surely this WD add-on was not all that was intended. Perhaps they deemed it wiser to postpone a proper update until more marine kits were available.

Or they just don't want Deathwatch to feature Vanguard units outside of the Reivers.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Or they just don't want Deathwatch to feature Vanguard units outside of the Reivers.

Be foolish not to. Can’t go and say it’s because Vanguard units can’t be veterans or important and/or skilled marines, because they already wrote themselves away from that by saying any marine could strip down to Phobos gear if needed. And, they especially showed how that was possible when they made the Chapter Master of the Raven Guard a model wearing Phobos armor with gear.

A Vanguard Killteam is very highly thematic for what Deathwatch does, and the vanguard units need Deathwatch rules in grand 40K as well as Killteam.

 Apple Peel wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Or they just don't want Deathwatch to feature Vanguard units outside of the Reivers.

Be foolish not to. Can’t go and say it’s because Vanguard units can’t be veterans or important and/or skilled marines, because they already wrote themselves away from that by saying any marine could strip down to Phobos gear if needed. And, they especially showed how that was possible when they made the Chapter Master of the Raven Guard a model wearing Phobos armor with gear.

A Vanguard Killteam is very highly thematic for what Deathwatch does, and the vanguard units need Deathwatch rules in grand 40K as well as Killteam.

Need is a strong word

Dudeface wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Or they just don't want Deathwatch to feature Vanguard units outside of the Reivers.

Be foolish not to. Can’t go and say it’s because Vanguard units can’t be veterans or important and/or skilled marines, because they already wrote themselves away from that by saying any marine could strip down to Phobos gear if needed. And, they especially showed how that was possible when they made the Chapter Master of the Raven Guard a model wearing Phobos armor with gear.

A Vanguard Killteam is very highly thematic for what Deathwatch does, and the vanguard units need Deathwatch rules in grand 40K as well as Killteam.

Need is a strong word

Anything can be applied as a strong word.

Super weird that you keep thinking that nobody other than regular marines are using Chaplains, and when they do, it's always Master of Sanctity with the reroll.

You can focus on 33% failure all you want, but I choose to stick more with 66% success, more if I want to use a reroll dice. For my Dark Angels, negating the death penalty for overcharging plasma is an absolute boon, and the DA specific litany is no joke either. After Ritual of the Damned, my first purchases were 2 more typhoon land speeders and a jump chaplain. DA groups have all been doing the same thing.

So again, not sure where you are coming up with this all-encompassing truth that you constantly spout on this forum, when my own experience and those are others simply deny it unequivocally

As far as the psyker Vs chaplain argument, I know if I can get doom or jinx off 66% of the time with no chance of denying it? I'd buy that for a dollar! Craftworlds have some of the most reliable psykers via strats and warlord traits.
Litanies look have been balanced by the start of the turn restrictions because they're very reliable compared to psychic powers.

spam deleted

Reds8n

spam deleted

Reds8n

.

Considering the engine war or whatever its called is not out yet thanks to the virus I'm sure this is just something to give out to people in a WD that they didn't print out yet

 fraser1191 wrote:
Considering the engine war or whatever its called is not out yet thanks to the virus I'm sure this is just something to give out to people in a WD that they didn't print out yet

WD would have been printed a long time ago, at least the content for it would have been finished. Definitely not a virus issue.

intreast level issue maybe? could be death watch and harliquins just aren't selling well?

 bullyboy wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
Considering the engine war or whatever its called is not out yet thanks to the virus I'm sure this is just something to give out to people in a WD that they didn't print out yet

WD would have been printed a long time ago, at least the content for it would have been finished. Definitely not a virus issue.

Yes, it was already printed before february 27th, when the SM nerf was released, duty eternal was changed, doctrines were changed, and adaptive strategy was deleted. What is even more ridiculous is that the WC preview article still shows the old duty eternal, and adaptive strategy. No one bothered to change it.

Sterling191 wrote:

The Newman wrote:

Combat Doctrines for DW explicitly lists SIA as one of the things that does stack with it.

Kraken and Vengeance are still hard capped at specific AP values. Doctrines dont change that.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but so what?

Stalker Bolt Rifles are already at Ap 2 or 3, they don't need better Ap. What they need is a higher S, wounding on 2s drastically improves their performance on their preferred targets.

Autobolters are making the same decision DW vets are making every turn about which ammo is best because they don't have any base AP to begin with, they're just trading a shot for being able to operate at twice the range vs Vets.

Bolt Rifles ... ok, you have me there. Thing is, DW players weren't touching Bolt Rifles with a 10' pole anyway because unlike Stalkers and Autobolters then do care about Bolter Discipline not working with SIA and that more than negates what few advantages they have over SB/SS Vet squads. I'll acknowledge that's a problem but I'll also observe that a non-choice on a data card is the rule rather than the exception in 40k.

