Requizen wrote:

Just because you don't like change doesn't mean they shouldn't do it.

Honestly to me, this style feels much more organized, even if it is a little more limiting.

Why does it have to be a zero sum choice? Why do I have to lose so you can win?

Zewrath wrote:

Erh. Can't you just run the Deathwing detachment that has been leaked a few pages back?

Maybe I don't understand formations fully, so correct me if I'm wrong. I take the Deathwing formation, but I want to run two dreads in the force as separate units. Since the DW formation only allows for 0-1 units of dreads, I have to run an Unbound army: the DW formation plus a dread by itself.

Again, what was so difficult about simply allowing termies as Troops by taking a HQ in termie armor? Somehow, Space marines manage this with HQ on bikes without taking detachments and formations.

 Zewrath wrote:

Erh. Can't you just run the Deathwing detachment that has been leaked a few pages back?

That detachment isn't allowed to deploy any models on turn 1, and will thus lose.

 the_Armyman wrote:

Requizen wrote:

Just because you don't like change doesn't mean they shouldn't do it.

Honestly to me, this style feels much more organized, even if it is a little more limiting.

Why does it have to be a zero sum choice? Why do I have to lose so you can win?

Zewrath wrote:

Erh. Can't you just run the Deathwing detachment that has been leaked a few pages back?

Maybe I don't understand formations fully, so correct me if I'm wrong. I take the Deathwing formation, but I want to run two dreads in the force as separate units. Since the DW formation only allows for 0-1 units of dreads, I have to run an Unbound army: the DW formation plus a dread by itself.

Again, what was so difficult about simply allowing termies as Troops by taking a HQ in termie armor? Somehow, Space marines manage this with HQ on bikes without taking detachments and formations.

They mean this one:



Take an HQ with the Deathwing special rule (so, a Terminator HQ) and 2 Elites (so, Deathwing). Then add in more Elites (Deathwing Termies, Ven Dreads) until you're full on points. Mix and match with Ravenwing if you like.

Is the list for the deathwing strike force out in the open yet, as I understand that is another way to field only deathwing? Mine atm was to be allied with another army but want to try a full army with them now with the new codex. I wonder if dreads and land raiders will be on that detachment bit I imagine they will be.

So its best to put knights in a land raider and DS everything else?
How do yall feel about putting dreads in a dw list?

Edit: speak of the devil, thanks for posting that

The trouble Armyman is you can, you just have to make an unbound army. Then no one will play with you because Unbound army's are cheesy and OP. Unlike all the assorted detachments with free upgrades or tanks / transports.

Have some Ravenwing with them too then? They're not going to spontaneously combust on turn 1.

Requizen wrote:

They mean this one:



Take an HQ with the Deathwing special rule (so, a Terminator HQ) and 2 Elites (so, Deathwing). Then add in more Elites (Deathwing Termies, Ven Dreads) until you're full on points. Mix and match with Ravenwing if you like.

So, I don't get to take separate Land Raiders as HS choices now. And I still don't get ObSec. I think you're trying way too hard to explain why GW's appraoch is superior to my common sense approach. As a bonus, my common sense approach doesn't invalidate your way of wanting to play the game. Isn't that cool?

 the_Armyman wrote:

Requizen wrote:

They mean this one:



Take an HQ with the Deathwing special rule (so, a Terminator HQ) and 2 Elites (so, Deathwing). Then add in more Elites (Deathwing Termies, Ven Dreads) until you're full on points. Mix and match with Ravenwing if you like.

So, I don't get to take separate Land Raiders as HS choices now. And I still don't get ObSec. I think you're trying way too hard to explain why GW's appraoch is superior to my common sense approach. As a bonus, my common sense approach doesn't invalidate your way of wanting to play the game. Isn't that cool?

I'm not trying to start a fight, I'm just saying you can still take a pure Deathwing army (well, sorta, since they need to start in DS so you need something on the tabletop now). It's not the same, no. But there's no real reason to flip out, just adapt. This is how 7th edition has been going for pretty much every other army.

 the_Armyman wrote:
So, I don't get to take separate Land Raiders as HS choices now. And I still don't get ObSec. I think you're trying way too hard to explain why GW's appraoch is superior to my common sense approach. As a bonus, my common sense approach doesn't invalidate your way of wanting to play the game. Isn't that cool?

The game/army changed. That's really the way it goes (and has for many editions). As a plus, you don't have to take a special character if you don't want now.

the_Armyman wrote:Is there a good reason why this isn't part of army selection?

Step1: Choose a HQ in terminator armor.
Step 2: Units of Terminators are now Troops.
Step 3: Enjoy your game of 40K.

Is it that hard? A few lines of text in a little gray box tucked in a corner of a bloated codex? Let the people who want to play Formationhammer have their special rules and face-melting combos, while the minority of us just want to play with our termies, dreads, and land raiders like the good old days. For feth's sake.

I agree, honestly. :/
No problem with these formations being available and I might even be able to adapt to them but I'd be MUCH happier if they just kept the FOC-shifting as an option.
And I really don't see why they couldn't just have both...

 pretre wrote:

 the_Armyman wrote:
So, I don't get to take separate Land Raiders as HS choices now. And I still don't get ObSec. I think you're trying way too hard to explain why GW's appraoch is superior to my common sense approach. As a bonus, my common sense approach doesn't invalidate your way of wanting to play the game. Isn't that cool?

The game/army changed. That's really the way it goes (and has for many editions). As a plus, you don't have to take a special character if you don't want now.

See, the problem is that the choices GW makes are arbitrary. Put a Space Marine Captain on a bike and *poof* bikes as Troops. Why can this not be applied in this case. The game didn't change for some, but it did unnecessarily for others. So, you can use that old saw that "things always change," but in actuality, they don't for everyone.

Inb4 "life is tough, wear a helmet"

 the_Armyman wrote:
See, the problem is that the choices GW makes are arbitrary. Put a Space Marine Captain on a bike and *poof* bikes as Troops. Why can this not be applied in this case. The game didn't change for some, but it did unnecessarily for others. So, you can use that old saw that "things always change," but in actuality, they don't for everyone.

Except, if you've played DA for any length of time every unit has changed and the way the army works has changed significantly. This is the same for every army.

edit: And I completely agree that it is arbitrary. That being said, change is predictable since you know that it will happen with each edition and each new codex.

I wouldn't say it's arbitrary. They've decided to make DW play a certain way. They obviously decided that C:SM bikers as troops was something they wanted to do but didn't want to give them the special rules inherent to formations/detachments.
By mainting that level of restriction on how certain builds play it gives them some room to distinguish the various biker specialists/ TDA specialists/ knitting enthusiasts across the various chapters.

I'm excited about the DW Knights' Mace rule.

AP3 is a godsend.

The ability to switch on "smite" at any turn is pretty danged sweet too!

I won't drag things further off-topic. Just saying, there's the easy way that makes everyone happy and there's the GW way that turns more people away than it draws year-by-year. I'll go back to being a bitter curmudgeon in the shadows while you kids talk about your lollipops and rainbows

 whembly wrote:
I'm excited about the DW Knights' Mace rule.

AP3 is a godsend.

The ability to switch on "smite" at any turn is pretty danged sweet too!

Apparently they only get 1 attack each when using smite. Nerfed hardcore

Just play SM then if having Obj secured is so important to you. I'm with you in that it doesn't make much sense, but If DA had the same rule set as options as vanilla marines what would be the point.

As it stands, the leaked rules are and improvement and should make them fun to play. I know I'm looking forward to turbo boosting my way across the board to unload some terminator fury.

 pretre wrote:

 the_Armyman wrote:
See, the problem is that the choices GW makes are arbitrary. Put a Space Marine Captain on a bike and *poof* bikes as Troops. Why can this not be applied in this case. The game didn't change for some, but it did unnecessarily for others. So, you can use that old saw that "things always change," but in actuality, they don't for everyone.

Except, if you've played DA for any length of time every unit has changed and the way the army works has changed significantly. This is the same for every army.

edit: And I completely agree that it is arbitrary. That being said, change is predictable since you know that it will happen with each edition and each new codex.

So how would you go about allowing a force to take Bikes, Tacticals and Scouts (and only those three units) as the core of the force and leave everything else unchanged with an alternate Detachment? Changing Bikes to Troops is the simplest way to do so short of a Bike Squad Formation (which would still require two squads of Tacticals and/or Scouts).

It was almost certain that they were going to remove DW and RW as Troop choices, so no real surprise at all.

 jokerkd wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I'm excited about the DW Knights' Mace rule.

AP3 is a godsend.

The ability to switch on "smite" at any turn is pretty danged sweet too!

Apparently they only get 1 attack each when using smite. Nerfed hardcore

I disagree.

I've play DWK quite a bit in 6th ed. You have to be really judicious to pop that Smite mode since you only have it on your turn, once per game. Then, you're just a str 6, ap 4 maul'n terminator that you're just hoping to disrupt the enemy backline. Post smite, tough units can tie you up.

I'd rather have AP3 always, and choose to flip on smite (one attack at str 10, ap 2, at initiative) at any sub-fight phase. On a WS 5, T5, 2+/3++ model to boot!

I'll take that tradeoff any day.

To me, I'm fielding at least two units of knights!

 jokerkd wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I'm excited about the DW Knights' Mace rule.

AP3 is a godsend.

The ability to switch on "smite" at any turn is pretty danged sweet too!

Apparently they only get 1 attack each when using smite. Nerfed hardcore

I honestly cannot agree with this at all.
before, they were a one trick pony...either they died before they did their smite (because no one wanted to be the victim of that), or they killed that one thing and then were ignored/murdered.
Now, they are a reasonable threat to almost all types of opponents, but not crazy scary as to the enemy force focusing all firepower to kill them before getting Smite off. They have become far more tactically flexible, and with RW getting your face very quickly, the target choice/threat is more balanced. I think the new DA book will be more about army synergy that having a few "gimmicks" to get them by (Smite on DW knights, SoD banner etc)

@Whembly, I think the new smite is at S8 AP2, not S10.

Small buffs one does not notice as easily:

Darktalon lost Hover Strike, gained Strafing Run
Ezekiel lost his Traitor's Bane, got a Master Crafted Force Sword.
Terminators gained Hatred(CSM) instead of Preferred Enemy,
most IC have Preferred Enemy instead.

Seems like we lost Deathwing Vehicles though, which is pretty bad.

 whembly wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I'm excited about the DW Knights' Mace rule.

AP3 is a godsend.

The ability to switch on "smite" at any turn is pretty danged sweet too!

Apparently they only get 1 attack each when using smite. Nerfed hardcore

I disagree.

I've play DWK quite a bit in 6th ed. You have to be really judicious to pop that Smite mode since you only have it on your turn, once per game. Then, you're just a str 6, ap 4 maul'n terminator that you're just hoping to disrupt the enemy backline. Post smite, tough units can tie you up.

I'd rather have AP3 always, and choose to flip on smite (one attack at str 10, ap 2, at initiative) at any sub-fight phase. On a WS 5, T5, 2+/3++ model to boot!

I'll take that tradeoff any day.

To me, I'm fielding at least two units of knights!

Smite is now s8.
15 s10 vs 5 s8

 jokerkd wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I'm excited about the DW Knights' Mace rule.

AP3 is a godsend.

The ability to switch on "smite" at any turn is pretty danged sweet too!

Apparently they only get 1 attack each when using smite. Nerfed hardcore

I disagree.

I've play DWK quite a bit in 6th ed. You have to be really judicious to pop that Smite mode since you only have it on your turn, once per game. Then, you're just a str 6, ap 4 maul'n terminator that you're just hoping to disrupt the enemy backline. Post smite, tough units can tie you up.

I'd rather have AP3 always, and choose to flip on smite (one attack at str 10, ap 2, at initiative) at any sub-fight phase. On a WS 5, T5, 2+/3++ model to boot!

I'll take that tradeoff any day.

To me, I'm fielding at least two units of knights!

Smite is now s8.

You sure about that? I thought Smite is now just strength x 2.
Doesn't the mace +2 come into play? (s4 x 2 for smite, then +2 for mace = str10 smite dmg)???

15 s10 vs 5 s8

Again... I'd rather have 5 s8 attackes at any time, than 15 s10 in only one subfight phase.

 Ghaz wrote:

 pretre wrote:

 the_Armyman wrote:
See, the problem is that the choices GW makes are arbitrary. Put a Space Marine Captain on a bike and *poof* bikes as Troops. Why can this not be applied in this case. The game didn't change for some, but it did unnecessarily for others. So, you can use that old saw that "things always change," but in actuality, they don't for everyone.

Except, if you've played DA for any length of time every unit has changed and the way the army works has changed significantly. This is the same for every army.

edit: And I completely agree that it is arbitrary. That being said, change is predictable since you know that it will happen with each edition and each new codex.

So how would you go about allowing a force to take Bikes, Tacticals and Scouts (and only those three units) as the core of the force and leave everything else unchanged with an alternate Detachment? Changing Bikes to Troops is the simplest way to do so short of a Bike Squad Formation (which would still require two squads of Tacticals and/or Scouts).

Which is why Dark Angels should be able to do it too.

5 s8 that you can use at any time with a mace that is always AP3 versus a one use only, always AP 4 mace. I think it's a fair trade off. Throwing in a termy chaplain makes them even more fun.

Smite has its own profile at x2 strength.

We obviously play them differently. I now have to choose between your tactics or leaving them in the case.

Being ap3 is definitely a big bonus against most units, just not the units I'm used to pitting them against

CrashGordon94 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 pretre wrote:

 the_Armyman wrote:
See, the problem is that the choices GW makes are arbitrary. Put a Space Marine Captain on a bike and *poof* bikes as Troops. Why can this not be applied in this case. The game didn't change for some, but it did unnecessarily for others. So, you can use that old saw that "things always change," but in actuality, they don't for everyone.

Except, if you've played DA for any length of time every unit has changed and the way the army works has changed significantly. This is the same for every army.

edit: And I completely agree that it is arbitrary. That being said, change is predictable since you know that it will happen with each edition and each new codex.

So how would you go about allowing a force to take Bikes, Tacticals and Scouts (and only those three units) as the core of the force and leave everything else unchanged with an alternate Detachment? Changing Bikes to Troops is the simplest way to do so short of a Bike Squad Formation (which would still require two squads of Tacticals and/or Scouts).

Which is why Dark Angels should be able to do it too.

Just because it was necessary for one army to do so doesn't make it necessary for other armies. The Deathwing Detachment does not have Troops, Fast Attack or Heavy Support slots. That's why Deathwing are not Troops.

 the_Armyman wrote:
I won't drag things further off-topic. Just saying, there's the easy way that makes everyone happy and there's the GW way that turns more people away than it draws year-by-year. I'll go back to being a bitter curmudgeon in the shadows while you kids talk about your lollipops and rainbows

The problem with the easy way that makes everyone happy is that it only sells the books...or not if you are less than scrupulous. We all know why it changes (in most cases). They need to shake things up and get you to spend more money on even more models. This new 'Take our $40 to $80 vehicle kits in units of three!! so you can get access to some special rule that is legitimately cool' strategy is all about getting you to drop more money to put even more stuff down on the table. Instead of a FoC selection to unlock one or more units of your choice, it's 'take this apocalypse style formation thing to be able to take this other apocalypse style formation thing'

I was looking for an excuse to come back to playing my green marines, and thus 40k....but I'm just not getting the 'feelz' as the kids say these days.

I still don't get the arbitrary reason the Land Speeder Storm is not an option for Dark Angels Scout Squads (I can't read German, so couldn't see if that changed or not) . They seem to be freely handing out the Grav tech to everyone....you'd think the chapter with arguably the most Land Speeders on hand would/could spare a couple for Storms (stretch limo convertibles) for the 10th company....

I get that you can ally (brothers in arms) and unbound and all that, but I don't want to have to go outside of the 'box' to field a unit that has no reason for not being there except to give the vanilla marines something the other chapters cant have. I'll pass. I'm getting closer and closer to not caring any more and it may soon be time to get the old stuff up on ebay to help buy stuff for games I actually still enjoy playing...

