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.

Squigsquasher wrote:Come on. Mat Ward gave you The Sanguinor, Death Company as TROOPS, the Furioso Librarian, Astorath the Grim, Flying Terminators-sorry, Sanguinary Guard, the Flamestorm cannon on the Baal Predator, the Descent of Angels rule......What's not to like?

The new Dark Eldar codex isn't out for people to complain about yet.

Chongara wrote:

Squigsquasher wrote:Come on. Mat Ward gave you The Sanguinor, Death Company as TROOPS, the Furioso Librarian, Astorath the Grim, Flying Terminators-sorry, Sanguinary Guard, the Flamestorm cannon on the Baal Predator, the Descent of Angels rule......What's not to like?

The new Dark Eldar codex isn't out for people to complain about yet.

Exactly. But they will. I suspect we'll see the shockingly original naming pattern started with Space Wolves carried over into Dark Eldar - instead of putting "Wolf" or "Blood" in front of something, they'll just put "Dark" - and there will probably be some eye-rollingly bad ideas to rival deep striking Land Raiders in there as well.

Seaward wrote:Exactly. But they will. I suspect we'll see the shockingly original naming pattern started with Space Wolves carried over into Dark Eldar - instead of putting "Wolf" or "Blood" in front of something, they'll just put "Dark" - and there will probably be some eye-rollingly bad ideas to rival deep striking Land Raiders in there as well.

Isn't that the Dark Angels' thing? You know, all marine codexes except vanilla need a word that ''belongs'' to them. In this case Dark Angels, right?

Or do I have to wait for the next Dark Angels codex to see that?

Technically, wouldn't a locator beacon prevent deep-striking LRs from scattering? I can see some interesting lists with lots of scouts and locator beacons. Probably wouldn't work too well, but it'd scare the hell out of someone...

Ediin wrote:

Seaward wrote:Exactly. But they will. I suspect we'll see the shockingly original naming pattern started with Space Wolves carried over into Dark Eldar - instead of putting "Wolf" or "Blood" in front of something, they'll just put "Dark" - and there will probably be some eye-rollingly bad ideas to rival deep striking Land Raiders in there as well.

Isn't that the Dark Angels' thing? You know, all marine codexes except vanilla need a word that ''belongs'' to them. In this case Dark Angels, right?

Or do I have to wait for the next Dark Angels codex to see that?

No, I suspect the Dark Angels' required adjective for everything will be "darkly angelic." Space Wolves got "wolf," Blood Angels got "blood," they're not going to break the pattern. People might get confused and think that a lightning claw is just a lightning claw no matter what you call it.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Technically, wouldn't a locator beacon prevent deep-striking LRs from scattering? I can see some interesting lists with lots of scouts and locator beacons. Probably wouldn't work too well, but it'd scare the hell out of someone...

Actually that sounds very cool. But I will never use the idea because it would force me to use the terrible Codex:BA.











Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:No, I suspect the Dark Angels' required adjective for everything will be "darkly angelic." Space Wolves got "wolf," Blood Angels got "blood," they're not going to break the pattern. People might get confused and think that a lightning claw is just a lightning claw no matter what you call it.

So no Dark Claw of Gothicness? Ediin sad

Ediin wrote:

KingCracker wrote:No HBMC is asking what the guy that wrote the codex said. At leas thats how Im taking it.

Mat Ward wrote:It made sense to me that if the Chapter's troops were grappling up close with the enemy from early on
then they would develop a method for their armoured support to perform a similar role. So the Blood Angels use Thunderhawk
Transporters to drop their Land Raiders directly into the heat of battle, trusting the tank's sturdy nature to allow for a safe landing for it, and
any passengers and crew.

Taken from page 19 of White Dwarf 364.

And of course, IMO, it's ridiculous. If it's so obvious, why didn't other chapters think of it? It's just stupid. Sorry Mat.

Wait...

What?

They literally just DROP them? I guess I just assumed that there was some sort of parachute (like the subsequently posted .jpg) or retro-rocket involved...

Sweet fancy Moses...