...Doctrines do make "SIA or Bolter Discipline?" a little less of a non-question though.

Edit: One other thought, now that DW have Doctrines a primarily DW player can soup in other marines without breaking Doctrines. If really I want Suppressors or Eliminators or whatever in my DW list that badly then at least adding them via soup isn't costing me any effectiveness in my DW detachments.

Yeah we're all agreed, funnily enough, that the weakness of not having a superdoctrine means souping is stronger.

Exactly, and if all you want are units that are common to all marines, then going for custom trait seems a no brainer since you won't be gaining any super doc already. However, you can also soup them in with more specific builds such as Ravenwing/Deathwing, Blood Angels sanguinary guard, etc.

Personally, I'm still considering just adding Phobos centered battalion (Libby, Captain, 2x Incursors, 1x Infiltrators, 1 Invictor, 2x eliminators...approx 775pts) and painting them as Deathwatch but using custom traits....bolter fusillades and Preferred Enemy (whatever xenos I'm fighting). Better second traits I know, but want it to still feel somewhat Deathwatch ish.

 bullyboy wrote:
Exactly, and if all you want are units that are common to all marines, then going for custom trait seems a no brainer since you won't be gaining any super doc already. However, you can also soup them in with more specific builds such as Ravenwing/Deathwing, Blood Angels sanguinary guard, etc.

Personally, I'm still considering just adding Phobos centered battalion (Libby, Captain, 2x Incursors, 1x Infiltrators, 1 Invictor, 2x eliminators...approx 775pts) and painting them as Deathwatch but using custom traits....bolter fusillades and Preferred Enemy (whatever xenos I'm fighting). Better second traits I know, but want it to still feel somewhat Deathwatch ish.

I'm with you in principle right up to that line. If I have two detachments with different rules they better be visually distinct from each other from the other side of the table.

The Newman wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
Exactly, and if all you want are units that are common to all marines, then going for custom trait seems a no brainer since you won't be gaining any super doc already. However, you can also soup them in with more specific builds such as Ravenwing/Deathwing, Blood Angels sanguinary guard, etc.

Personally, I'm still considering just adding Phobos centered battalion (Libby, Captain, 2x Incursors, 1x Infiltrators, 1 Invictor, 2x eliminators...approx 775pts) and painting them as Deathwatch but using custom traits....bolter fusillades and Preferred Enemy (whatever xenos I'm fighting). Better second traits I know, but want it to still feel somewhat Deathwatch ish.

I'm with you in principle right up to that line. If I have two detachments with different rules they better be visually distinct from each other from the other side of the table.

well, that's cool because you and I won't be playing, so no loss to either. They will be painted Deathwatch, and it's hardly a stretch to say "anything that's vanguard marine, is from the custom detachment". Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out.....no Intercessors, no aggressors, nothing that could be currently taken in Deathwatch would be in this detachment, purely phobos related dudes.

A couple things:
1. Anytime they post army rules in White Dwarf outside of a codex, they are usually a disappointment. I say usually, because I can't think of a time when I saw army rules in WD that knocked my socks off, but I don't play every army, don't buy every WD, and so can't say with certainty that they are always "bad".

2. It SEEMS LIKE GW may have reached a point in 8th where there is a "glut" of armies and rules, and it's hard for them to make every army "viable", to keep up with the ever changing meta, and give players what they want. SOME effort is better then NO EFFORT, and GW could have just as easily done nothing at all for Deathwatch.

Small point of history: Deathwatch started out in White Dwarf, with a DW "upgrade" sprue you could get for Space Marines, and some special rules. They eventually got a phamplet codex, that still wasn't a full army. Now they have a full codex, unique models, and can be a full army. It feels kinda appropriate that an update to them would be in White Dwarf.

 bullyboy wrote:
Exactly, and if all you want are units that are common to all marines, then going for custom trait seems a no brainer since you won't be gaining any super doc already. However, you can also soup them in with more specific builds such as Ravenwing/Deathwing, Blood Angels sanguinary guard, etc.

Personally, I'm still considering just adding Phobos centered battalion (Libby, Captain, 2x Incursors, 1x Infiltrators, 1 Invictor, 2x eliminators...approx 775pts) and painting them as Deathwatch but using custom traits....bolter fusillades and Preferred Enemy (whatever xenos I'm fighting). Better second traits I know, but want it to still feel somewhat Deathwatch ish.

Cute and all for 40K proper, but doesn’t mean anything for when playing Killteam. I would so go and buy a box of reivers, infiltrators/incursors, and eliminators and Deathwatch upgrades if I could make a Deathwatch Vanguard Killteam for Killteam. I’d ideally then be able to spring board into 40K using that as the base for a small Deathwatch force to soup with Scions.