I feel like there's not much else to talk about in here now. Can't we lock this sucker and take all the decurion mutterings to discussions etc?.

How many points are Black Knights now? 40pts seems like a lot.

 Ghaz wrote:
Just because it was necessary for one army to do so doesn't make it necessary for other armies. The Deathwing Detachment does not have Troops, Fast Attack or Heavy Support slots. That's why Deathwing are not Troops.

OR they could keep the old option and give the new option too, how about that?
Honestly I'd rather stick with "X as Troops" than these new formations given the chance, much simpler and more flexible. No reason not to at least have the OPTION to do it...

 Crazyterran wrote:
How many points are Black Knights now? 40pts seems like a lot.

They are, and that's two points cheaper than the previous codex' FA entry (same as RW Command Squad)

CrashGordon94 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Just because it was necessary for one army to do so doesn't make it necessary for other armies. The Deathwing Detachment does not have Troops, Fast Attack or Heavy Support slots. That's why Deathwing are not Troops.

OR they could keep the old option and give the new option too, how about that?
Honestly I'd rather stick with "X as Troops" than these new formations given the chance, much simpler and more flexible. No reason not to at least have the OPTION to do it...

So, you can't answer the question I asked and just want to complain. Gotcha.

Closing this thread? Will there be a painting guide next week? There is at least another DA mission in the next White Dwarf which should get leaked tomorrow or on Wednesday. If there is nothing more then the thread could be closed imho.

CrashGordon94 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Just because it was necessary for one army to do so doesn't make it necessary for other armies. The Deathwing Detachment does not have Troops, Fast Attack or Heavy Support slots. That's why Deathwing are not Troops.

OR they could keep the old option and give the new option too, how about that?
Honestly I'd rather stick with "X as Troops" than these new formations given the chance, much simpler and more flexible. No reason not to at least have the OPTION to do it...

but that's what they are trying to get away from. If you want Terms as "Troops", you take the DW Strike Force. Yes, they don't get Obsec, but that is like so many forces now. If you want Obsec Troops...you go CAD. If you want special formation rules...then you don't get Obsec.

I agree, no dw as troops is stupid, yes we can all try to justify it by saying "take cad, formations bla bla bla" but it's still idiotic, they have basically ignored dark angel players in the same way they ignore chaos players, chaos players have been wanting legions in the book somehow for 10 year ish, ignored, dark angels players wanted a hq that unlocks ravenwing and Deathwing as troops that isn't a special character, ignored.

That's why people thinks it's stupid, as it's so easily done, we can't understand why it hasn't been.

Ghaz wrote:So, you can't answer the question I asked and just want to complain. Gotcha.

No, I didn't see a question there. What question?

bullyboy wrote:but that's what they are trying to get away from. If you want Terms as "Troops", you take the DW Strike Force. Yes, they don't get Obsec, but that is like so many forces now. If you want Obsec Troops...you go CAD. If you want special formation rules...then you don't get Obsec.

And that's the thing, there's no reason to try and get away from it, it's perfectly fine! Why ditch a perfectly reasonable option like that?

LOCK THE THREAD?
Why would you lock the thread? The Deathwing squad entry isn't up yet, is it? That's a pretty big deal.

WHITE SCARS Vs RAVENWING
To the guys debating White Scars Vs Ravening, White Scars don't get scout automatically. You have to pay for Khan to get it. Whether that is a good or a bad thing remains to be seen.

Good point about khan, and str5 hammer of wrath while good, isn't something I'd like to use, bikes are best not getting close enough to be assaulted.

To be fair the only reason they were made troops in previous editions was because that was the only way you could field them legally
before Unbound as your primary unit.

You can easily field a non-SC as your HQ unit and Deathwing and Ravenwing now. The overall organisation is far more orderly, if you think about it.

It's definitely codex Ravenwing again though. Greenwing got a buff but still are inferior to SM; Deathwing didn't get the necessary buffs to make them competitive.

I was responding to AOV's post actually

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/900/649628.page#7923668

Yes, please keep this thread open @Mod Team

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
To be fair the only reason they were made troops in previous editions was because that was the only way you could field them legally
before Unbound as your primary unit.

And still a more flexible and natural way than these awkward detachments.
Plus it's possible to have the FOC moving AND special formations!

Leaks don't (usually) kill the thread no matter how comprehensive,

The generally MODs wait until the official release (unless the natives get too restless)

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:

You can easily field a non-SC as your HQ unit and Deathwing and Ravenwing now.

Can you? Previous codex didn't allow a captain in Terminator Armor or on a bike.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:

You can easily field a non-SC as your HQ unit and Deathwing and Ravenwing now.

Can you? Previous codex didn't allow a captain in Terminator Armor or on a bike.

Really?..........

The RW and DW detachments have 3 HQ slots for Ravenwing and Deathwing Librarians and Chaplains. Not too sure about Company Master options, though.

Spoletta wrote:

Nocturnus wrote:
So far Deathwing seem to be the weakest link thus far. Hopefully there's more to be revealed about them.

Weakest from the leaks, but possibly the most broken thing in the codex from the hints.

We could very well be looking at the following scenario:

Ravenwings turbo boost turn 1 into your deploy. They are close to immune to shooting that round.
Top of turn 2 DW knights and termies get DStriked in without scatter, shoot with split fire(maybe even run) and assault that same turn.
Bikes shoot at full Bs and assault.
Don't even want to think about Dreds doing the same thing (perfectly possible).

That could be the strongest beta strike army in the game.

Split Fire hasn't been confirmed. I guess we will have to wait for more leaks before rendering a final verdict.

GW basicaly made my Dark Angels dream army codex when I started it a year ago. I had a full 5th company built since Christmas, but they were not fun to play under a CAD. So I started since them doing 1/3 or 1/2 company for the 1st ans 2nd so I could spice it up a bit. This is my edition !

Looking at the entry for the generic hqs, it looks like you still can't take a bike and termy armor (as it should be), but they do not have the ravenwing special rule and taking a bike does not mention ravenwing in either the entry for the sc or under the entry for the bike in the wargear section. So what are we supposed to fill this HQ slots with other than Sammy and maybe a RW command squad?

 Brillow80 wrote:
Imagine, RW with scout and turbo boosting turn 1 with darkshroud support. 36" in your face with 3+ rerollable cover (2+ for black knights) firing at better than BS1 overwatch and full BS following turn. Such shenanigans!

Then the guy who plays KDK can come and say hello turn 1 since you came all the way and you can't assault, with models that have as much attacks per model, that you have models in your bikes units .

Maelstrom808 wrote:Looking at the entry for the generic hqs, it looks like you still can't take a bike and termy armor (as it should be), but they do not have the ravenwing special rule and taking a bike does not mention ravenwing in either the entry for the sc or under the entry for the bike in the wargear section. So what are we supposed to fill this HQ slots with other than Sammy and maybe a RW command squad?

What? They can take bikes or terminator armour, read carefully. They don't gain the Ravenwing special rule though they have Deathwing.

Slayer le boucher wrote:

 Brillow80 wrote:
Imagine, RW with scout and turbo boosting turn 1 with darkshroud support. 36" in your face with 3+ rerollable cover (2+ for black knights) firing at better than BS1 overwatch and full BS following turn. Such shenanigans!

Then the guy who plays KDK can come and say hello turn 1 since you came all the way and you can't assault, with models that have as much attacks per model, that you have models in your bikes units .

I'm fairly certain I can build a Black Knight deathstar with Conclave bikers that can easily roll any number of Daemonkin units from Hounds led by Juggerlords to Bloodthirsters, subject to getting the right powers off.

 Slayer le boucher wrote:

 Brillow80 wrote:
Imagine, RW with scout and turbo boosting turn 1 with darkshroud support. 36" in your face with 3+ rerollable cover (2+ for black knights) firing at better than BS1 overwatch and full BS following turn. Such shenanigans!

Then the guy who plays KDK can come and say hello turn 1 since you came all the way and you can't assault, with models that have as much attacks per model, that you have models in your bikes units .

Holy Scroll say "stay thine black painted behind away from red demons with pointy sticks and feisty dispositions lest you find your way to the Emprah."

I did say "shenanigans" not necessarily "one trick pony"

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:

You can easily field a non-SC as your HQ unit and Deathwing and Ravenwing now.

Can you? Previous codex didn't allow a captain in Terminator Armor or on a bike.

Deathwing Redemption Force indicates Company Master as option.....pretty sure a dude in termi armour is available as option.

I wonder if taking a bike on a character will give them the Raven wing rule. Perhaps it is in the bike entry itself.

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:Looking at the entry for the generic hqs, it looks like you still can't take a bike and termy armor (as it should be), but they do not have the ravenwing special rule and taking a bike does not mention ravenwing in either the entry for the sc or under the entry for the bike in the wargear section. So what are we supposed to fill this HQ slots with other than Sammy and maybe a RW command squad?

What? They can take bikes or terminator armour, read carefully. They don't gain the Ravenwing special rule though they have Deathwing.

The first part was in response to another post that I apparently misread as implying that you could take termy armor and a bike at the same time.

I am aware of the deathwing bit, but I am focussed on the fact that at the moment, you can't take a libby or chaplain as part of the ravenwing strike force, which sucks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
I wonder if taking a bike on a character will give them the Raven wing rule. Perhaps it is in the bike entry itself.

It is not. Currently Sammy and possibly Ravenwing Command Squads are the only available options for the Ravenwing Strike Force HQ slots.

But it's pretty easy to put it as a blurb in the datasheet. Or have we seen those datasheets already?

 Maelstrom808 wrote:

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:Looking at the entry for the generic hqs, it looks like you still can't take a bike and termy armor (as it should be), but they do not have the ravenwing special rule and taking a bike does not mention ravenwing in either the entry for the sc or under the entry for the bike in the wargear section. So what are we supposed to fill this HQ slots with other than Sammy and maybe a RW command squad?

What? They can take bikes or terminator armour, read carefully. They don't gain the Ravenwing special rule though they have Deathwing.

The first part was in response to another post that I apparently misread as implying that you could take termy armor and a bike at the same time.

I am aware of the deathwing bit, but I am focussed on the fact that at the moment, you can't take a libby or chaplain as part of the ravenwing strike force, which sucks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
I wonder if taking a bike on a character will give them the Raven wing rule. Perhaps it is in the bike entry itself.

It is not. Currently Sammy and possibly Ravenwing Command Squads are the only available options for the Ravenwing Strike Force HQ slots.

Does a unit have to have the ravenwing rule to be taken the detachment?

well I couldn't help myself. Local store still had one of the older Ravenwing Battleforce boxsets. Going to have a pretty decent Ravenwing force to start with now.

Here are the relevant entries:

Ravenwing Strike Force


Libby, Chaplin, and Interrogator-Chaplain


Ravenwing Bike Squad


Space Marine Bike wargear entry


So if you look at the Ravenwing Strike Force, it requires the ravenwing special for all units included in it. If you look at the Ravenwing bike squad, you can clearly see "Ravenwing" in the special rules. Then looking at the entries to the SCs and the Space Marine Bike entry, "Ravenwing" is not mentioned once.

 jokerkd wrote:

 Maelstrom808 wrote:

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:Looking at the entry for the generic hqs, it looks like you still can't take a bike and termy armor (as it should be), but they do not have the ravenwing special rule and taking a bike does not mention ravenwing in either the entry for the sc or under the entry for the bike in the wargear section. So what are we supposed to fill this HQ slots with other than Sammy and maybe a RW command squad?

What? They can take bikes or terminator armour, read carefully. They don't gain the Ravenwing special rule though they have Deathwing.

The first part was in response to another post that I apparently misread as implying that you could take termy armor and a bike at the same time.

I am aware of the deathwing bit, but I am focussed on the fact that at the moment, you can't take a libby or chaplain as part of the ravenwing strike force, which sucks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
I wonder if taking a bike on a character will give them the Raven wing rule. Perhaps it is in the bike entry itself.

It is not. Currently Sammy and possibly Ravenwing Command Squads are the only available options for the Ravenwing Strike Force HQ slots.

Does a unit have to have the ravenwing rule to be taken the detachment?

Yes.

So far despite the buffs and nerfs overall the changes seem a little mediocre. Aside from the re-rollable jink save, 6th ed codex was stronger.

I'd also add that it looks like BK or the RWCS got moved to the elite slot as in the current book there is nothing from the ravenwing that is elite yet there is a slot in the RSF.

No Deathwing as troops



No Ravenwing as troops



Monster Hunter of Caliban is the same

as to the Librarian and Interrogator Chaplains, they wouldn't have Ravenwing listed as a trait since they are members of the Inner Circle which is no longer a rule, it has been replaced with the rule "Deathwing". since the Ravenwing Strike Force has 3 HQ slots, I'm pretty sure you will be able to take other characters other than Sammael!

Also, not sure how you think the rules are worse than 6th edition.....they are much better now.

 Maelstrom808 wrote:
Here are the relevant entries:

Ravenwing Strike Force

Spoiler:

I like the Ravenwing 'Strike as One' Command Benefit as it allows the player to choose whether or not he wants to lose the game automatically at the end of the first turn if this is your only Detachment/Formation (see 'Sudden Death Victory' in the Preparing for Battle section of the main rulebook). Brilliant!

 Ghaz wrote:

 Maelstrom808 wrote:
Here are the relevant entries:

Ravenwing Strike Force

Spoiler:

I like the Ravenwing 'Strike as One' Command Benefit as it allows the player to choose whether or not he wants to loose the game automatically at the end of the first turn (see 'Sudden Death Victory' in the Preparing for Battle section of the main rulebook). Brilliant!

but the point is they are supposed to be taken in conjunction with a Deathwing Strike Force which also comes down on Turn 2.

So on board the strike cruiser they can have a debate over who's fault it was "wait, I thought you were supposed to be there first?" ..."nah, it was definitely your turn"

 bullyboy wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Maelstrom808 wrote:
Here are the relevant entries:

Ravenwing Strike Force

Spoiler:

I like the Ravenwing 'Strike as One' Command Benefit as it allows the player to choose whether or not he wants to loose the game automatically at the end of the first turn (see 'Sudden Death Victory' in the Preparing for Battle section of the main rulebook). Brilliant!

but the point is they are supposed to be taken in conjunction with a Deathwing Strike Force which also comes down on Turn 2.

So on board the strike cruiser they can have a debate over who's fault it was "wait, I thought you were supposed to be there first?" ..."nah, it was definitely your turn"

Lol

On topic, do we have a translation of the Deathwing rule?

Given that you can take both a FOC and a formation for the Ravenwing requirements, I'm imagining a lot of Deathwing players starting turn one with a single attack bike and a single land speeder on the board.

 bullyboy wrote:
as to the Librarian and Interrogator Chaplains, they wouldn't have Ravenwing listed as a trait since they are members of the Inner Circle which is no longer a rule, it has been replaced with the rule "Deathwing". since the Ravenwing Strike Force has 3 HQ slots, I'm pretty sure you will be able to take other characters other than Sammael!

Also, not sure how you think the rules are worse than 6th edition.....they are much better now.

First, I never said the rules were worse than 6th, I think you have me and another poster mixed up.

Second, I hear what you are saying, and I expect that you would be able to take other characters as HQs in the RSF as well, however nothing is supporting that ability at the moment, and it would not be the first time GW has made an error like this.

 Maelstrom808 wrote:

So if you look at the Ravenwing Strike Force, it requires the ravenwing special for all units included in it. If you look at the Ravenwing bike squad, you can clearly see "Ravenwing" in the special rules. Then looking at the entries to the SCs and the Space Marine Bike entry, "Ravenwing" is not mentioned once.

Yes, but it doesn't mean that in the specific HQ datasheets they don't have a comment about them becoming Ravenwing.

changemod wrote:
Given that you can take both a FOC and a formation for the Ravenwing requirements, I'm imagining a lot of Deathwing players starting turn one with a single attack bike and a single land speeder on the board.

You may as well start with nothing then. There's no way that survives an entire turn against any army, let alone a decent army.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

changemod wrote:
Given that you can take both a FOC and a formation for the Ravenwing requirements, I'm imagining a lot of Deathwing players starting turn one with a single attack bike and a single land speeder on the board.