Ediin wrote:
So no Dark Claw of Gothicness? Ediin sad

Would a Dark Angelclaw cheer you up?

geoff wrote:
Wait...

What?

They literally just DROP them? I guess I just assumed that there was some sort of parachute (like the subsequently posted .jpg) or retro-rocket involved...

Sweet fancy Moses...

Yep. A grown thought that was a perfectly viable idea.

Mostly, I think it's the metal nipples.

As for the army list itself, I have no issues with it.

Alright a quick word on the 'deep-striking Land Raiders of Doooooom' mentality that seems to be sweeping the interwebz.

Firstly, and most importantly, units cannot assault out of a Land Raider that arrived by deep strike. Secondly, that Land Raider is in reserve, so any number of units that mess with reserves (OoTF being one that springs to mind) may very well delay not only the Raider, but also the 200+ point hammer unit inside. Thidly, the Land Raider has a ma-hoosive footprint on the table, thus increasing its chance of being mishapped (along with the unit inside) if it happens to scatter. Note the Land Raider does NOT benefit from the DoA special rule. Fourthly, the Land Raider has more than likely deep struck on top of you, thus bringing it even closer to the mass of meltaguns that you are wielding (you ARE playng 5th Ed. right?). Fifthly, the Land Raider can only shoot on of its weapons (PotMS) on the turn it lands, as opposed to the 1-2 it could do normally.

So...why are you worried about deep striking Land Raiders again?

L. Wrex

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:So...why are you worried about deep striking Land Raiders again?

Worried? Not sure folks are worried. They are saying the idea is ridiculous for reasons you just stated as well as many others.

Mostly it is the background, and the over-use of 'Blood' as a descriptor.

And really, at this point, people need to get over the nipples on the armor.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:So...why are you worried about deep striking Land Raiders again?

The people who have been jumping to the defense of the deep striking LR in this thread seem to be missing the point. I dont think anyone here has actually claimed it's a broken or even useful tactic. I think a prior post summarizes the stigma against the Blood Angel codex the best, and might be worth repeating.

Gitzbitah wrote:Power Abs and Twilight prettyvampires were given FNP bubbles, accurate deepstriking, meltaproof skimmers that transport not one, but two units, deepstriking landraiders, cascading hit dreadnoughts, able to dish out an unlimited number of wounds a turn, psyker dreadnoughts, and harpoons to pull vehicles closer. That's at least 8 things that haven't been possible in 40k before.

There's nothing bad about the codex (excpet possibly the models if pretty men aren't your thing) but all of the unprecedented new directions are absurd. I remember when people freaked out because the Orks had d3 autocannon shots on their lootas, and codexes limited themselves to 3 or 4 new units and innovations.

The reason others (including myself) keep harping on the deepstriking LR is because of the utter physics-shattering absurdity to the idea. The other poster who likened it to a dropping elevator managing it's own fall, with both the elevator and passengers surviving the drop due to "sturdiness" hit it right on the head. The fact that a grown man thought that it was reasonable is just mind-boggling, and the tactical relevance of the concept has little if anything to do with what the detractors have been talking about.

The problem is Matt took everything one (sometimes two) steps too far. Take the simple jump pack assault marine.

To show that BA have more assault type guys he made them troop choices.

There. Done. Point made. BA like jump pack asssult guys. Good enough, well done.

But he had to take it two steps further with DOA. Not only do BA only scatter 1D6 instead of 2D6 like every other DS unit, but they can also reroll reserves because..... yeah no real reason.

That is the ##### of the BA codex and unfortunatly its loaded with it.

Alpharius wrote:Mostly it is the background, and the over-use of 'Blood' as a descriptor.

The Space Wolves codex is just as bad, if not worse, so I'm not sure why that's a BA-specific issue. At least the BA 'dex gets a synonym for "blood" every now and then rather than blood itself. I'm almost dead certain Phil Kelly just used some sort of macro to insert the word "wolf" after every two words in the SW 'dex.

Jayden63 wrote:The problem is Matt took everything one (sometimes two) steps too far. Take the simple jump pack assault marine.

To show that BA have more assault type guys he made them troop choices.

There. Done. Point made. BA like jump pack asssult guys. Good enough, well done.

