Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

KurtAngle2 wrote:

Eliminators can not be taken as Deathwatch, GW explicitly forbade it

Where was this?

I believe it is likely we will have the new units withheld from DW until the multipart kit comes out. They did that to us for Dark Imperium. Until that time, I don't believe DW will get to play with the new toys.

KurtAngle2 wrote:

Eliminators can not be taken as Deathwatch, GW explicitly forbade it

<CITATION NEEDED>

Even if Eliminators aren't directly available to DW, they might still be a good addition as a <Chapter> Spearhead.
Librarian + 3x3 Elims would be cheap, hard to remove and would be fairly reliable at removing a Character per turn.

I'd personally make them Salamanders for the 1 reroll to hit and wound each time they fire.

-

Sterling191 wrote:

KurtAngle2 wrote:

Eliminators can not be taken as Deathwatch, GW explicitly forbade it

<CITATION NEEDED>

KurtAngle2 wrote:
Eliminators can not be taken as Deathwatch, GW explicitly forbade it

KurtAngle2 wrote:

These are not remotely comparable statements.

Yeah, expressing doubt is not the same as "explicitly forbade"

Also, the FB team is not GW

Sterling191 wrote:

KurtAngle2 wrote:
Eliminators can not be taken as Deathwatch, GW explicitly forbade it

KurtAngle2 wrote:

These are not remotely comparable statements.

It's also written in the Codex within the box

KurtAngle2 wrote:


It's also written in the Codex within the box

Then be so kind as to share said images? Given that there's nothing out there with regards to detachment rules or points costs beyond rumors and speculation, that's a big piece of info to hold back just so you can feel superior on the internet.

I don´t think they will be "forbidden". Probably once they launch them as multipart boxes they will be available for DW. Maybe not for GK because of the bad luck of GK.

Sterling191 wrote:

KurtAngle2 wrote:


It's also written in the Codex within the box

Then be so kind as to share said images? Given that there's nothing out there with regards to detachment rules or points costs beyond rumors and speculation, that's a big piece of info to hold back just so you can feel superior on the internet.

Normally I'd agree with you that FB is not a valid place to imply rules. However, they did just confirm with a quote from the Daemonkin book that the rules are not compatible with DG or Tsons.
I would be surprised if the same wording wasn't also in the Vanguard Marine book regarding GKs & DW. After all, they are not <Chapter> Marines

So until we get the book in our hands, we really should be prepared for them not to apply

-

 Galef wrote:

So until we get the book in our hands, we really should be prepared for them not to apply

I simply want verifiable evidence when someone makes a declarative statement about a ruleset.

Sterling191 wrote:

 Galef wrote:

So until we get the book in our hands, we really should be prepared for them not to apply

I simply want verifiable evidence when someone makes a declarative statement about a ruleset.

Which is fair enough, but does pointing out that someone posted an idea using poorly chosen words really change what is fairly reasonable to assume?

While GW hasn't yet "explicitly forbade" using Vanguard Marines with DW/GKs, the circumstantial evidence makes it pretty clear that's the most likely outcome.
So unless you're specifically planning on adding a nonDW <Chapter> Detachment for Vanguard Marines, it is unwise to start planning out combos with DW atm.
That should be the point, not proofing someone wrong because they cannot provide verifiable evidence.

-

 Galef wrote:

Which is fair enough, but does pointing out that someone posted an idea using poorly chosen words really change what is fairly reasonable to assume?
-

Yes it does, because GW is notoriously schizophrenic when it comes to rules.

It's a simple premise, if you make a statement, be able to back it up.

 Galef wrote:


That should be the point, not proofing someone wrong because they cannot provide verifiable evidence.

-

I don't give a damn about "proofing someone wrong". I want facts, not rumor bloviating. And if someone is yutzing around making declarative statements that then prove to be wrong, they're wasting everyone's time.

KurtAngle2 wrote:
Eliminators can not be taken as Deathwatch, GW explicitly forbade it

At least for the time being. They left that whole new primaris for DW question open ended for the time being.

SG

Sterling191 wrote:

KurtAngle2 wrote:

Eliminators can not be taken as Deathwatch, GW explicitly forbade it

<CITATION NEEDED>

GW Literally copy pasted the entire text but no, you can't trust them!

KurtAngle2 wrote:

GW Literally copy pasted the entire text but no, you can't trust them!

Nope, you cant. And you could have avoided this entire situation by simply posting the image when initally requested instead of whining for a day and a half.

Sterling191 wrote:

KurtAngle2 wrote:

GW Literally copy pasted the entire text but no, you can't trust them!

Nope, you cant. And you could have avoided this entire situation by simply posting the image when initally requested instead of whining for a day and a half.

It's an entirely different matter when they post the same citation directly from the codex

What a shame! I've ordered the box and will probably just add the Primaris to my collection for more until they are allowed add Deathwatch.

KurtAngle2 wrote:

It's an entirely different matter when they post the same citation directly from the codex

Expect of course the Facebook post said flat out "we dont know" not "they cant".

For feths sake read the things your posting.

Annoying that they can't be used as Deathwatch, I've already got my solid 2k point list painted up anyways. My army are crimson fists but I use the Deathwatch book so I could field a separate detachment of vanguard for fun.

Recently Ice seen SW terminators can have a Stormbolter and Stormshield...Was kinda thinking how awesome this loadout would be for DW termis...

Is there a real value there if you can already put the ability to tank high AP/damage shots on a cheaper 1 wound model? We primarily use termies to tank low AP/damage shots due to their cost.

An argument that a terminator squad with that loadout might be good, but you can pour out just as much firepower with veterans for a lot less points. I guess I'm not really seeing the benefit to DW.

The benefit I see is having the 3++ save on a 2 wound platform. Also combining the 3++ with the EDIT: 2+ makes the terminators IMO definitely tankier than a ver squad.

In a VetSquad you usually have 1termi and all your 3++ saves are on 1 wound models.

Dont get me wrong. I too still think the mixed vetsquad is superior, I just would have liked to have a similar option for DW termis to try out.

A lot of weapons with -2 or more AP also have multiple damage.
I don't think your SS's being only on 1 wound models is a significant disadvantage.

An SS/SB Termie would only be 29 points. Thats damn tempting if it were an option.

If we could take them I would take 2 or 3 termis instead of just one.

 Ordana wrote:
A lot of weapons with -2 or more AP also have multiple damage.
I don't think your SS's being only on 1 wound models is a significant disadvantage.

Succinctly said.

Corvus Blackstar... Hurrican Bolter, Millsile Launcher/Auspex, Lascannon or just run it naked?

Thanks in advance!

SG

None of the above. Spend the 200 points elsewhere for far better results.