You may as well start with nothing then. There's no way that survives an entire turn against any army, let alone a decent army.

As long as you have first turn, doesn't matter. Just know you will lose 16% of games

 raiden wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

changemod wrote:
Given that you can take both a FOC and a formation for the Ravenwing requirements, I'm imagining a lot of Deathwing players starting turn one with a single attack bike and a single land speeder on the board.

You may as well start with nothing then. There's no way that survives an entire turn against any army, let alone a decent army.

As long as you have first turn, doesn't matter. Just know you will lose 16% of games

Lol what?

NamelessBard wrote:

 Maelstrom808 wrote:

So if you look at the Ravenwing Strike Force, it requires the ravenwing special for all units included in it. If you look at the Ravenwing bike squad, you can clearly see "Ravenwing" in the special rules. Then looking at the entries to the SCs and the Space Marine Bike entry, "Ravenwing" is not mentioned once.

Yes, but it doesn't mean that in the specific HQ datasheets they don't have a comment about them becoming Ravenwing.

I'm not ruling out that there is something in the German that I can't understand that fixes this, but GW doesn't translate the word "Ravenwing" into German so it appears exactly as it does in english. If it was mentioned anywhere on the datasheet, you'd see it. Maybe i'm not imaginative enough to come up with it, but I can't think of a reasonable way to phrase giving permission to join the Ravenwing Strike Formation without using the word Ravenwing.

Nobody is going to leave the whole army in reserve. They will put the attachment in reserve, and the rest of their army on the board

Also the 16% of lost games comment refers to Seize the Initiative - as in if you set your bikes up and they seize from you, you will lose.

I disagree - bikes get a whole 12" re-deployment from scout AFTER your opponent if they seized from you, though - unless I am mistaken?

 jokerkd wrote:

On topic, do we have a translation of the Deathwing rule?

Edit: oops, misunderstood. Might still be able to find it though.

Edit2: nope,can't find it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 zgort wrote:

I disagree - bikes get a whole 12" re-deployment from scout AFTER your opponent if they seized from you, though - unless I am mistaken?

Seize is done before the start of the first game turn, so after scout moves.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

changemod wrote:
Given that you can take both a FOC and a formation for the Ravenwing requirements, I'm imagining a lot of Deathwing players starting turn one with a single attack bike and a single land speeder on the board.

You may as well start with nothing then. There's no way that survives an entire turn against any army, let alone a decent army.

Yes, because so many armies have any way to get at a single model obscured completely by LOS blocking terrain on turn one.

There's a few ways to do it, but not many.

 Maelstrom808 wrote:


Space Marine Bike wargear entry

Spoiler:

So if you look at the Ravenwing Strike Force, it requires the ravenwing special for all units included in it. If you look at the Ravenwing bike squad, you can clearly see "Ravenwing" in the special rules. Then looking at the entries to the SCs and the Space Marine Bike entry, "Ravenwing" is not mentioned once.

Actually it does in the 2nd line under Space Marine Bike. Its very blurry so I can't translate the surrounding words but it looks like Ravenwing to me

 andrewm9 wrote:

 Maelstrom808 wrote:


Space Marine Bike wargear entry

Spoiler:

So if you look at the Ravenwing Strike Force, it requires the ravenwing special for all units included in it. If you look at the Ravenwing bike squad, you can clearly see "Ravenwing" in the special rules. Then looking at the entries to the SCs and the Space Marine Bike entry, "Ravenwing" is not mentioned once.

Actually it does in the 2nd line under Space Marine Bike. Its very blurry so I can't translate the surrounding words but it looks like Ravenwing to me

That is the fluff section, you can tell because it is in Italics.

The actual rules are in the second half of the page.

Unfortunately that's the background section of the bike (you can tell because it's in italics). It probably says something like "used by members of the Ravenwing".

The rules section doesn't seem to mention the Ravenwing rule at all.

 jokerkd wrote:

 raiden wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

changemod wrote:
Given that you can take both a FOC and a formation for the Ravenwing requirements, I'm imagining a lot of Deathwing players starting turn one with a single attack bike and a single land speeder on the board.

You may as well start with nothing then. There's no way that survives an entire turn against any army, let alone a decent army.

As long as you have first turn, doesn't matter. Just know you will lose 16% of games

Lol what?

Sigh .. If you manage to get first turn, you can use this deployment, and even if both units die, everything comes in your turn two, so you're fine.

However, on a 6 enemy gets first turn, ergo 16% of the time you lose cuz your first turn nothing is on the field.

Game turn, not player turn...it doesn't matter if you go first or second, if you have nothing on the board at the end of the first game turn, you lose.

changemod wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

changemod wrote:
Given that you can take both a FOC and a formation for the Ravenwing requirements, I'm imagining a lot of Deathwing players starting turn one with a single attack bike and a single land speeder on the board.

You may as well start with nothing then. There's no way that survives an entire turn against any army, let alone a decent army.

Yes, because so many armies have any way to get at a single model obscured completely by LOS blocking terrain on turn one.

I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not. Every army will be able to kill a bike and a land speeder on turn 1 no matter what the terrain looks like.

so based on what we've seen so far where do people feel the new codex sits?
On a scale of 1 - 10, where are the new DA, 6e DA and the new SM.

 raiden wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:

 raiden wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

changemod wrote:
Given that you can take both a FOC and a formation for the Ravenwing requirements, I'm imagining a lot of Deathwing players starting turn one with a single attack bike and a single land speeder on the board.

You may as well start with nothing then. There's no way that survives an entire turn against any army, let alone a decent army.

As long as you have first turn, doesn't matter. Just know you will lose 16% of games

Lol what?

Sigh .. If you manage to get first turn, you can use this deployment, and even if both units die, everything comes in your turn two, so you're fine.

However, on a 6 enemy gets first turn, ergo 16% of the time you lose cuz your first turn nothing is on the field.

Wow. Don't ever stray into ymdc......

 bullyboy wrote:
so based on what we've seen so far where do people feel the new codex sits?
On a scale of 1 - 10, where are the new DA, 6e DA and the new SM.

Where Eldar is an 11 and Necrons are 10.5 I'd say

6e DA: 6
7e DA: 8
SM: 8.5-9 (Cents, better veterans, Stormraven/Stormtalon, relics, TFC, more offensive-based CT)

I reserve the right to adjust after playing a few games with the new book but it does seem like it's very internally balanced, just like BA and SW before it.

Oh, one thing I hear people ask is "What is codex xyz's answer to Imperial Knights"
So, um, what is DA's (besides an IK)?

 Maelstrom808 wrote:
Game turn, not player turn...it doesn't matter if you go first or second, if you have nothing on the board at the end of the first game turn, you lose.

It's your turn, check it again.

If, at the end of your turn you have nothing on the field you lose.

 raiden wrote:

 Maelstrom808 wrote:
Game turn, not player turn...it doesn't matter if you go first or second, if you have nothing on the board at the end of the first game turn, you lose.

It's your turn, check it again.

If, at the end of your turn you have nothing on the field you lose.

pg 133

quite clearly states " If at the end of any game turn, one player has no models on the battlefield his opponent automatically wins."

game turn, not player turn

 Brillow80 wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
so based on what we've seen so far where do people feel the new codex sits?
On a scale of 1 - 10, where are the new DA, 6e DA and the new SM.

Where Eldar is an 11 and Necrons are 10.5 I'd say

6e DA: 6
7e DA: 8
SM: 8.5-9 (Cents, better veterans, Stormraven/Stormtalon, relics, TFC, more offensive-based CT)

I reserve the right to adjust after playing a few games with the new book

Few nitpicks-
Cents were only amazing before due to grav weapons. Now they can Spam grav cannons, cents are still good, but not as good now.

Better veterans is debatable, they get stern guard (which are great) but ours cost much less, I'd wager around 85-90 pts bare.

Ours are more customizable, with the same option for metacide at 20pts less. (And no turn wasted not shooting special ammo)

I actually like our new flyers, they are one of the best anti-ground unit flyers bar none (save perhaps baledrake)

Especially the huge boost the dark talon got.

Our "chapter tactics" of stubborn/bs2 suck, I agree. But GW has to make us all wish we were as good as our spiritual overlords after all.

Just looking at it... I'd rate us slightly (ever so slightly) below C:SM.

Also, eldar are 10, necrons 9.5, C:SM 9-10(skyhammer), DA 8-9,

 raiden wrote:

 Maelstrom808 wrote:
Game turn, not player turn...it doesn't matter if you go first or second, if you have nothing on the board at the end of the first game turn, you lose.

It's your turn, check it again.

If, at the end of your turn you have nothing on the field you lose.

From 'Sudden Death Victory':

If at the end of any game turn, one player has no models on the battlefield his opponent automatically wins.

 raiden wrote:

 Maelstrom808 wrote:
Game turn, not player turn...it doesn't matter if you go first or second, if you have nothing on the board at the end of the first game turn, you lose.

It's your turn, check it again.

If, at the end of your turn you have nothing on the field you lose.

As others have said, you need to check it again.

so any idea what the "Elite" choice is for Ravenwing. If it's either a command squad or black knights, there is only a 0-1 choice. That might not work for some people but works for me.

 bullyboy wrote:
so any idea what the "Elite" choice is for Ravenwing. If it's either a command squad or black knights, there is only a 0-1 choice. That might not work for some people but works for me.

If what we've heard is true... RWBK, hopefully sammeal unlocks one as a HQ slot, but if not, I believe someone said the new RWBK can take 12 models. So take 12 and combat squad.

 bullyboy wrote:
so any idea what the "Elite" choice is for Ravenwing. If it's either a command squad or black knights, there is only a 0-1 choice. That might not work for some people but works for me.

Unknown at this time. Both could be elite. If there is actually an option to take generic hq characters as part of the RWSF, then almost certainly the RW command squad is elite keeping in line with SM command squads being elite instead of HQs.

If you cannot take generic hq characters in a RWSF (and it wasn't an "oops" by GW), then they pretty much have to be HQs as there is simply nothing else to fill the two optional HQ slots once you take Sammael.

Whether BK are elite or not partially depends on the situation above, as if RW command squads are not elite, BK are pretty much the only other logical choice. It also depends on if GW wanted to keep them essentially a "0-1" option in the RWSF.

 bullyboy wrote:
so any idea what the "Elite" choice is for Ravenwing. If it's either a command squad or black knights, there is only a 0-1 choice. That might not work for some people but works for me.

That would make me sad

Pretty sure command squad in C:SM is now an elites choice. Which would most likely put rwcs in the same and keep black knights as fast attack

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Unfortunately that's the background section of the bike (you can tell because it's in italics). It probably says something like "used by members of the Ravenwing".

The rules section doesn't seem to mention the Ravenwing rule at all.

Well gak. I was hoping that IC or CM would gain the Ravenwing rule if they took a bike. Then the fact they even listed HQ as a requirement is pretty dumb. It might as well just say Sammael. The only thing that might mitigate this is if the Deathwing rule somehow encompasses the Ravenwing rule as well. Do we have a translated scan of the Deathwing rule?

This book is shaping up to be a bit of a let down. The fact the Deathwing Strike Force is basically a carbon copy of the Archangels Strike Force is pretty annoying as well (except we can choose a lot more stuff to go in there with the ASF). I guess teleporting Land Raiders is going to have to cut it for some people. Though if you get a Teleport Homer on the board, dropping a Land Raider in the middle of your opponent's business would be kinda cool, especially if it spits out its entire complement of Terminators.

I'm hoping the special rules for Deathwing will mention something about ICs swapping for Ravenwing

There's not much hope, but some

Considering the detachment lists 3 HQs as an option I'd guess that GW intends for you to take more than just Sammael, it's just that (classically) they failed when it came to actually implementing said allowance.

Talk to your opponent. If they're reasonable they'll probably see that RAI, HQs on bikes can be taken as a part of the RWSF.

It's times like these I wish GW proof read things properly and did FaQs.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Considering the detachment lists 3 HQs as an option I'd guess that GW intends for you to take more than just Sammael, it's just that (classically) they failed when it came to actually implementing said allowance.

Talk to your opponent. If they're reasonable they'll probably see that RAI, HQs on bikes can be taken as a part of the RWSF.

It's times like these I wish GW proof read things properly and did FaQs.

It's OK, we'll get an FAQ about 5 months before our next codex!

 the_Armyman wrote:
Is there a good reason why this isn't part of army selection?

Step1: Choose a HQ in terminator armor.
Step 2: Units of Terminators are now Troops.
Step 3: Enjoy your game of 40K.

Is it that hard? A few lines of text in a little gray box tucked in a corner of a bloated codex? Let the people who want to play Formationhammer have their special rules and face-melting combos, while the minority of us just want to play with our termies, dreads, and land raiders like the good old days. For feth's sake.

You can take whatever you want. That is totally possible.

The book looks to have some winning choices so far

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Considering the detachment lists 3 HQs as an option

*facepalms* I totally forgot about that. Be it that most command squads are Elites, I am betting the RWCS is there, not in HQ. The bike adding Ravenwing would be the easiest way to get a Librarian, Interrogator-Chaplain, or a Company Master the Ravenwing rule, but, naturally, they biffed on that. And it isn't like Bikes are found or used anywhere else in the Chapter, either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 raiden wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Considering the detachment lists 3 HQs as an option I'd guess that GW intends for you to take more than just Sammael, it's just that (classically) they failed when it came to actually implementing said allowance.

Talk to your opponent. If they're reasonable they'll probably see that RAI, HQs on bikes can be taken as a part of the RWSF.

It's times like these I wish GW proof read things properly and did FaQs.

It's OK, we'll get an FAQ about 5 months before our next codex!

That's the spirit!

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Considering the detachment lists 3 HQs as an option I'd guess that GW intends for you to take more than just Sammael, it's just that (classically) they failed when it came to actually implementing said allowance.

Nah, they give you more than one so that you can run Sammael on a jetbike at the same time as you run him in Sableclaw, his Land Speeder.

on the topic of HQs, I noticed that both the DW and RW formations allow you to reroll the warlord trait if taken as primary detachment. If Belial and sammael still get a preset warlord trait as before, this would indicate that other HQ options must be allowed to be taken instead.

Any word on company veteran squads? Same cost and options?

 Kavish wrote:
Any word on company veteran squads? Same cost and options?

I'd imagine power weapons at 5pts now.

So, I've been reading that MoR now are AP3 and can be pumped to x2 AP2 one blow each. Does that mean that on a charge you get only ONE attack with the mace or do you still get the bonus from the charge?

While I like the notion of having the maces AP3, I'm concerned about how effective it'll be against Wraithknights, Demon princes, Imperial Knights, etc.

Prior you can strike 12 blows (4 knights + 3 attacks each) at S10 AP2 (or 1 against certain fellows) + the Knight Master's attacks at S6 AP3.
It usually meant that you killed whatever you hit as even 50% of the blows landing means 6 S10 attacks.
Now, I'm thinking about having 4 attacks (not sure if the Knight master has the same thing) against most things and trying to think of the best use of them. Are they just a good MEQ/Horde killer?

Based on what we know, is it possible to have a CAD of Scouts with a Librarian in TA, plus the DW Strike Force, and the ability to attach the Librarian to a DW squad? That's pretty much the only way I can see myself playing DA under this codex, and if not, all my DA stuff is getting sold. Unbound armies aren't allowed in any organized play in my area, and that's the only way I can get games in. :(

Until we get the English version there is no point in saying that "the only hq in a bla bla bla" force that can be taken is x, the option or clarification could be anywhere and it's pointless whining or jumping to conclusions until we see the finished product.

From the formations it's clear That other hqs are allowed, we just don't know how yet.

It's clear that the INTENTION is for them to be allowed. RAW may be a different best. It's GW after all.

 Formosa wrote:
Until we get the English version there is no point in saying that "the only hq in a bla bla bla" force that can be taken is x, the option or clarification could be anywhere and it's pointless whining or jumping to conclusions until we see the finished product.