But he had to take it two steps further with DOA. Not only do BA only scatter 1D6 instead of 2D6 like every other DS unit, but they can also reroll reserves because..... yeah no real reason.

That is the ##### of the BA codex and unfortunatly its loaded with it.

Eh, I don't think the DoA stuff's all that terrible. BA are the only folks who can do an all-jumper list, and if that all-jumper list is Deep Striking rather than hopping across the board, DoA is needed to make it viable. I don't think it's all that game-breaking, unless you're seeing cheesy DoA lists slaughtering their way through tournament after tournament where I'm not.

There's quite a bit of stupidity in the BA codex, but I'm not sure why it comes as a shock, given what came before it.

I bet we could get a fun discussion going on whether dropping a Land Raider from 30,000 feet is more dumb, as dumb, or less dumb than riding a giant wolf into battle, though.

Jayden63 wrote:

But he had to take it two steps further with DOA. Not only do BA only scatter 1D6 instead of 2D6 like every other DS unit, but they can also reroll reserves because..... yeah no real reason.

That is the ##### of the BA codex and unfortunatly its loaded with it.

What?! Seriously what's the reasoning behind that?

I can understand having one or the other, but it does seem slightly excessive having both . Ah well.

Adding special rules for the sake of adding special rules. All those bonus are just not necessary.

Why do 30 assault terminators have to rely on the whims of fate for their reserve rolls and have higher scatter?

Why do 15 crisis suits not know how to land next to their intended target?

Hell, jump packers are probably the guys who least need to not scatter as they have the higher movement rates to make up for it when they can actually move.

Seaward wrote:I bet we could get a fun discussion going on whether dropping a Land Raider from 30,000 feet is more dumb, as dumb, or less dumb than riding a giant wolf into battle, though.

You, sir, may very well have won this thread...

Jayden63 wrote:Adding special rules for the sake of adding special rules. All those bonus are just not necessary.

Why do 30 assault terminators have to rely on the whims of fate for their reserve rolls and have higher scatter?

Why do 15 crisis suits not know how to land next to their intended target?

Hell, jump packers are probably the guys who least need to not scatter as they have the higher movement rates to make up for it when they can actually move.

I dunno. Why can't standard Tacticals carry both a bolter AND a chainsword?

There's a lot of goofy stuff that some codices get advantages on and some don't. There's not a lot of rhyme or reason to a lot of it.

Melissia wrote:I can understand having one or the other, but it does seem slightly excessive having both . Ah well.

or even just a reason fluff-wise. Or is it just "we're just better than those other marine guys".

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Melissia wrote:I can understand having one or the other, but it does seem slightly excessive having both . Ah well.

or even just a reason fluff-wise. Or is it just "we're just better than those other marine guys".

I believe they justify it by the BA using that method of deployment far more frequently than other chapters, and thus Dante just drills it. All the time.

What upsets me more than Mat Ward (who is just ONE man, after all) writing in deep-striking LRs, is the fact that out of all of the many people who work with him, and even worse, all of the people people have oversight, no-one stopped him and said

"Mat. No. Just no. That is just fething ridiculous. Only the A-Team can drop tanks out of aeroplanes."

(It has to be said, firing a tanks main gun as a method of steering it whilst plummeting towards the Earth is genius. And I say that as a man with an MEng in Aeronautical Engineering.)

It's the 40th Millennium. Is it really that hard to use imagination to figure out how a Land Raider could be inserted into a forward position on the battlefield without killing it's occupants falling elevator style. Really?

Grav chutes, teleportation, hot drop off, some funky tech inside the Land Raider.. and so on.

It's a fantasy game set in space. Key part of that being fantasy. And out of all the crazy hand-waivium fluff stuff we have, you're telling me Deepstriking Landraiders takes it over the edge?

Halfpast_Yellow wrote:It's the 40th Millennium. Is it really that hard to use imagination to figure out how a Land Raider could be inserted into a forward position on the battlefield without killing it's occupants falling elevator style. Really?

Grav chutes, teleportation, hot drop off, some funky tech inside the Land Raider.. and so on.