 Tamwulf wrote:
A couple things:
1. Anytime they post army rules in White Dwarf outside of a codex, they are usually a disappointment. I say usually, because I can't think of a time when I saw army rules in WD that knocked my socks off, but I don't play every army, don't buy every WD, and so can't say with certainty that they are always "bad".

So when you say army, you don't mean minor faction like Assassins or Inquisitors, right? Both of those had favorable WD Codexes. Heck, Assassins were everywhere unit they nerfed the Stratagem.

 Tamwulf wrote:
SOME effort is better then NO EFFORT, and GW could have just as easily done nothing at all for Deathwatch.

Ah yes, the "Be happy with your abusive relationship" defense has arrived. I was wondering how long it would take for that garbage to shuffle on in.

Sterling191 wrote:

 Tamwulf wrote:
SOME effort is better then NO EFFORT, and GW could have just as easily done nothing at all for Deathwatch.

Ah yes, the "Be happy with your abusive relationship" defense has arrived. I was wondering how long it would take for that garbage to shuffle on in.

The only abusive relationship you have is with yourself in your weird bubble-reality where getting more/better rules than most other factions got in Psychic Awakening is somehow "bad".

Dial it down

Does anyone else think that for the last PA book should’ve been DW, harlequins and Necrons? Like, it’s not as if the Inquisition have their own Chamber Militant specifically for dealing with xenos? Sisters just got a codex do they really need more?

Qyleterys wrote:
Does anyone else think that for the last PA book should’ve been DW, harlequins and Necrons? Like, it’s not as if the Inquisition have their own Chamber Militant specifically for dealing with xenos? Sisters just got a codex do they really need more?

You ask that question instead of asking why DW, Harlequins, Sisters, and Necrons weren’t all in the same book?

Qyleterys wrote:
Does anyone else think that for the last PA book should’ve been DW, harlequins and Necrons? Like, it’s not as if the Inquisition have their own Chamber Militant specifically for dealing with xenos? Sisters just got a codex do they really need more?

One or two new datasheets, a Psychic discipline, Custom Order Convictions, a name generator, maybe a few more fun little Stratagems and some fluff. Not too much, but a PA book's worth.

I now suspect DW and Space Clowns will have features in Pariah fluff, but not enough rules + book fluff to justify the cost of the book.

Basically, I think someone at GW asked 'are we really going to make players pay for this?'

Lammia wrote:
I now suspect DW and Space Clowns will have features in Pariah fluff, but not enough rules + book fluff to justify the cost of the book.

Basically, I think someone at GW asked 'are we really going to make players pay for this?'

It hasn't stopped them before.
PA seems to provoke a "who got screwed the most" - but a number of factions got very little.
Really I struggle to believe Pariah is going to be *so full* they couldn't have slotted in 4~ pages of rules for DW and Harlequins.

I mean - super optimistic tinfoil hat on - if there were to be a second wave of DW/Harlequins coming, say in October/November, that would render any book released in July a bit pointless, then fair enough.
But not being able to put together say a few extra warlord traits, stratagems, a super doctrine etc seems a bit weak. Critics of GW's concern for balance abound - but this is something you could throw together in 24 hours.

But hey, if you have to pay money for a second warlord trait and Transhuman, its better a white dwarf than a book costing several times more.

Tyel wrote:

Lammia wrote:
I now suspect DW and Space Clowns will have features in Pariah fluff, but not enough rules + book fluff to justify the cost of the book.

Basically, I think someone at GW asked 'are we really going to make players pay for this?'

It hasn't stopped them before.
PA seems to provoke a "who got screwed the most" - but a number of factions got very little.
Really I struggle to believe Pariah is going to be *so full* they couldn't have slotted in 4~ pages of rules for DW and Harlequins.

I mean - super optimistic tinfoil hat on - if there were to be a second wave of DW/Harlequins coming, say in October/November, that would render any book released in July a bit pointless, then fair enough.
But not being able to put together say a few extra warlord traits, stratagems, a super doctrine etc seems a bit weak. Critics of GW's concern for balance abound - but this is something you could throw together in 24 hours.

But hey, if you have to pay money for a second warlord trait and Transhuman, its better a white dwarf than a book costing several times more.

And it hasn't stopped the criticisms in the past. It's a poor showing, there's no way of hiding that. But this time it's not hidden.

 Apple Peel wrote:

Qyleterys wrote:
Does anyone else think that for the last PA book should’ve been DW, harlequins and Necrons? Like, it’s not as if the Inquisition have their own Chamber Militant specifically for dealing with xenos? Sisters just got a codex do they really need more?

You ask that question instead of asking why DW, Harlequins, Sisters, and Necrons weren’t all in the same book?