From the formations it's clear That other hqs are allowed, we just don't know how yet.

Let's not forget than the german version of the SM codex had the wrong point values for Gravs, so i'm more keen on waiting the english version.

The French version has the wrong points for Grav .

But yes, it's true that GW could have screwed up only in the German version (or maybe even only have Bikes give the Ravenwing rule in the French 'dex )

Now I'm thinking of a future where GW puts different rules in different region's 'dexes, forcing people to buy multiple 'dexes and learn multiple languages to get all the rule...

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:


Now I'm thinking of a future where GW puts different rules in different region's 'dexes, forcing people to buy multiple 'dexes and learn multiple languages to get all the rule...

In the Grim Darkness of the Far Future, there are only Polyglots!

 Thairne wrote:
It's clear that the INTENTION is for them to be allowed. RAW may be a different best. It's GW after all.

No offence but when people mention raw to me it leaves a bad taste in my mouth, raw without rai is worthless, same vice versa, people should try to marry them up rather than stick to one or the other.

If for example raw says no and it's blatantly clear what the rai is, raw can suck a fat one, far too many people try to use raw to gain advantage for "legal cheating" hence my distrust.

Well the problem is, where do you draw the line with RAI vs RAW? It's like with any rules.. if you start to disregard one because you think otherwise you may end up with S: D Assault 7 bolters.
Personally, I'd treat any IC with a bike as having the RW rule, I'm with you there. Still RAW is RAW and RAI is RAI.
In a tournament the list would be illegal, no matter what you or I think.

Yeah I agree with that, don't disregard one or the other, your example makes complete sense, if you get raw and the rai isn't clear, go with raw, if raw is inane and rai is clear, go with rai, it's the raw obsessed people that irk me.

jakejackjake wrote:You can take whatever you want. That is totally possible.

No it's not, they took away the option he wanted to use.

All this newer talk is worrying me now, concerned I might be screwed...

I know I am jumping into this debate late, but can someone explain to me what the issue is? Are you saying generic HQ choices can't take bikes or just they don't have the special ravenwing rule? Does every unit in the ravenwing strike force thing have to have the ravenwing rule?

I'm going to be really agitated if I can't run 3 lvl 2 librarians on telepathy to make my bikes with a 2+ re-roll cover save.

Is it confirmed that our bikes have access to grav?

 Commissar Merces wrote:
generic HQ (...) don't have the special ravenwing rule

This...

 Commissar Merces wrote:
Does every unit in the ravenwing strike force thing have to have the ravenwing rule?

... and this, as far we know.

That would be disastrous, especially after I blew my money on a large ravenwing army last night...

 Commissar Merces wrote:
I know I am jumping into this debate late, but can someone explain to me what the issue is? Are you saying generic HQ choices can't take bikes or just they don't have the special ravenwing rule? Does every unit in the ravenwing strike force thing have to have the ravenwing rule?

I'm going to be really agitated if I can't run 3 lvl 2 librarians on telepathy to make my bikes with a 2+ re-roll cover save.

Is it confirmed that our bikes have access to grav?

There will most likely be an errata or something regarding this. However, rerollable 2+++ can be achieved by Ravenwing without any Libbys

GW's translated rules always have bugs. I wait for the english book to read the original rules. These bugs are sometimes huge, the german ObSec rule differs from the english one for example due to a bad translation.

Flyers must always start in reserve and the rulebook states "Flyers must begin the game as Reserves. Special rules that allow an owning player to
move one or more of their units out of Reserves after deployment but before the game
begins (for example the C’tan Shard power ‘Grand Illusion’) cannot be used to move a
Flyer out of Reserves unless they specifically state that Flyers can start the game deployed
on the table (such as a Skyshield Landing Pad’s ‘Ready for Takeoff’ rule)" So if you take the ravenwing formation you ll have to put all your units in reserves
cause flyers cant move out of reserves and with "strike as one" all the formation units must be deployed together. So if you take only the ravenwing formation and flyers
in it, you auto loose cause of no units on the table turn one.

 Commissar Merces wrote:
I know I am jumping into this debate late, but can someone explain to me what the issue is? Are you saying generic HQ choices can't take bikes or just they don't have the special ravenwing rule? Does every unit in the ravenwing strike force thing have to have the ravenwing rule?

I'm going to be really agitated if I can't run 3 lvl 2 librarians on telepathy to make my bikes with a 2+ re-roll cover save.

Is it confirmed that our bikes have access to grav?

Up to two Ravenwing Bikers may take one item each from the Special Weapons list.
Special Weapons: Flamer (5), Melter (10), Grav (15) and Plasma Guns (15)

And yes, the Ravenwing Strike Force has a single restriction:
"All units of this detachment must have the Ravenwing special rule (see page 148)" (translated)

For completeness sake: None of the generic HQs have the Ravenwing rule - and although they do have the option to take a Space Marine Bike, the entry for Space Marine Bike does NOT grant the Ravenwing special rule.

lonewolf81 wrote:
Flyers must always start in reserve and the rulebook states "Flyers must begin the game as Reserves. Special rules that allow an owning player to
move one or more of their units out of Reserves after deployment but before the game
begins (for example the C’tan Shard power ‘Grand Illusion’) cannot be used to move a
Flyer out of Reserves unless they specifically state that Flyers can start the game deployed
on the table (such as a Skyshield Landing Pad’s ‘Ready for Takeoff’ rule)" So if you take the ravenwing formation you ll have to put all your units in reserves
cause flyers cant move out of reserves and with "strike as one" all the formation units must be deployed together. So if you take only the ravenwing formation and flyers
in it, you auto loose cause of no units on the table turn one.

This is getting ridiculous.
No flyers because that is an autoloss?
That means you cannot pair DW with Flyers outside a CAD and the Lion's Blade.

Let me get this straight.
If you run RWSF with a flyer, you loose.
If you run a DWSF, you loose.
If you run a DWSF with a RWSF and a flyer, you loose.

Seriously?

Has the Librarian datasheet entry been translated?

Let's not get our bathrobes in a bind here just yet....

There goes my excitement... I'm sure it will be changed, but what else have they messed up?

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Has the Librarian datasheet entry been translated?

Let's not get our bathrobes in a bind here just yet....

Yes. May take a bike for 20 pts. No mention of Ravenwing. The Ravenwing rule doesn't state anything either.
If there is not something we didn't see yet, this is close to unplayable outside The Lion's Blade/CAD.

Have we seen a scan for the Ravenwing rule (pg 148)? There has to be a way to get an HQ that isn't Sammael.

All of this can be house ruled though about the IC's not having the ravenwing rule. Its foolish to assume that you cant take libbys and chaplains with ravenwing. NOW I would assume that no company master may take a bike or tda because its just not fluffy and they could not in the last book. There is only one company master for the 1st and 2nd company. So RAW now as far as we know it is not allowed but clearly it is not RAI. For organized play this is what needs to be shown to TO’s so that it can be one of MANY MANY changes they do in rules packs for tournaments. Also just house rule this, I highly doubt anyone you can play would not gripe about this and if they do you shouldn’t game with them anyway.

 Thairne wrote:

lonewolf81 wrote:
Flyers must always start in reserve and the rulebook states "Flyers must begin the game as Reserves. Special rules that allow an owning player to
move one or more of their units out of Reserves after deployment but before the game
begins (for example the C’tan Shard power ‘Grand Illusion’) cannot be used to move a
Flyer out of Reserves unless they specifically state that Flyers can start the game deployed
on the table (such as a Skyshield Landing Pad’s ‘Ready for Takeoff’ rule)" So if you take the ravenwing formation you ll have to put all your units in reserves
cause flyers cant move out of reserves and with "strike as one" all the formation units must be deployed together. So if you take only the ravenwing formation and flyers
in it, you auto loose cause of no units on the table turn one.

This is getting ridiculous.
No flyers because that is an autoloss?
That means you cannot pair DW with Flyers outside a CAD and the Lion's Blade.

Let me get this straight.
If you run RWSF with a flyer, you loose.
If you run a DWSF, you loose.
If you run a DWSF with a RWSF and a flyer, you loose.

Seriously?

The only possible loophole for the RW Strike Force I can see is that the rule reads "either put everything in reserves and arrive at start of turn 2 OR deploy as usual". That'd mean that you can deploy your regular forces in turn 1 and your flyers go to reserves "as usual". But let's wait for the English wording before we loose our gak over this.

makes me glad my group doesn't play with flyers, lol.

There may be some deployment errors and I wouldn't put it past GW, and it may well be impossible to play pure DW or RW forces without some form of mix and match. That would be a sad change and I could understand others frustrations with GW regarding this.
I just know that in 5 days I will have my grubby hands on the book to enjoy my Saturday evening.

A CAD is looking more and more likely for me... this detachment foolishness is too restrictive.

I am so disappointed that people don't just outright ban formations and detachments. They are just GW rewarding you for being a good consumer and buying large amounts of certain kits.

 Commissar Merces wrote:
A CAD is looking more and more likely for me... this detachment foolishness is too restrictive.

I am so disappointed that people don't just outright ban formations and detachments. They are just GW rewarding you for being a good consumer and buying large amounts of certain kits.

it took you this long to see that?

 Commissar Merces wrote:
A CAD is looking more and more likely for me... this detachment foolishness is too restrictive.

I am so disappointed that people don't just outright ban formations and detachments. They are just GW rewarding you for being a good consumer and buying large amounts of certain kits.

This also, is why I'm so upset that they didn't keep the "X as Troops" option with Azrael/Belial/Sammael. I still don't really see any good in that.

tedurur wrote:
There will most likely be an errata

Famous last words?

 namiel wrote:


*snip*
There is only one company master for the 1st and 2nd company.
*snip*

I wasn't aware Belial and Sammael were 10,000 years old. I bet they were pissed when that whipper-snapper Azrael bumped them from the Chapter Master gig! Not to mention those successor chapters all being told that Belial and Sammael were also in charge of their 1st and 2nd companies. Do you think they tele-commute to those other Chapters or do they book a battle barge and rack up the frequent flyer miles?

 Commissar Merces wrote:
A CAD is looking more and more likely for me... this detachment foolishness is too restrictive.

I am so disappointed that people don't just outright ban formations and detachments. They are just GW rewarding you for being a good consumer and buying large amounts of certain kits.

Hate to break it to you, but a Combined Arms Detachment is - well, a detachment. That spiteful ban wouldn't do you much good. Not to mention you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater, plenty of formations that are fun and fluffy to play against.

Formations and detachments are a big part of the game now. Huff and puff all you want, the house isn't going anywhere.

If you're really convinced that GW is up to no good, no need to play new edition rules or buy new books: just play a previous edition. Loads of people on Dakka doing the same.

nekooni wrote:

 Thairne wrote:

lonewolf81 wrote:
Flyers must always start in reserve and the rulebook states "Flyers must begin the game as Reserves. Special rules that allow an owning player to
move one or more of their units out of Reserves after deployment but before the game
begins (for example the C’tan Shard power ‘Grand Illusion’) cannot be used to move a
Flyer out of Reserves unless they specifically state that Flyers can start the game deployed
on the table (such as a Skyshield Landing Pad’s ‘Ready for Takeoff’ rule)" So if you take the ravenwing formation you ll have to put all your units in reserves
cause flyers cant move out of reserves and with "strike as one" all the formation units must be deployed together. So if you take only the ravenwing formation and flyers
in it, you auto loose cause of no units on the table turn one.

This is getting ridiculous.
No flyers because that is an autoloss?
That means you cannot pair DW with Flyers outside a CAD and the Lion's Blade.

Let me get this straight.
If you run RWSF with a flyer, you loose.
If you run a DWSF, you loose.
If you run a DWSF with a RWSF and a flyer, you loose.

Seriously?

The only possible loophole for the RW Strike Force I can see is that the rule reads "either put everything in reserves and arrive at start of turn 2 OR deploy as usual". That'd mean that you can deploy your regular forces in turn 1 and your flyers go to reserves "as usual". But let's wait for the English wording before we loose our gak over this.

Maybe you are not supposed to use fliers and only this formation. And if you wanna do it you should also take a support squadron to be deployed in the table turn one. Also having fliers auto arrive turn 2 is huge.

The way is worded i take it "reserves or not reserves (deploy normaly)" Definetely needs an FAQ

 the_Armyman wrote:

 namiel wrote:


*snip*
There is only one company master for the 1st and 2nd company.
*snip*

I wasn't aware Belial and Sammael were 10,000 years old. I bet they were pissed when that whipper-snapper Azrael bumped them from the Chapter Master gig! Not to mention those successor chapters all being told that Belial and Sammael were also in charge of their 1st and 2nd companies. Do you think they tele-commute to those other Chapters or do they book a battle barge and rack up the frequent flyer miles?

"counts as" for your successors

I am talking about the dark angels chapter only and this is for the current snippet of time in the plotline

since when do all Formations "require" you to buy more stuff?
The RW Strike Force only has a min requirement of an HQ and 2 FA choices. Who in the heck doesn't already have this if they are playing Ravenwing?
banning Formations is the silliest thing I've heard since.....well, just banning Eldar in general, lol.
I love the formation style of play, it reminds me more of epic Space Marine when it comes to building forces. I also plan to make my own printed datasheets with all units on them that I choose for each formation

as far as Company Masters go, you can equip one with terminator armour and he has the deathwing rule so Belial no longer has to be your Master of the Deathwing.

And to the translation of the RWSF, it states all in reserve OR deploy normally, so that means flyers in reserve, everything else on table if you play a RWSF only. You just can't split up some bikers, speeders etc to go in reserve and some on table. Of course, maybe there is nothing stopping you taking 2 formations where you put all of one in reserve and the other on table.

not huffing and puffing, just annoyed that these formations exist. The skyhammer one is a perfect example of what these things really are: a cheap marketing ploy. I just think they should be treated as such.

Beyond that, someone needs to start giving us some positive info because the last couple of pages have been nothing but depressing. Tell me more about our awesome librarians that can't join my ravenwing units

OMG Advanced Space Curusade / Tyranid Attack Scouts in the WD pics? LAAAVHELY!

I thought I was the only one to love them!

In the name of the Holy Lion, let's all see the Codex in its full glory before we start judging.

That said...

 Commissar Merces wrote:
A CAD is looking more and more likely for me... this detachment foolishness is too restrictive.

I am so disappointed that people don't just outright ban formations and detachments. They are just GW rewarding you for being a good consumer and buying large amounts of certain kits.

Yes, they are there to sell more models (it is actually quite clever). However, once we get beyond that...

Formations are _supposed_ to be restrictive, Just ask an Eldar player. you will _never_ get everything you want in a 2,000 point force.

However, in return for using formations, which represent how specific units often appear/are used in the 40k universe, you get some seriously cool rules that make the units within them better. You cannot have the one without the other because that is the balancing factor. Take a number of specific formations, and you get another bonus - but are more limited. This is how it works.

For example, when I play the (filthy, filthy xenos) Eldar, I am all over the Aspect Host. BS 5 on Avengers and Reapers? Give me some of that. However, I cannot just have two Aspect squads - I must take three, and that is on top of the core formation of bikes or walky Guardians (you want the guaranteed 6" run, natch). The Aspect Host is still good, but it comes with a burden that you have to figure out how to live with. This particular example I actually think is quite cool, as those Guardians are too expensive to consider them a 'tax' and so you have to figure out how to make them perform properly and earn their points, in a way you just could not/would not do if you could spam the Aspect Hosts.

With the Dark Angels the core tax is the Demi Company - which I would be mostly okay with as I tended to take two Tactical Squads in my armies, and I guess I could fit in a third. But I only ever took Devastators on 'special' occasions and I have tended to avoid Assault Squads. Now, if I want all the benefits the Lion intended for my marines, I am going to have to figure out how to make them part of the standard battle plan (because they are _way_ too expensive to be a tax).

There are now many, many different ways to field army - battle forged or unbound, CAD alone, CAD with formations or Allies, Decurion, formations alone... Ravenwing and Deathwing are no exception to this,.