It's a fantasy game set in space. Key part of that being fantasy. And out of all the crazy hand-waivium fluff stuff we have, you're telling me Deepstriking Landraiders takes it over the edge?

Yes. Because they've said it's none of that stuff. It is, in fact, simply chucking it away from an overflying Thunderhawk.

Seaward wrote:

Halfpast_Yellow wrote:It's the 40th Millennium. Is it really that hard to use imagination to figure out how a Land Raider could be inserted into a forward position on the battlefield without killing it's occupants falling elevator style. Really?

Grav chutes, teleportation, hot drop off, some funky tech inside the Land Raider.. and so on.

It's a fantasy game set in space. Key part of that being fantasy. And out of all the crazy hand-waivium fluff stuff we have, you're telling me Deepstriking Landraiders takes it over the edge?

Yes. Because they've said it's none of that stuff. It is, in fact, simply chucking it away from an overflying Thunderhawk.

I don't think you can really deal in facts in a fantasy world yeah? Anyway, what they've said doesn't preclude using further i-ma-gi-nay-shun. So after they chuck it away, the detachable retro-grav boosters slow it's descent then fall away. Job done.

Halfpast_Yellow wrote:

Seaward wrote:

Halfpast_Yellow wrote:It's the 40th Millennium. Is it really that hard to use imagination to figure out how a Land Raider could be inserted into a forward position on the battlefield without killing it's occupants falling elevator style. Really?

Grav chutes, teleportation, hot drop off, some funky tech inside the Land Raider.. and so on.

It's a fantasy game set in space. Key part of that being fantasy. And out of all the crazy hand-waivium fluff stuff we have, you're telling me Deepstriking Landraiders takes it over the edge?

Yes. Because they've said it's none of that stuff. It is, in fact, simply chucking it away from an overflying Thunderhawk.

I don't think you can really deal in facts in a fantasy world yeah? Anyway, what they've said doesn't preclude using further i-ma-gi-nay-shun. So after they chuck it away, the detachable retro-grav boosters slow it's descent then fall away. Job done.

Again, Ward's said exactly what happens. The Thunderhawk Transporter releases the Land Raider, and then trusts in the Land Raider's durability to survive the crash.

Halfpast_Yellow wrote:It's the 40th Millennium. Is it really that hard to use imagination to figure out how a Land Raider could be inserted into a forward position on the battlefield without killing it's occupants falling elevator style. Really?

Grav chutes, teleportation, hot drop off, some funky tech inside the Land Raider.. and so on.

It's a fantasy game set in space. Key part of that being fantasy. And out of all the crazy hand-waivium fluff stuff we have, you're telling me Deepstriking Landraiders takes it over the edge?

40k is suppose to be all grim-dark. No one is happy. All life is doomed. Pain and suffering are all anyone knows.

Then, you have these damned action hero style Blood Angels who I can only picture as riding into battle in a really cheesy 80s music video. They're over the top to the point of silliness.

Since GW caused the squats to be eaten because they were too silly and didn't fit the theme, then I will start the demand for BA to befall the same fate!

FEED THE BLOOD ANGELS TO THE TYRANNIDS!!!

Who's with me?

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Melissia wrote:I can understand having one or the other, but it does seem slightly excessive having both . Ah well.

or even just a reason fluff-wise. Or is it just "we're just better than those other marine guys".

Its called we need to sell BA minis fast!

Jayden63 wrote:The problem is Matt took everything one (sometimes two) steps too far. Take the simple jump pack assault marine.

To show that BA have more assault type guys he made them troop choices.

No, he didn't. Jervis did that three years ago with the PDF codex. No one complained then, but now it's a blight on the integrity of 40k.

But he had to take it two steps further with DOA. Not only do BA only scatter 1D6 instead of 2D6 like every other DS unit, but they can also reroll reserves because..... yeah no real reason.

They re-roll failed reserves rolls for JP troops only, not all reserves. They don't re-roll successful rolls when it would be better to keep everything coming in together. It made a deep-striking jump troop army viable. If it was such a huge deal we'd see DoA armies everywhere, but we don't. We see the same razorback spam as with the wolves.