It all depends on content. The last thing we needed was another book crammed full of new marine stuff with just a few pages for Necrons (and this is coming from someone who has Deathwatch and zero Necrons, and was extremely disappointed with what DW received).
If they did a measured inclusion of Deathwatch...say what they are getting in WD plus, 3 new relics, 3 new WTs, 3 new strats and a custom litany, that would have been OK. There would still be plenty of room for Necrons (who I hope take the Lion's share of the book), the new characters, and that's it. I honestly don't think Sisters need anything new at this stage, with maybe the exception of custom Orders. Certainly no new relics, strats, WTs etc.

Could that have been done? Yes, it really could, but Deathwatch would still have taken up a fair bit of space. It just seems odd that you have a book with Necrons, an Ordo Xenos Inquisitor, and you don't automatically go.."You know who else would be great in this book?"

More disappointed than usual? That implies that you are usually disappointed, which is a sad state of affairs.

Lammia wrote:

Qyleterys wrote:
Does anyone else think that for the last PA book should’ve been DW, harlequins and Necrons? Like, it’s not as if the Inquisition have their own Chamber Militant specifically for dealing with xenos? Sisters just got a codex do they really need more?

One or two new datasheets, a Psychic discipline, Custom Order Convictions, a name generator, maybe a few more fun little Stratagems and some fluff. Not too much, but a PA book's worth.

I now suspect DW and Space Clowns will have features in Pariah fluff, but not enough rules + book fluff to justify the cost of the book.

Basically, I think someone at GW asked 'are we really going to make players pay for this?'

Are you that unfamiliar with the practices of GW? Look up the Legion of the Damned codex. They wanted people to pay for THAT.

I guess my thoughs are that not getting anything unique to DW is a bummer and it's more than a little lazy to just copy/paste existing rules, but that doesn't mean that what they added isn't going to have an impact.

Most of DW's AT guns are on tanks and dreads; Duty Eternal, The Big Guns Never Tire, and Wrath of the Machine Spirit all help there.

DW had no use for the Primaris squads (locally anyway), getting the three Intercessor gun strats and Gene Wrought Might makes them more viable.

Transhuman Pysiology and Fury of the First helps keep the Vet squads from falling behind and also makes straight Terminator squads more viable.
.
DW suffers from not having Lieutenants, Doctrines means you can pick the "wound on 2+" ammo more often and that matters against a lot of things.

Being able to take a warlord trait on two characters isn't hurting anything.

It's weird that they reprinted the original Doctrine rules and the "go back one level" strat right after taking that away from everyone else, but it's not impossible that GW decided DW deserved the original version since they don't get a super doctrine. That is be unique to DW, at least for the moment, and it would be very much in keeping with the tactical flexibility that is their hallmark.

It really isn't flexibility because most of the weapons you want to use with Deathwatch are in the Tactical Doctrine anyway.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
It really isn't flexibility because most of the weapons you want to use with Deathwatch are in the Tactical Doctrine anyway.

Tell that to the Frag Cannon, that thing is amazing. If regular Marines could carry it in the heavy slot you'd never see them armed with anything else.

Besides, my point was that DW have a ton of levers to flip to optimize killing a given target (SIA, Mission Tactics, deciding who needs a target-specific strat the most, etc) and playing them well is about balancing how much you can afford to increase effectiveness against this turn's priority targets at the expense of effectiveness against stuff that will be a problem next turn if you don't whittle it down. The original rules for switching Doctrine fit that design remit better than the current rules, and it would compensate some for DW not getting a super-doctine if they got to keep the old rules.

And for the record I don't play DW. I play against them on a regular basis and they were a [censored] to tackle with normal Marines unless I specifically counter-build against them BEFORE this update.

The Newman wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
It really isn't flexibility because most of the weapons you want to use with Deathwatch are in the Tactical Doctrine anyway.

Tell that to the Frag Cannon, that thing is amazing. If regular Marines could carry it in the heavy slot you'd never see them armed with anything else.

Besides, my point was that DW have a ton of levers to flip to optimize killing a given target (SIA, Mission Tactics, deciding who needs a target-specific strat the most, etc) and playing them well is about balancing how much you can afford to increase effectiveness against this turn's priority targets at the expense of effectiveness against stuff that will be a problem next turn if you don't whittle it down. The original rules for switching Doctrine fit that design remit better than the current rules, and it would compensate some for DW not getting a super-doctine if they got to keep the old rules.

And for the record I don't play DW. I play against them on a regular basis and they were a [censored] to tackle with normal Marines unless I specifically counter-build against them BEFORE this update.

The Frag Cannon? You mean the thing that has the stats of either Assault 2D6 8" or Assault 2 24" that would benefit in the Tactical Doctrine instead?

Yeah I got news for ya buddy

That thing is Assault?

[checks]

Well nuggets. Doesn't change anything I said about [edit] how DW plays or how to get the best results with it [/edit] tho.

Yeesh... No wonder this was put into WD rather than a book.