I would say that formations, in and of themselves, are cool. Yes, there is a financial aspect for both us and GW to consider but _if_ you are in this for the long haul, I would say this is something of a Golden Age for 40k. Made all the better for a bona fide decent Dark Angels Codex.

Come on, we Dark Angels are no strangers to heavy Emperor-given restrictions, we know how to deal with them. We know you just cannot take anything you want and be damned - might as well be a filthy Space Wolf if you go down that path!

I'm not trying to start verbal sparring over formations: simply put this potential problem with non ravenwing characters could be fixed by the old system of an HQ selected on a bike unlocks ravenwing bike squads as troops rather than this overly complicated way. I shouldn't have gotten into my personal feelings about formations, I apologize.

That's all. Can we get back to rumors?

Yes, some people like these Formations, great. They should have the option, and maybe I could work with it.
But WHY can't the old FOC moving still be an option? For those who prefer to work that way and DON'T like these Formations and for those who would be willing to give up those bonuses to make their force the way they want in a simpler and easier way.
Never got an answer to this, and got accused of just wanting to complain (for not answering a question that was never asked, no less...), so it's time to answer it!

So how long until they errata missile lock from the Nephilim again?

CrashGordon94 wrote:
Yes, some people like these Formations, great. They should have the option, and maybe I could work with it.
But WHY can't the old FOC moving still be an option? For those who prefer to work that way and DON'T like these Formations and for those who would be willing to give up those bonuses to make their force the way they want in a simpler and easier way.

You've seen the Deathwing and Ravenwing Detachments, right?

"FOC swaps" were cool and all, but they also were tied to specific characters. That's not the case anymore. I'm much happier with unique Detachments instead of FOC swaps.

CrashGordon94 wrote:
Yes, some people like these Formations, great. They should have the option, and maybe I could work with it.
But WHY can't the old FOC moving still be an option? For those who prefer to work that way and DON'T like these Formations and for those who would be willing to give up those bonuses to make their force the way they want in a simpler and easier way.
Never got an answer to this, and got accused of just wanting to complain (for not answering a question that was never asked, no less...), so it's time to answer it!

Can't you just use a CAD or even go full-on unbound? There's no rule that prevents you from doing that. Yes, you loose those bonuses, but you just said you would be willing to give those up, right?

nekooni wrote:

CrashGordon94 wrote:
Yes, some people like these Formations, great. They should have the option, and maybe I could work with it.
But WHY can't the old FOC moving still be an option? For those who prefer to work that way and DON'T like these Formations and for those who would be willing to give up those bonuses to make their force the way they want in a simpler and easier way.
Never got an answer to this, and got accused of just wanting to complain (for not answering a question that was never asked, no less...), so it's time to answer it!

Can't you just use a CAD or even go full-on unbound? There's no rule that prevents you from doing that. Yes, you loose those bonuses, but you just said you would be willing to give those up, right?

Apparently, you keep the rerollable jink.

 Kanluwen wrote:

CrashGordon94 wrote:
Yes, some people like these Formations, great. They should have the option, and maybe I could work with it.
But WHY can't the old FOC moving still be an option? For those who prefer to work that way and DON'T like these Formations and for those who would be willing to give up those bonuses to make their force the way they want in a simpler and easier way.

You've seen the Deathwing and Ravenwing Detachments, right?

"FOC swaps" were cool and all, but they also were tied to specific characters. That's not the case anymore. I'm much happier with unique Detachments instead of FOC swaps.

They never should've been tied to a single character or even two characters. It should've been any HQ on a bike unlocks it. The issue currently, is there is no HQ choice outside of Sammy to use the ravenwing detachment unless we are missing something or it is FAQd


Also note, the ravenwing only rule means you will need to take another detachment formation in order to take any deathwing or green wing models where before, you had freedom.

lonewolf81 wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 Thairne wrote:

lonewolf81 wrote:
Flyers must always start in reserve and the rulebook states "Flyers must begin the game as Reserves. Special rules that allow an owning player to
move one or more of their units out of Reserves after deployment but before the game
begins (for example the C’tan Shard power ‘Grand Illusion’) cannot be used to move a
Flyer out of Reserves unless they specifically state that Flyers can start the game deployed
on the table (such as a Skyshield Landing Pad’s ‘Ready for Takeoff’ rule)" So if you take the ravenwing formation you ll have to put all your units in reserves
cause flyers cant move out of reserves and with "strike as one" all the formation units must be deployed together. So if you take only the ravenwing formation and flyers
in it, you auto loose cause of no units on the table turn one.

This is getting ridiculous.
No flyers because that is an autoloss?
That means you cannot pair DW with Flyers outside a CAD and the Lion's Blade.

Let me get this straight.
If you run RWSF with a flyer, you loose.
If you run a DWSF, you loose.
If you run a DWSF with a RWSF and a flyer, you loose.

Seriously?

The only possible loophole for the RW Strike Force I can see is that the rule reads "either put everything in reserves and arrive at start of turn 2 OR deploy as usual". That'd mean that you can deploy your regular forces in turn 1 and your flyers go to reserves "as usual". But let's wait for the English wording before we loose our gak over this.

Maybe you are not supposed to use fliers and only this formation. And if you wanna do it you should also take a support squadron to be deployed in the table turn one. Also having fliers auto arrive turn 2 is huge.

The way is worded i take it "reserves or not reserves (deploy normaly)" Definetely needs an FAQ

No it isn't. It literally says "The units of this detachment must all go to reserves or deploy all of them as normal". The question is whether or not "deploying as normal" includes placing units in reserves as per normal rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 raiden wrote:

nekooni wrote:

CrashGordon94 wrote:
Yes, some people like these Formations, great. They should have the option, and maybe I could work with it.
But WHY can't the old FOC moving still be an option? For those who prefer to work that way and DON'T like these Formations and for those who would be willing to give up those bonuses to make their force the way they want in a simpler and easier way.
Never got an answer to this, and got accused of just wanting to complain (for not answering a question that was never asked, no less...), so it's time to answer it!

Can't you just use a CAD or even go full-on unbound? There's no rule that prevents you from doing that. Yes, you loose those bonuses, but you just said you would be willing to give those up, right?

Apparently, you keep the rerollable jink.

That's a special rule tied to the unit and NOT to the formation or detachment - so yes, you keep it. Just like any other unit specific rules.

Kanluwen wrote:]
You've seen the Deathwing and Ravenwing Detachments, right?

"FOC swaps" were cool and all, but they also were tied to specific characters. That's not the case anymore. I'm much happier with unique Detachments instead of FOC swaps.

Yes, and I'm trying to adapt to them but I'm screwed over because I'll have to either completely abandon several units (a Vindicator, a Bikeless Power Armor Librarian, a Tactical Squad, an Assault Squad and a Company Master/to-be-converted Azrael proxy) or buy some new stuff I don't really want in order to field no less than THREE BLOODY DETACHMENTS in order to fit everything I want.

That's the thing, "instead of". Why not both? Why not keep FOC swapping for those who like it the old way AND add new Formations for people willing to work with that? Best of both worlds and everyone (probably) happy!

nekooni wrote:Can't you just use a CAD or even go full-on unbound? There's no rule that prevents you from doing that. Yes, you loose those bonuses, but you just said you would be willing to give those up, right?

CAD: Not anymore. My original plan (As seen in progress here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/652582.page) was an Azrael-lead CAD but that's not an option anymore because it doesn't work without him turning Ravewing and Deathwing into Troops. If they kept that I would've happily kept going down that line, but I don't even get the CHOICE to do so!
Unbound: Absolutely not an option in the slightest.

People are getting antsy, but it clearly states "deploy as normal" nothing says everything has to start on the table. You deploy AS YOU NORMALLY WOULD "

You have more freedom now. You could even ignore the character and any sort of force org chart and just run an army of nothing but bikes. They gave you more options, as well as more fluffy bonuses for running them. The ONLY thing they lost was objective secured, so there iis your answer. They didn't remove an option, they swapped a special rule. That is well within their purview.

 Brillow80 wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
so based on what we've seen so far where do people feel the new codex sits?
On a scale of 1 - 10, where are the new DA, 6e DA and the new SM.

Where Eldar is an 11 and Necrons are 10.5 I'd say

6e DA: 6
7e DA: 8
SM: 8.5-9 (Cents, better veterans, Stormraven/Stormtalon, relics, TFC, more offensive-based CT)

I reserve the right to adjust after playing a few games with the new book but it does seem like it's very internally balanced, just like BA and SW before it.

Oh, one thing I hear people ask is "What is codex xyz's answer to Imperial Knights"
So, um, what is DA's (besides an IK)?

Err... What?

C:Craftwords are a 10 (I can admit it - I play them and I love it)
Cark Eldar are easily an 9 (maybe 9.5 if you care to get that specific)
C:SM is probably an 8. It's a solid dex that has a lot of flexibility and unless you suck at playing or are facing one of the two books above it - you have a good chance of winning.
C:SW is probably next at a 7.5. Arguably also an 8
C:BA is maybe a 6.5 or a 7. They are tough to play due to poor point balancing
C:CSM are doing pretty badly. I'd feel dishonest if I gave them anything higher than a 5. Unless you are just a phenomenal player AND you frequently play unskilled opponents you will not win many games. Your point costs are so high that you'll typically bring 25% the total number of models you enemy does (unles you are using cultists, but then you're just wasting time).
C:Orks ... not sure they even fit on the scale. I mean - they aren't competitive but ... who doesn't love to hate orks? They're a hoot, even to lose with.
C:Tau and C:Necrons are probably tied at a 3.5 or a 4. They suck... period. I have never lost a game to anyone using either army. Now, I will say that my experience (anecdotal I realize) has been that most Tau/Necron players are new players or just less skilled players so that may be a factor.
And obviously at the bottom I will place the Sisters... because honestly you can't really play them atm. They suck. badly... GW needs to wake up and fix this. I've never once met a player that didn't have some interest in seeing them get a new (real) release.

So where do I put DA?

Well, the 6e DA dex was mostly garbage with some oddly good parts. DW as troops made is playable, but it was tough to put any real number of models on the table for the point costs at the time.
7e DA seems to be addressing this, but baed on the 'leaks' it seams like there are some other detractors now as well. Formations are also ging to hurt it.

One that imo fits very well.

Dark angels arent the most reliable chapter to hold onto key objectives after all...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 En Excelsis wrote:

 Brillow80 wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
so based on what we've seen so far where do people feel the new codex sits?
On a scale of 1 - 10, where are the new DA, 6e DA and the new SM.

Where Eldar is an 11 and Necrons are 10.5 I'd say

6e DA: 6
7e DA: 8
SM: 8.5-9 (Cents, better veterans, Stormraven/Stormtalon, relics, TFC, more offensive-based CT)

I reserve the right to adjust after playing a few games with the new book but it does seem like it's very internally balanced, just like BA and SW before it.

Oh, one thing I hear people ask is "What is codex xyz's answer to Imperial Knights"
So, um, what is DA's (besides an IK)?

Err... What?

C:Craftwords are a 10 (I can admit it - I play them and I love it)
Cark Eldar are easily an 9 (maybe 9.5 if you care to get that specific)
C:SM is probably an 8. It's a solid dex that has a lot of flexibility and unless you suck at playing or are facing one of the two books above it - you have a good chance of winning.
C:SW is probably next at a 7.5. Arguably also an 8
C:BA is maybe a 6.5 or a 7. They are tough to play due to poor point balancing
C:CSM are doing pretty badly. I'd feel dishonest if I gave them anything higher than a 5. Unless you are just a phenomenal player AND you frequently play unskilled opponents you will not win many games. Your point costs are so high that you'll typically bring 25% the total number of models you enemy does (unles you are using cultists, but then you're just wasting time).
C:Orks ... not sure they even fit on the scale. I mean - they aren't competitive but ... who doesn't love to hate orks? They're a hoot, even to lose with.
C:Tau and C:Necrons are probably tied at a 3.5 or a 4. They suck... period. I have never lost a game to anyone using either army. Now, I will say that my experience (anecdotal I realize) has been that most Tau/Necron players are new players or just less skilled players so that may be a factor.
And obviously at the bottom I will place the Sisters... because honestly you can't really play them atm. They suck. badly... GW needs to wake up and fix this. I've never once met a player that didn't have some interest in seeing them get a new (real) release.

So where do I put DA?

Well, the 6e DA dex was mostly garbage with some oddly good parts. DW as troops made is playable, but it was tough to put any real number of models on the table for the point costs at the time.
7e DA seems to be addressing this, but baed on the 'leaks' it seams like there are some other detractors now as well. Formations are also ging to hurt it.

The amount of wrong here is so high... I'm not sure if trolling or serious.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
You have more freedom now. You could even ignore the character and any sort of force org chart and just run an army of nothing but bikes. They gave you more options, as well as more fluffy bonuses for running them. The ONLY thing they lost was objective secured, so there iis your answer. They didn't remove an option, they swapped a special rule. That is well within their purview.

This is just a fundamental disagreement that probably is not worth exploring further. The fact remains, I am going to need to take the ravenwing detachment and an additional CAD, Detachment, formation, whatever to get access to more than just one wing of the dark angel army without going unbound (which everyone in my area bans).

So that leaves me having to pay at least another HQ and troops of some kind tax. I don't really consider that flexibility.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:You have more freedom now. You could even ignore the character and any sort of force org chart and just run an army of nothing but bikes. They gave you more options, as well as more fluffy bonuses for running them. The ONLY thing they lost was objective secured, so there iis your answer. They didn't remove an option, they swapped a special rule. That is well within their purview.

No, they took away an important option: Running a CAD with Ravenwing/Deathwing/both as Troops, and that was an option that many BUILT THEIR ARMIES AROUND and that these formations can't quite replace because you might have put stuff in that modified CAD that doesn't fit in those other detachments.
Whereas if they just kept the "X as Troops" rules instead of going out of their way to remove them and had both that AND the Formations as options, nobody would be screwed over!
And what's wrong with giving both options?

I started with the 4th edition codex. I think GW suck at writing rules, and stuffs. I am STILL massively looking forward to playing with a codex that might have more than 2-3 viable competitive builds. HUZZAH FOR GW.

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
I started with the 4th edition codex. I think GW suck at writing rules, and stuffs. I am STILL massively looking forward to playing with codex that might have more than 2-3 viable competitive builds. HUZZAH FOR GW.

Ian? Is that you? Didn't know you were a secret Dark Angel!

Am I the only one that doesn't really care about the loss of ObjSec for RW/DW? I feel the new special rules in all the formations/detatchments are a good trade off and this army now has far more flexibility than it ever had. Granted, I've never run pure DW or RW force to begin with and like their synergy together, but I still don't really think it's a big deal.

Have the rules for stasis bombs been confirmed "Stasis bomb has the same effect as before. In addition, models hit by it must pass an initiative test or be removed from play. Cost is 160."

quoted in this thread and spikey bitz.

I can't believe this is correct this would be wildly over powered. would make d weapons look like las guns

MongooseMatt wrote:
Ian? Is that you? Didn't know you were a secret Dark Angel!

Not so secret!

With the changes to war gear (grav), unit stats, ect...did it make the Advent data slate, The Unrelenting Hunt actually a good formation!?

CrashGordon94 wrote:

jakejackjake wrote:You can take whatever you want. That is totally possible.

No it's not, they took away the option he wanted to use.

All this newer talk is worrying me now, concerned I might be screwed...

They took away the option to take whatever you want that is unbound? The only downside is his terminators don't have objective secured but terminators suck anyway which means if you were playing a mostly terminator army you were losing. So you can take them and continue to lose if that's what you want.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Space Marine players when there book came out "This is basically the same as the last book" Which isn't true the new book was stronger

Dark Angels players when theres is just leaked"OMG they changed too much and even though they made us good instead of awful this makes me rage" This book is going to be very competitive

Eldar players when theirs was about to drop "how can we make it so that we aren't too strong so that people won't get upset when they play us" Both the Marines and the DA books will compete with this pretty well

This is what I heard on Dakka from these three books.

riburn3 wrote:Am I the only one that doesn't really care about the loss of ObjSec for RW/DW? I feel the new special rules in all the formations/detatchments are a good trade off and this army now has far more flexibility than it ever had. Granted, I've never run pure DW or RW force to begin with and like their synergy together, but I still don't really think it's a big deal.

It's not really an issue of Objective Secured. It's more that people built their armies around just shifting things to Troops and leaving everything else the same, and the DW/RW formations aren't the same thing.
Just for an example, you could've had Belial in charge, 4+ DW Termies as Troops, a bunch of Company Veteran Squads as Elites, Assault Marines as Fast Attack and Predators or something in Heavy Support.
An army like that is boned, you can't just shove all that into the Deathwing Formation and you can't build it as an ordinary CAD. See the problem?

jakejackjake wrote:They took away the option to take whatever you want that is unbound? The only downside is his terminators don't have objective secured but terminators suck anyway which means if you were playing a mostly terminator army you were losing. So you can take them and continue to lose if that's what you want.

No, the seemingly universally-despised and mostly used for cheating option of Unbound remains.
They took away the option of just playing a CAD with Termies/Bikers in Troops for no reason and now people are potentially screwed out of their armies unless they buy a bunch of stuff they don't want, throw a load of things away or take a non-option that their opponent would reject and puts their formerly-legit (and no longer legit for no reason) army on the level of a list with nothing but Baneblades.
All of which could've been avoided by keeping the FOC-switch options AND the new Formations, and what would be wrong with that?

For someone smarter than myself who understands the way detachments work and all that jazz, if I wanted to roll the following army, could it be done without going unbound?

Sammy
Librarian lvl 2, bike

3 bikes, two grav guns
3 bikes, two grav guns
3 bikes, two grav guns
3 bikes, two grav guns
3 bikes, two grav guns
3 bikes, two grav guns

5 deathwing terminators, one assault cannon and one chain fist
5 deathwing terminators, one assault cannon and one chain fist

Dark Talon

land raider


Cause from my understanding, this list wouldn't be legal without going unbound, yet it would be legal in the last codex (without the grav obviously)

I don't understand how these detachments are more freedom.

Yeah I don't get all the crying. Before it was DA aren't powerful enough. Now it's they changed too much from the book I was just complaining wasn't powerful enough.

I love the changes and the synergy within the builds they create.

If the librarian has a terminatour armor then you can.

Sammy and all the bikes in a RW detachment.
Lib and 2 Termies into the DW detachment. Get a LR as dedicated transport. Done and you get a deepstriking LR.

Edit: Oh the Dark talon too goes in the RW detachment.


Anyway, not much longer until unbound is allowed into all tournaments. Formations are getting strong, so going unbound is becoming less and less broken.

But I don't want a Libby in termie armor I want him on a bike. That's my point. I don't see how anyone can say that the book allows more freedom with a straight face.

 Commissar Merces wrote:
But I don't want a Libby in termie armor I want him on a bike...

I would pay serious money for such a model just to stick on a shelf =]

There should be a special terminator bike that's all gothic and Heavy-fied!

CrashGordon94 wrote:

riburn3 wrote:Am I the only one that doesn't really care about the loss of ObjSec for RW/DW? I feel the new special rules in all the formations/detatchments are a good trade off and this army now has far more flexibility than it ever had. Granted, I've never run pure DW or RW force to begin with and like their synergy together, but I still don't really think it's a big deal.

It's not really an issue of Objective Secured. It's more that people built their armies around just shifting things to Troops and leaving everything else the same, and the DW/RW formations aren't the same thing.
Just for an example, you could've had Belial in charge, 4+ DW Termies as Troops, a bunch of Company Veteran Squads as Elites, Assault Marines as Fast Attack and Predators or something in Heavy Support.
An army like that is boned, you can't just shove all that into the Deathwing Formation and you can't build it as an ordinary CAD. See the problem?

I get it, it sucks to basically be forced to buy new models to run an army you already have. But you're not the first to go through it. Grey Knights players had to go through it, Blood Angels players had to go through it, Eldar players had to go through it. Maybe you need to pick up a couple boxes of Scouts, that's honestly not that bad, Scouts kick ass now.

jakejackjake wrote:They took away the option to take whatever you want that is unbound? The only downside is his terminators don't have objective secured but terminators suck anyway which means if you were playing a mostly terminator army you were losing. So you can take them and continue to lose if that's what you want.

No, the seemingly universally-despised and mostly used for cheating option of Unbound remains.
They took away the option of just playing a CAD with Termies/Bikers in Troops for no reason and now people are potentially screwed out of their armies unless they buy a bunch of stuff they don't want, throw a load of things away or take a non-option that their opponent would reject and puts their formerly-legit (and no longer legit for no reason) army on the level of a list with nothing but Baneblades.
All of which could've been avoided by keeping the FOC-switch options AND the new Formations, and what would be wrong with that?

Unbound isn't cheating. It's only cheating if you make a dickish list, like 8 Wraithknights and nothing else. Unbound by itself isn't a big deal, my group uses it all the time to make fluffy lists or when someone doesn't have enough Troops/HQs for what they want to bring. Anyone who says that you can't bring a perfectly fine Unbound list is just being stubborn.

It's not a big deal. Plenty of other players have had to adapt their armies and get new stuff or drop things that they used before. You can do it too.

riburn3 wrote:Yeah I don't get all the crying. Before it was DA aren't powerful enough. Now it's they changed too much from the book I was just complaining wasn't powerful enough.

I love the changes and the synergy within the builds they create.

It's because the change that's causing problems (Removing FOC-shifting) is unrelated to and unnecessary for all the other stuff.

then you're Unbound...deal with it. You don't seem to mind adding the grav which you couldn't before.

Codexes change, army lists change with new books. This has been the way with GW for years and years. You have to expect to make minor modifications with new books, that's just the way it is.
I bought the iyanden army box...3 guard, 2 lords, 1 knight. The new formation only has 1 wraithlord, but i didn't get all pissed off about it. If I want to run 2, I just CAD with a few rangers and add the 2nd Lord. nbd.

 Commissar Merces wrote:
But I don't want a Libby in termie armor I want him on a bike. That's my point. I don't see how anyone can say that the book allows more freedom with a straight face.

If you want more freedom then go unbound. It is really that simple. Not sure what the big deal is.

If anything the book allows more competitive variety. Now it's actually worth it to use models most DA players never touched.

riburn3 wrote:

 Commissar Merces wrote:
But I don't want a Libby in termie armor I want him on a bike. That's my point. I don't see how anyone can say that the book allows more freedom with a straight face.

If you want more freedom then go unbound. It is really that simple. Not sure what the big deal is.

If anything the book allows more competitive variety. Now it's actually worth it to use models most DA players never touched.

There is a huge stigma against unbound armies, even when they're not cheese lists, and many players and groups will simply not play with unbound lists. Period.

Maybe that will change, but it's an extremely common sentiment.

Requizen wrote:
I get it, it sucks to basically be forced to buy new models to run an army you already have. But you're not the first to go through it. Grey Knights players had to go through it, Blood Angels players had to go through it, Eldar players had to go through it. Maybe you need to pick up a couple boxes of Scouts, that's honestly not that bad, Scouts kick ass now.

Requizen wrote:
It's not a big deal. Plenty of other players have had to adapt their armies and get new stuff or drop things that they used before. You can do it too.

But we shouldn't HAVE to, and neither should those other people either!
Just because it happened before doesn't make it right and there's absolutely no reason that it had to happen! (Anyone hearing me when I say that they could've kept both the FOC-shifting AND Formations?)

Requizen wrote:
Unbound isn't cheating. It's only cheating if you make a dickish list, like 8 Wraithknights and nothing else. Unbound by itself isn't a big deal, my group uses it all the time to make fluffy lists or when someone doesn't have enough Troops/HQs for what they want to bring. Anyone who says that you can't bring a perfectly fine Unbound list is just being stubborn.

Some people might not make the distinction at all, and it's still losing stuff that would've made THE EXACT SAME LIST a real valid army with the benefits of that.
It shouldn't HAVE to be Unbound or lose the benefits of not being Unbound.

 bullyboy wrote:
then you're Unbound...deal with it. You don't seem to mind adding the grav which you couldn't before.

Codexes change, army lists change with new books. This has been the way with GW for years and years. You have to expect to make minor modifications with new books, that's just the way it is.
I bought the iyanden army box...3 guard, 2 lords, 1 knight. The new formation only has 1 wraithlord, but i didn't get all pissed off about it. If I want to run 2, I just CAD with a few rangers and add the 2nd Lord. nbd.

People aren't complaining about unrelated things (but for the record I don't care about Grav and probably won't use it) because they're unrelated. Someone doesn't HAVE to object to Grav weapons to object to losing FOC-shifting.

Yes, things change, but that doesn't make pointless changes for the worse perfectly fine.

Locrian wrote:

riburn3 wrote:

 Commissar Merces wrote:
But I don't want a Libby in termie armor I want him on a bike. That's my point. I don't see how anyone can say that the book allows more freedom with a straight face.

If you want more freedom then go unbound. It is really that simple. Not sure what the big deal is.

If anything the book allows more competitive variety. Now it's actually worth it to use models most DA players never touched.

There is a huge stigma against unbound armies, even when they're not cheese lists, and many players and groups will simply not play with unbound lists. Period.

Maybe that will change, but it's an extremely common sentiment.

People said the same thing about Superheavies/Gargantuans, the same thing about Formations, the same thing about Multiple Formation Detachments like the Decurion. Just bring a sane Unbound list and explain the setup. No pain.

^There's plenty of pain if they don't listen...

 Commissar Merces wrote:
But I don't want a Libby in termie armor I want him on a bike. That's my point. I don't see how anyone can say that the book allows more freedom with a straight face.

Did you seriously believe that you wouldn't have to change a single model with an edition shift?
Actually you are one of the lucky ones, since you only have to change an option on a single model!

CrashGordon94 wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:]
You've seen the Deathwing and Ravenwing Detachments, right?

"FOC swaps" were cool and all, but they also were tied to specific characters. That's not the case anymore. I'm much happier with unique Detachments instead of FOC swaps.

Yes, and I'm trying to adapt to them but I'm screwed over because I'll have to either completely abandon several units (a Vindicator, a Bikeless Power Armor Librarian, a Tactical Squad, an Assault Squad and a Company Master/to-be-converted Azrael proxy) or buy some new stuff I don't really want in order to field no less than THREE BLOODY DETACHMENTS in order to fit everything I want.

That's the thing, "instead of". Why not both? Why not keep FOC swapping for those who like it the old way AND add new Formations for people willing to work with that? Best of both worlds and everyone (probably) happy!

nekooni wrote:Can't you just use a CAD or even go full-on unbound? There's no rule that prevents you from doing that. Yes, you loose those bonuses, but you just said you would be willing to give those up, right?

CAD: Not anymore. My original plan (As seen in progress here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/652582.page) was an Azrael-lead CAD but that's not an option anymore because it doesn't work without him turning Ravewing and Deathwing into Troops. If they kept that I would've happily kept going down that line, but I don't even get the CHOICE to do so!
Unbound: Absolutely not an option in the slightest.

Commissar Merces wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
You have more freedom now. You could even ignore the character and any sort of force org chart and just run an army of nothing but bikes. They gave you more options, as well as more fluffy bonuses for running them. The ONLY thing they lost was objective secured, so there iis your answer. They didn't remove an option, they swapped a special rule. That is well within their purview.

This is just a fundamental disagreement that probably is not worth exploring further. The fact remains, I am going to need to take the ravenwing detachment and an additional CAD, Detachment, formation, whatever to get access to more than just one wing of the dark angel army without going unbound (which everyone in my area bans).

So that leaves me having to pay at least another HQ and troops of some kind tax. I don't really consider that flexibility.

CrashGordon94 wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:You have more freedom now. You could even ignore the character and any sort of force org chart and just run an army of nothing but bikes. They gave you more options, as well as more fluffy bonuses for running them. The ONLY thing they lost was objective secured, so there iis your answer. They didn't remove an option, they swapped a special rule. That is well within their purview.

No, they took away an important option: Running a CAD with Ravenwing/Deathwing/both as Troops, and that was an option that many BUILT THEIR ARMIES AROUND and that these formations can't quite replace because you might have put stuff in that modified CAD that doesn't fit in those other detachments.
Whereas if they just kept the "X as Troops" rules instead of going out of their way to remove them and had both that AND the Formations as options, nobody would be screwed over!
And what's wrong with giving both options?

This confuses me greatly.

Can anyone be more specific about the army they had previously that they are now "unable" to field? What adaptations and concessions need to be made precisely?

What units are you being restricted from taking in 7th edition compared to the previous codex?

Why is taking multiple detachments and formations an issue? If you want to run both wings in a single army, literally nothing has changed except the loss of objective secured. The ravenwing and deathwing detachments only require 1 HQ a piece - take librarians or captains, and it's actually CHEAPER than running Azrael as a solo HQ in a CAD with Troop DW/RW squads. The ravenwing detachment even includes heavy support slots and an elite slot to fill out the army with extra vehicles like Vindicators and such. And let's not forget the Lion's Blade.

Is the grievance really just about losing Objective Secured? If it's that big of a loss, you could probably find lots of people that would be happy to play against the old DA codex...

 Jambles wrote:

CrashGordon94 wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:]
You've seen the Deathwing and Ravenwing Detachments, right?

"FOC swaps" were cool and all, but they also were tied to specific characters. That's not the case anymore. I'm much happier with unique Detachments instead of FOC swaps.

Yes, and I'm trying to adapt to them but I'm screwed over because I'll have to either completely abandon several units (a Vindicator, a Bikeless Power Armor Librarian, a Tactical Squad, an Assault Squad and a Company Master/to-be-converted Azrael proxy) or buy some new stuff I don't really want in order to field no less than THREE BLOODY DETACHMENTS in order to fit everything I want.

That's the thing, "instead of". Why not both? Why not keep FOC swapping for those who like it the old way AND add new Formations for people willing to work with that? Best of both worlds and everyone (probably) happy!

nekooni wrote:Can't you just use a CAD or even go full-on unbound? There's no rule that prevents you from doing that. Yes, you loose those bonuses, but you just said you would be willing to give those up, right?

CAD: Not anymore. My original plan (As seen in progress here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/652582.page) was an Azrael-lead CAD but that's not an option anymore because it doesn't work without him turning Ravewing and Deathwing into Troops. If they kept that I would've happily kept going down that line, but I don't even get the CHOICE to do so!
Unbound: Absolutely not an option in the slightest.

Commissar Merces wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
You have more freedom now. You could even ignore the character and any sort of force org chart and just run an army of nothing but bikes. They gave you more options, as well as more fluffy bonuses for running them. The ONLY thing they lost was objective secured, so there iis your answer. They didn't remove an option, they swapped a special rule. That is well within their purview.

This is just a fundamental disagreement that probably is not worth exploring further. The fact remains, I am going to need to take the ravenwing detachment and an additional CAD, Detachment, formation, whatever to get access to more than just one wing of the dark angel army without going unbound (which everyone in my area bans).

So that leaves me having to pay at least another HQ and troops of some kind tax. I don't really consider that flexibility.

CrashGordon94 wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:You have more freedom now. You could even ignore the character and any sort of force org chart and just run an army of nothing but bikes. They gave you more options, as well as more fluffy bonuses for running them. The ONLY thing they lost was objective secured, so there iis your answer. They didn't remove an option, they swapped a special rule. That is well within their purview.

No, they took away an important option: Running a CAD with Ravenwing/Deathwing/both as Troops, and that was an option that many BUILT THEIR ARMIES AROUND and that these formations can't quite replace because you might have put stuff in that modified CAD that doesn't fit in those other detachments.
Whereas if they just kept the "X as Troops" rules instead of going out of their way to remove them and had both that AND the Formations as options, nobody would be screwed over!
And what's wrong with giving both options?

This confuses me greatly.

Can anyone be more specific about the army they had previously that they are now "unable" to field? What adaptations and concessions need to be made precisely?

What units are you being restricted from taking in 7th edition compared to the previous codex?

Why is taking multiple detachments and formations an issue? If you want to run both wings in a single army, literally nothing has changed except the loss of objective secured. The ravenwing and deathwing detachments only require 1 HQ a piece - take librarians or captains, and it's actually CHEAPER than running Azrael as a solo HQ in a CAD with Troop DW/RW squads. The ravenwing detachment even includes heavy support slots and an elite slot to fill out the army with extra vehicles like Vindicators and such. And let's not forget the Lion's Blade.

Is the grievance really just about losing Objective Secured? If it's that big of a loss, you could probably find lots of people that would be happy to play against the old DA codex...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Commissar Merces wrote:
For someone smarter than myself who understands the way detachments work and all that jazz, if I wanted to roll the following army, could it be done without going unbound?

Sammy
Librarian lvl 2, bike

3 bikes, two grav guns
3 bikes, two grav guns
3 bikes, two grav guns
3 bikes, two grav guns
3 bikes, two grav guns
3 bikes, two grav guns

5 deathwing terminators, one assault cannon and one chain fist
5 deathwing terminators, one assault cannon and one chain fist

Dark Talon

land raider


Cause from my understanding, this list wouldn't be legal without going unbound, yet it would be legal in the last codex (without the grav obviously)

I don't understand how these detachments are more freedom.

Yes.

Two Ravenwing Detachments does this just fine.

Sammy is the only HQ allowed to be taken in the Ravenwing list, as the rules are currently presented.

CrashGordon94 wrote:

Requizen wrote:
I get it, it sucks to basically be forced to buy new models to run an army you already have. But you're not the first to go through it. Grey Knights players had to go through it, Blood Angels players had to go through it, Eldar players had to go through it. Maybe you need to pick up a couple boxes of Scouts, that's honestly not that bad, Scouts kick ass now.

Requizen wrote:
It's not a big deal. Plenty of other players have had to adapt their armies and get new stuff or drop things that they used before. You can do it too.

But we shouldn't HAVE to, and neither should those other people either!
Just because it happened before doesn't make it right and there's absolutely no reason that it had to happen! (Anyone hearing me when I say that they could've kept both the FOC-shifting AND Formations?)

Requizen wrote:
Unbound isn't cheating. It's only cheating if you make a dickish list, like 8 Wraithknights and nothing else. Unbound by itself isn't a big deal, my group uses it all the time to make fluffy lists or when someone doesn't have enough Troops/HQs for what they want to bring. Anyone who says that you can't bring a perfectly fine Unbound list is just being stubborn.

Some people might not make the distinction at all, and it's still losing stuff that would've made THE EXACT SAME LIST a real valid army with the benefits of that.
It shouldn't HAVE to be Unbound or lose the benefits of not being Unbound.

 bullyboy wrote:
then you're Unbound...deal with it. You don't seem to mind adding the grav which you couldn't before.

Codexes change, army lists change with new books. This has been the way with GW for years and years. You have to expect to make minor modifications with new books, that's just the way it is.
I bought the iyanden army box...3 guard, 2 lords, 1 knight. The new formation only has 1 wraithlord, but i didn't get all pissed off about it. If I want to run 2, I just CAD with a few rangers and add the 2nd Lord. nbd.

People aren't complaining about unrelated things (but for the record I don't care about Grav and probably won't use it) because they're unrelated. Someone doesn't HAVE to object to Grav weapons to object to losing FOC-shifting.

Yes, things change, but that doesn't make pointless changes for the worse perfectly fine.

It's not for the worse... it's just different. FOC changes didn't make DA strong. They sucked. The new codex looks to be quite good. You're just complaining about basically nothing. If the only reason you played DA was to play pure Termies and didn't care about winning or losing, well that sucks. But it was never good, so good riddance imo.

CrashGordon94 wrote:^There's plenty of pain if they don't listen...

Then don't play with them.

 Commissar Merces wrote:
But I don't want a Libby in termie armor I want him on a bike. That's my point. I don't see how anyone can say that the book allows more freedom with a straight face.

Well, in all truth, it likely allows more freedom in some areas, and less in others. But everyone wants to either whine about what they lost without seeing what has freed up, or cheer about what they gained without looking at what the other guy used to legally field that he now can't, and neither wants to see that it's a bit of both.

For real, this codex looks to be much, MUCH better than the last one. The new formations have some good bonuses, the fact that they included a ravenwing and deathwing detachment is perfect for the army I want to field, and the cost of some things I used to shelf went down enough that they'll probably see some use. I don't see any copious cheese, but it looks like a much more balanced and versatile army to field. If this is the kind of update GW is planning for the factions coming after this, call me pleased.

From the leaks we didn't get to see one important element that may clear up some doubts.

Command squads are still HQ? And if that, are they still unlocked by other HQs?

If not then the RW detachment has just found it's HQ choice outside Sammy.

 Jambles wrote:

CrashGordon94 wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:]
You've seen the Deathwing and Ravenwing Detachments, right?

"FOC swaps" were cool and all, but they also were tied to specific characters. That's not the case anymore. I'm much happier with unique Detachments instead of FOC swaps.

Yes, and I'm trying to adapt to them but I'm screwed over because I'll have to either completely abandon several units (a Vindicator, a Bikeless Power Armor Librarian, a Tactical Squad, an Assault Squad and a Company Master/to-be-converted Azrael proxy) or buy some new stuff I don't really want in order to field no less than THREE BLOODY DETACHMENTS in order to fit everything I want.

That's the thing, "instead of". Why not both? Why not keep FOC swapping for those who like it the old way AND add new Formations for people willing to work with that? Best of both worlds and everyone (probably) happy!

nekooni wrote:Can't you just use a CAD or even go full-on unbound? There's no rule that prevents you from doing that. Yes, you loose those bonuses, but you just said you would be willing to give those up, right?

CAD: Not anymore. My original plan (As seen in progress here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/652582.page) was an Azrael-lead CAD but that's not an option anymore because it doesn't work without him turning Ravewing and Deathwing into Troops. If they kept that I would've happily kept going down that line, but I don't even get the CHOICE to do so!
Unbound: Absolutely not an option in the slightest.

Commissar Merces wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
You have more freedom now. You could even ignore the character and any sort of force org chart and just run an army of nothing but bikes. They gave you more options, as well as more fluffy bonuses for running them. The ONLY thing they lost was objective secured, so there iis your answer. They didn't remove an option, they swapped a special rule. That is well within their purview.

This is just a fundamental disagreement that probably is not worth exploring further. The fact remains, I am going to need to take the ravenwing detachment and an additional CAD, Detachment, formation, whatever to get access to more than just one wing of the dark angel army without going unbound (which everyone in my area bans).

So that leaves me having to pay at least another HQ and troops of some kind tax. I don't really consider that flexibility.

CrashGordon94 wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:You have more freedom now. You could even ignore the character and any sort of force org chart and just run an army of nothing but bikes. They gave you more options, as well as more fluffy bonuses for running them. The ONLY thing they lost was objective secured, so there iis your answer. They didn't remove an option, they swapped a special rule. That is well within their purview.

No, they took away an important option: Running a CAD with Ravenwing/Deathwing/both as Troops, and that was an option that many BUILT THEIR ARMIES AROUND and that these formations can't quite replace because you might have put stuff in that modified CAD that doesn't fit in those other detachments.
Whereas if they just kept the "X as Troops" rules instead of going out of their way to remove them and had both that AND the Formations as options, nobody would be screwed over!
And what's wrong with giving both options?

This confuses me greatly.

Can anyone be more specific about the army they had previously that they are now "unable" to field? What adaptations and concessions need to be made precisely?

What units are you being restricted from taking in 7th edition compared to the previous codex?

Why is taking multiple detachments and formations an issue? If you want to run both wings in a single army, literally nothing has changed except the loss of objective secured. The ravenwing and deathwing detachments only require 1 HQ a piece - take librarians or captains, and it's actually CHEAPER than running Azrael as a solo HQ in a CAD with Troop DW/RW squads. The ravenwing detachment even includes heavy support slots and an elite slot to fill out the army with extra vehicles like Vindicators and such. And let's not forget the Lion's Blade.

Is the grievance really just about losing Objective Secured? If it's that big of a loss, you could probably find lots of people that would be happy to play against the old DA codex...

You can't run vindis in the raven wing strike force because they do not have the ravenwing special rule...

@ Requizen: Its understood you're a play where the GW ball lays kind of person.

That doesn't have any bearing on another person's legitimate complaint to that philosophy.

OT:
Do we know yet what the base cost of a RW and RWBK squads are. I understand they are 25pts a piece for additional. I was just wondering if like the previous book the Sgt is 1 less point then the additional guys. Never could figure out why the first 3 RW bikers were 80pts but the last 3 bikers were 81pts lol.

Right now I think the squads I was running are a total of 10pts cheaper, minus the landspeeders 75pts (I guess they don't exist in the squad now?). I am not convinced that the point reduction will amount to anything useful.

Cynicism is slowly taking hold lol.

10 less point on the lvl 2 librarians too. 2 less point for each black knight.

They add up in the end.

Don't forget the 4pts per terminator. That's almost a free CML per squad. Also, 1 point per scout if not using sniper rifles.
We don't know yet how cheap DWK got.

Have the rules for stasis bombs been confirmed "Stasis bomb has the same effect as before. In addition, models hit by it must pass an initiative test or be removed from play. Cost is 160."

quoted in this thread and spikey bitz.

I can't believe this is correct this would be wildly over powered. would make d weapons look like las guns

You guys need to relax! I am sure there will be a 400$ one click web bundle available for two hours that will allow you to field dual wing with objective secured.

Spoletta wrote:
From the leaks we didn't get to see one important element that may clear up some doubts.

Command squads are still HQ? And if that, are they still unlocked by other HQs?

If not then the RW detachment has just found it's HQ choice outside Sammy.

That's really not what anyone is hoping for. If you can't take Libs/Chaps/etc on a bike with the RW detachment, they really screwed the pooch.

I'm 95%+ sure that you will be able either to take ICs on bikes with the RW detachment on release, or shortly after release when they FAQ it, because even GW is not quite daft enough to mess that up (though they're quite daft enough to phrase the rules badly so that it seems messed up).

From my rudimentary german, I guess that terminator armour grants twin-linked to the model's ranged weapons the turn it deep strikes (almost the same wording as the 6th edition apart from not explicitly disallowing twin-linked psychic powers). Could this mean that it is now possible to twin-link witchfires?

Spoletta wrote:
10 less point on the lvl 2 librarians too. 2 less point for each black knight.

They add up in the end.

Well seeing as I ran RWCS instead of RWBKs there is no net gain. RWCS were already 40pts. Though I guess I did gain 10pts from the libby and 65pts because the SoD is gone lol.

So far with point reductions, a horribly over pointed army is now...30pts*° cheaper...wooooooo lol. After I switch melta to grav that will be a gain of 10pts lol.

*I don't count the SoD as its a net loss in firepower right now.
° With not requiring Sammael right now, I am unsure what the gain in points from featuring 2 libbys will be. Also if libbys can even be taken in a RW force lol.

 Commissar Merces wrote:
You can't run vindis in the raven wing strike force because they do not have the ravenwing special rule...

Why would you? At least based on the new fluff for the DA chapter organisation, the Ravenwing is the biker/landspeeder/aerofighter part of the Dark Angels Chapter.
That means that there are no "Ravenwing Vindicators". That's why Vindicators do not have the Ravenwing special rule and why you can't bring them as part of a Ravenwing-exclusive formation or detachment.
I think there're enough English words there to make this chart usable for everyone:


This means the following:

1) If you want to bring parts of the entire Dark Angels chapter, bring either the default CAD or the Lion's Blade Strike Force which is meant to show a 'true' DA strike force. Yes, you have to take a Land Speeder for each Bike Squad you want to add, deal with it. It's called a tax, everyone gets that.

2) If you want to go apegak on Bikes, bring the Ravenwing Strike Force. But you can't bring non-Ravenwing units in that detachment, you have to bring them in their own detachment.

3) If you want to go apegak on Bikes but the Ravenwing SF is too strict for what you want to do - go unbound. Bring whatever "Ravenwing Siege Tank" you like, that's up to you.

Yes, you can't do whatever you want without going unbound - guess what? Noone can. That's the point.

@Jambles: My original army was planned out as follows:
HQ: Azrael, Librarian (Power Armored with no bike)
Troops: Tactical Squad, DW Terminators, DW Terminators, RW Bikers
Elites: DW Knights, Venerable Dreadnought, Venerable Dreadnought.
Fast Attack: Assault Squad
Heavy Support: Vindicator
Plans were to get ore Termies/Knights (to fill up all those squads) and loads more Bikes (to fill the rest of the Troops slots with full squads of RW Bikers and the rest of the Fast Attack slots with full squads of Black Knights).
But as it stands I'm screwed, I need a squad of either Tactical Marines or Scouts AND two more HQs (one of which apparently has to be Sammy meaning I need to buy an over-complicated, over-priced and probably fragile failcast model or go nuts with kitbashing) in order to make it happen at all.
Whereas if they kept FOC-switching I could've kept on my merry way...

Requizen wrote:

It's not for the worse... it's just different. FOC changes didn't make DA strong. They sucked. The new codex looks to be quite good. You're just complaining about basically nothing. If the only reason you played DA was to play pure Termies and didn't care about winning or losing, well that sucks. But it was never good, so good riddance imo.

Really, because I found the FOC changes to be so awesome that I built my army around them.
Care to explain why they made things worse and removing them was good in the absence of all other factors? (Because in case you haven't gotten the point yet, FOC switching is not mutually exclusive with all this other stuff, including the bloody Formations!)
And since nobody answered the point at all, WHAT'S WRONG WITH HAVING BOTH THE FOC SWITCHING AND FORMATIONS?!

Requizen wrote:
Then don't play with them.

And yet that wouldn't be an issue if they kept the FOC changes...

nekooni wrote:

 Commissar Merces wrote:
You can't run vindis in the raven wing strike force because they do not have the ravenwing special rule...

Why would you? At least based on the new fluff for the DA chapter organisation, the Ravenwing is the biker/landspeeder/aerofighter part of the Dark Angels Chapter.
That means that there are no "Ravenwing Vindicators". That's why Vindicators do not have the Ravenwing special rule and why you can't bring them as part of a Ravenwing-exclusive formation or detachment.
I think there're enough English words there to make this chart usable for everyone:

Spoiler:

This means the following:

1) If you want to bring parts of the entire Dark Angels chapter, bring either the default CAD or the Lion's Blade Strike Force which is meant to show a 'true' DA strike force. Yes, you have to take a Land Speeder for each Bike Squad you want to add, deal with it. It's called a tax, everyone gets that.

2) If you want to go apegak on Bikes, bring the Ravenwing Strike Force. But you can't bring non-Ravenwing units in that detachment, you have to bring them in their own detachment.

3) If you want to go apegak on Bikes but the Ravenwing SF is too strict for what you want to do - go unbound. Bring whatever "Ravenwing Siege Tank" you like, that's up to you.

Yes, you can't do whatever you want without going unbound - guess what? Noone can. That's the point.

That's not the Ravenwing Strike Force Detachment. This is:

CrashGordon94 wrote:
@Jambles: My original army was planned out as follows:
HQ: Azrael, Librarian (Power Armored with no bike)
Troops: Tactical Squad, DW Terminators, DW Terminators, RW Bikers
Elites: DW Knights, Venerable Dreadnought, Venerable Dreadnought.
Fast Attack: Assault Squad
Heavy Support: Vindicator
Plans were to get ore Termies/Knights (to fill up all those squads) and loads more Bikes (to fill the rest of the Troops slots with full squads of RW Bikers and the rest of the Fast Attack slots with full squads of Black Knights).
But as it stands I'm screwed, I need a squad of either Tactical Marines or Scouts AND two more HQs (one of which apparently has to be Sammy meaning I need to buy an over-complicated, over-priced and probably fragile failcast model or go nuts with kitbashing) in order to make it happen at all.
Whereas if they kept FOC-switching I could've kept on my merry way...

Requizen wrote:

It's not for the worse... it's just different. FOC changes didn't make DA strong. They sucked. The new codex looks to be quite good. You're just complaining about basically nothing. If the only reason you played DA was to play pure Termies and didn't care about winning or losing, well that sucks. But it was never good, so good riddance imo.

Really, because I found the FOC changes to be so awesome that I built my army around them.
Care to explain why they made things worse and removing them was good in the absence of all other factors? (Because in case you haven't gotten the point yet, FOC switching is not mutually exclusive with all this other stuff, including the bloody Formations!)
And since nobody answered the point at all, WHAT'S WRONG WITH HAVING BOTH THE FOC SWITCHING AND FORMATIONS?!

Requizen wrote:
Then don't play with them.

And yet that wouldn't be an issue if they kept the FOC changes...

I think what he meant was that FOC swapping didn't boost DA to a point where they suddenly became a strong 'dex - they still sucked. Just rephrasing Requizen to help you two communicate, not a statement of my own


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 Commissar Merces wrote:
You can't run vindis in the raven wing strike force because they do not have the ravenwing special rule...

Why would you? At least based on the new fluff for the DA chapter organisation, the Ravenwing is the biker/landspeeder/aerofighter part of the Dark Angels Chapter.
That means that there are no "Ravenwing Vindicators". That's why Vindicators do not have the Ravenwing special rule and why you can't bring them as part of a Ravenwing-exclusive formation or detachment.
I think there're enough English words there to make this chart usable for everyone:

Spoiler:

This means the following:

1) If you want to bring parts of the entire Dark Angels chapter, bring either the default CAD or the Lion's Blade Strike Force which is meant to show a 'true' DA strike force. Yes, you have to take a Land Speeder for each Bike Squad you want to add, deal with it. It's called a tax, everyone gets that.

2) If you want to go apegak on Bikes, bring the Ravenwing Strike Force. But you can't bring non-Ravenwing units in that detachment, you have to bring them in their own detachment.

3) If you want to go apegak on Bikes but the Ravenwing SF is too strict for what you want to do - go unbound. Bring whatever "Ravenwing Siege Tank" you like, that's up to you.

Yes, you can't do whatever you want without going unbound - guess what? Noone can. That's the point.

That's not the Ravenwing Strike Force Detachment. This is:

I know? What I linked is the overview for the Dark Angels chapter. The Ravenwing is part of the Dark Angels chapter. The Ravenwing Strike Force detachment does not allow ANY Vindicators, since Vindicators do not have the Ravenwing special rule. And the reason for that is that the Ravenwing simply does not own any Vindicators, as can be seen by the organizational chart shown for the Lion's Blade Strike Force detachment

It's pretty obvious any HQ IC on a bike is meant to be ravenwing. Otherwise why give the detatchments 3 HQ slots? Maybe we can just take Sammy 3 times.

CrashGordon94 wrote:
@Jambles: My original army was planned out as follows:
HQ: Azrael, Librarian (Power Armored with no bike)
Troops: Tactical Squad, DW Terminators, DW Terminators, RW Bikers
Elites: DW Knights, Venerable Dreadnought, Venerable Dreadnought.
Fast Attack: Assault Squad
Heavy Support: Vindicator
Plans were to get ore Termies/Knights (to fill up all those squads) and loads more Bikes (to fill the rest of the Troops slots with full squads of RW Bikers and the rest of the Fast Attack slots with full squads of Black Knights).
But as it stands I'm screwed, I need a squad of either Tactical Marines or Scouts AND two more HQs (one of which apparently has to be Sammy meaning I need to buy an over-complicated, over-priced and probably fragile failcast model or go nuts with kitbashing) in order to make it happen at all.
Whereas if they kept FOC-switching I could've kept on my merry way...

That will still be a valid list, all you have to do is simply take a second squad of Tacticals or a unit of Scouts. I'm sure you can find the points for that.

CAD:
Librarian
Tacticals, Scouts
Ven Dread, Ven Dread
Assault Squad, RW Bikers
Vindicator

Deathwing Strike Force
Azrael
Terminators, Terminators, Knights

Voila, Battle Forged and with all the same units, give or take some upgrades to get the Troops.

Requizen wrote:

It's not for the worse... it's just different. FOC changes didn't make DA strong. They sucked. The new codex looks to be quite good. You're just complaining about basically nothing. If the only reason you played DA was to play pure Termies and didn't care about winning or losing, well that sucks. But it was never good, so good riddance imo.

Really, because I found the FOC changes to be so awesome that I built my army around them.
Care to explain why they made things worse and removing them was good in the absence of all other factors? (Because in case you haven't gotten the point yet, FOC switching is not mutually exclusive with all this other stuff, including the bloody Formations!)
And since nobody answered the point at all, WHAT'S WRONG WITH HAVING BOTH THE FOC SWITCHING AND FORMATIONS?!

Requizen wrote:
Then don't play with them.

And yet that wouldn't be an issue if they kept the FOC changes...

I get it. No one likes losing things. But honestly, are you so pissed off about losing something that is in the end pretty much completely inconsequential that you are willing to ignore the fact that this book makes DA actually strong for the first time in how many editions? If being able to tick Terminators under Troops was the only thing that made you giddy, then I don't know what to tell you. But they're now functionally more or less the same with slight differences and without ObSec. I honestly can't fathom how that minor difference makes you so blindly angry that you can't just stop complaining about it on the internet. It is, frankly, baffling.

"I'm so angry that I can't use my 5th edition style list with 6th/7th edition Objective Secured."

riburn3 wrote:
It's pretty obvious any HQ IC on a bike is meant to be ravenwing. Otherwise why give the detatchments 3 HQ slots? Maybe we can just take Sammy 3 times.

Or maybe like Zogwort in the old Orks 'dex couldn't use most of his psychic powers because GW gave him a BS0 and never bothered to FAQ it. RAW vs. RAI. If a character on a bike doesn't have the RW rule, guess what? Besides, I've already been told ITT that the ONLY captain of the 2nd Company is Sammael.

The amount of schadenfreud in this thread is approaching epic level with people telling other people to "just deal". Let people air their grievances without being so dismissive. Or worse, telling them "everything's fine" just "go unbound". No one here is complaining about wargear nerfs or special rules for a specific unit, they're complaining about fundamental shifts in army composition. That seems like a pretty reasonable criticism.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
"I'm so angry that I can't use my 5th edition style list with 6th/7th edition Objective Secured."

Edited by insaniak. Please see Dakka's Rule #1. No one is saying that. The Dark Angels book is 2 years old, So saying this is just an attempt to flamebait.

There is no fundamental shift in army composition though.

In 4th/5th we needed Deathwing/Ravenwing to be troops, because that was the only way to take more than 3 squads of either of them, and even then you had to take a couple of tac squads too.

In 7th we finally have a codex with way more flexibility (without going unbound), in an edition where the very concepts of both Troops and force orgs have undergone a massive shift, and people are complaining that SCs no longer make your deathwing troops? I do not get it. I've played DAs in tournaments and casual play for around 7 years and as far as I can see, we're now both way more powerful and have way more options than ever during that time. Including for Deathwing or Ravenwing armies.

 the_Armyman wrote:

riburn3 wrote:
It's pretty obvious any HQ IC on a bike is meant to be ravenwing. Otherwise why give the detatchments 3 HQ slots? Maybe we can just take Sammy 3 times.

Or maybe like Zogwort in the old Orks 'dex couldn't use most of his psychic powers because GW gave him a BS0 and never bothered to FAQ it. RAW vs. RAI. If a character on a bike doesn't have the RW rule, guess what? Besides, I've already been told ITT that the ONLY captain of the 2nd Company is Sammael.

The amount of schadenfreud in this thread is approaching epic level with people telling other people to "just deal". Let people air their grievances without being so dismissive. Or worse, telling them "everything's fine" just "go unbound". No one here is complaining about wargear nerfs or special rules for a specific unit, they're complaining about fundamental shifts in army composition. That seems like a pretty reasonable criticism.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
"I'm so angry that I can't use my 5th edition style list with 6th/7th edition Objective Secured."

No one is saying that. The Dark Angels book is 2 years old, So saying this is just an attempt to flamebait.

If you played in any Meta that wouldn't allow Zog a BS2 for psychic powers or wouldn't allow a DA IC on a Bike be included as ravenwing I feel sorry for you. You're treating this as way more serious business than it needs to be. Anyone with half a brain knows the intent, even if they never FAQ it, and will allow rule as intended. Calm down it's not a big deal.

If we're going to stay on this tangent, can we at least not quote entire blocks of posts?

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
There is no fundamental shift in army composition though.

In 4th/5th we needed Deathwing/Ravenwing to be troops, because that was the only way to take more than 3 squads of either of them, and even then you had to take a couple of tac squads too.

In 7th we finally have a codex with way more flexibility (without going unbound), in an edition where the very concepts of both Troops and force orgs have undergone a massive shift, and people are complaining that SCs no longer make your deathwing troops? I do not get it. I've played DAs in tournaments and casual play for around 7 years and as far as I can see, we're now both way more powerful and have way more options than ever during that time. Including for Deathwing or Ravenwing armies.

This for sure.

Seems like a lot of the problems ITT are simply due to a lack of understanding the way armies are structured now compared to previous editions. There's talk of scrapping armies without even a cursory attempt to adapt the collection to new rules.

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
There is no fundamental shift in army composition though.

*sigh*

6th Ed. Codex

Belial, 2 termie squads, fill the rest of the army with whatever I want = legal, battleforged list

7th Ed. Codex

Belial, 2 termie squads, fill the rest of the army with whatever I want = Unbound only

Do you see the difference? I'm done discussing this since it's sorta pointless.

nekooni wrote:I think what he meant was that FOC swapping didn't boost DA to a point where they suddenly became a strong 'dex - they still sucked. Just rephrasing Requizen to help you two communicate, not a statement of my own

If that's the case then it's utterly irrelevant to all my complaints and he should instead recognize that this screws up people's lists and maybe say why new 'dex upgrades but no switching is better than new 'dex upgrages AND switching.

Requizen wrote:That will still be a valid list, all you have to do is simply take a second squad of Tacticals or a unit of Scouts. I'm sure you can find the points for that.

CAD:
Librarian
Tacticals, Scouts
Ven Dread, Ven Dread
Assault Squad, RW Bikers
Vindicator

Deathwing Strike Force
Azrael
Terminators, Terminators, Knights

1) That's still another unit of crappy Troops I don't want and I'm not sure I WOULD have the points given that that would mean less upgrades for the units I actually care about and want.
2) I'm pretty sure Azrael can't go in the Deathwing Formation because he has Artificer Armor instead of Terminator Armor and isn't Deathwing
3) I did say I wanted more Bikes, this only has room for filling out that one squad and getting another, whereas if I still had switching I could just go nuts with Bikes without adding any more HQs or Detachments at all.

Requizen wrote:I get it. No one likes losing things. But honestly, are you so pissed off about losing something that is in the end pretty much completely inconsequential that you are willing to ignore the fact that this book makes DA actually strong for the first time in how many editions? If being able to tick Terminators under Troops was the only thing that made you giddy, then I don't know what to tell you. But they're now functionally more or less the same with slight differences and without ObSec. I honestly can't fathom how that minor difference makes you so blindly angry that you can't just stop complaining about it on the internet. It is, frankly, baffling.

Because it screws up my entire army and happened FOR NO REASON!
You still fail to acknowledge that keeping switching and having all this other stuff are not mutually exclusive, I repeatedly asked "what's wrong with having both?" and STILL haven't got an answer!
I'm not talking about the other things now because they're not relevant.
And how can you not see how having my entire army boned for no reason whatsoever is making me upset?

 Jambles wrote:
Seems like a lot of the problems ITT are simply due to a lack of understanding the way armies are structured now compared to previous editions. There's talk of scrapping armies without even a cursory attempt to adapt the collection to new rules.

Because they shouldn't HAVE to be adapted!

They don't get why we're annoyed That an army that has been since 3rd

Termy captain, termy troops
Sammy on bike, then Sammy on landspeeder, then master on bike, unlocks ravenwing troops (although Sammy used to be able.to join land speeder command sqauds back then)
4th
Sammy unlocked bikes as troops
Bob did same
6th
Sammy blah blah
Bob blah blah
7th
Sammy doesn't unlock bikes
Bob doesn't unlock bikes
Nobody unlocks anything

So basically since third ed changed it, we have been asking for generic master of death and ravenwing, then 7th drops and we are ignored yet again.

So no we dont accept the frankly stupid "use the formations" as an alternative, we want what we have been asking for for 10+ years, generic non special characters that have options and unlocks death/ravenwing, also a generic chapter master.

There is zero reason why this couldn't be done AND you lot can take your formations, everyone's happy, no one feels ignored... Again.

Their are no more shifts besides (for some weird reason) bikes for normal marines. It is something the studio has decided not to continue with, so we don't get to do it anymore. There is the entirety of your answer, no dismissive ness, no rudeness, just the plain truth. I had to buy either one more unit of guardians, or two more units of storm guardians and include a farseer and weapons battery in my eldar army to use their new detachment options. You may need another scout squad or two. I don't think this is as bad as you are making it out to be...

CrashGordon94 wrote:

 Jambles wrote:
Seems like a lot of the problems ITT are simply due to a lack of understanding the way armies are structured now compared to previous editions. There's talk of scrapping armies without even a cursory attempt to adapt the collection to new rules.

Because they shouldn't HAVE to be adapted!

So, you expected, what... no changes whatsoever?

You keep saying your army is SCREWED. Is it "unfieldable", as you claim, or is it just not PRECISELY what it used to be? Yes, there are new restrictions and options - this happens EVERY time a new codex comes out, and EVERY time a new rulebook comes out, to varying degrees. Not to mention that this was far and away considered the most obvious incoming change: everybody lost the FOC swapping stuff, man.

You're acting like this was a malicious change with the sole intent of making an incredibly small subset of armies, and even then only in a particular combination, invalid.

I think you'll find, if you let go of your assumptions about army composition that are rooted in the old editions, and take the time to put together a few new lists, you'll find that you can still play with the general army structure and theme you want to. Will it be exactly as it was? OF COURSE NOT - it's a new codex. Things change. Rail at it all you want - won't stop it from being the reality of the situation.

And, in the end, if you really are simply incapable or unwilling to accept change... you know you don't have to, right? The old book didn't just evaporate, talk to the guys you play with and use it instead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:
They don't get why we're annoyed That an army that has been since 3rd

Termy captain, termy troops
Sammy on bike, then Sammy on landspeeder, then master on bike, unlocks ravenwing troops (although Sammy used to be able.to join land speeder command sqauds back then)
4th
Sammy unlocked bikes as troops
Bob did same
6th
Sammy blah blah
Bob blah blah
7th
Sammy doesn't unlock bikes
Bob doesn't unlock bikes
Nobody unlocks anything

So basically since third ed changed it, we have been asking for generic master of death and ravenwing, then 7th drops and we are ignored yet again.

So no we dont accept the frankly stupid "use the formations" as an alternative, we want what we have been asking for for 10+ years, generic non special characters that have options and unlocks death/ravenwing, also a generic chapter master.

There is zero reason why this couldn't be done AND you lot can take your formations, everyone's happy, no one feels ignored... Again.

Change your thinking. You're married to a rules mechanic that doesn't exist anymore. What is it that you want, exactly? Is it really, specifically, the ability to have these two specific units in a specific slot? That sort of thing is going away. And again, if you don't like it... you don't have to get the new rules! Keep playing how you want to play if that's what you prefer!

 the_Armyman wrote:

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
There is no fundamental shift in army composition though.

*sigh*

6th Ed. Codex

Belial, 2 termie squads, fill the rest of the army with whatever I want = legal, battleforged list

7th Ed. Codex

Belial, 2 termie squads, fill the rest of the army with whatever I want = Unbound only

Do you see the difference? I'm done discussing this since it's sorta pointless.

Your 6th ed codex example is false. You couldn't take whatever you wanted. You were required to take what you could fit in the Force Organization chart you were using. If you took whatever you wanted, you'd end up with an illegal army that you couldn't play with, versus a playable Unbound army as you can with 7th edition.