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.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

SHUPPET wrote:I guess you can do that in casual play, you can probably do what you want in any sort of casual play though if your opponent will agree to it. You won't be able to in narrative events though, which is the coolest things (I wish there were more). The rest of my post still stands though. I don't want to buy Havocs to put them in a force that can't play them in matched play (the majority of my play), can't play them in narrative events, can't play them if my opponent isn't interested, and can't play them unless the narrative specifically demands it. For the most part though, the other reasons I gave are the big ones.

Okay, so even if your opponent isn't okay with it, you can't put Havocs in your normal detachment in Matched, and you don't have a narrative that fits, why can't you make a second detachment to put your Havocs in?

Because assuredly, EC and WE trait will be removed from the Dex the first update after they split from it, just like what happened with TSOns and DG.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not to mention the requirements for taking another detachment if this wasn't the case

What are you talking about? What "requirements" for taking another detachment?

You need a HQ and a unit. That's it. Take a patrol if you need to. If you must have CP take a specialist detachment for Havocs, the one where you need a HQ and 3 Heavy Support.

There is absolutely nothing stopping you buying Havocs (or any other CSM unit) now and IF they are removed from EC just ally them in as another detachment. This feels like a load of whinging for nothing to be honest.

You can do this, but then they aren't EC, you have to bring them as something else.

Idk, it's why it's always been silly to me that they lose so much and Gw doesn't tell us.

Money is on the line Heck, that's why.

No, they usually don't say what they are doing next.
The shiny new Havocs have been a surprise at least to me; I guess they will be nerfed next time.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Money is on the line Heck, that's why.

Well duh, that drives most of GW's decisions

Doesn't make em better

Call me cynical or just plain ol jaded but this is why I'm holding off on all chaos marine purchases until the chaos FAQ is out and we know if or when the world eaters/emperors children books are coming, I just want to know what I'm buying and if I can better spend my money elsewhere and a world eaters codex would be better money spent for me.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

SHUPPET wrote:I guess you can do that in casual play, you can probably do what you want in any sort of casual play though if your opponent will agree to it. You won't be able to in narrative events though, which is the coolest things (I wish there were more). The rest of my post still stands though. I don't want to buy Havocs to put them in a force that can't play them in matched play (the majority of my play), can't play them in narrative events, can't play them if my opponent isn't interested, and can't play them unless the narrative specifically demands it. For the most part though, the other reasons I gave are the big ones.

Okay, so even if your opponent isn't okay with it, you can't put Havocs in your normal detachment in Matched, and you don't have a narrative that fits, why can't you make a second detachment to put your Havocs in?

Because assuredly, EC and WE trait will be removed from the Dex the first update after they split from it, just like what happened with TSOns and DG.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not to mention the requirements for taking another detachment if this wasn't the case

What are you talking about? What "requirements" for taking another detachment?

You need a HQ and a unit. That's it. Take a patrol if you need to. If you must have CP take a specialist detachment for Havocs, the one where you need a HQ and 3 Heavy Support.

There is absolutely nothing stopping you buying Havocs (or any other CSM unit) now and IF they are removed from EC just ally them in as another detachment. This feels like a load of whinging for nothing to be honest.

The HQ is one requirement yes. That's a requirement that impacts the usability of your model, you can't always fit a 5th HQ. On top of that, not being able to have a 3rd battalion or taking up one of your allied slots is what I was mostly referring to, especially for a faction where basically every good list takes 3 different keyword detachments like Chaos does.


Also, if you're allying them as a different legion, they have to be painted differently, thus meaning not the ones you already bought painted and and modelled for your main force, aka the original complaint here, as well as the fact that you are no longer taking them as your army in the first place.

Who's whining? You asserted that a unit being removed from a dex was no different to one being nerfed, and as such this objectively incorrect declaration has been corrected, for both the reason that you choose to address here as well as the ones that you weren't able to.

Also, if you're allying them as a different legion, they have to be painted differently, thus meaning not the ones you already bought painted and and modelled for your main force, aka the original complaint here, as well as the fact that you are no longer taking them as your army in the first place.

They don't HAVE to be painted differently at all. It entirely depends on the context of play.

Re my supposed "assertion" - you're wrong. Read my initial post again.

What I actually said was that the "risk" element of purchasing a Havoc that might be removed from a codex is no different from the 'risk' of that same unit becoming unplayable because it is nerfed into the ground. Because if you're playing in narrative or open games or with a mate, you can use whatever models you please. If you're talking about competitive play then you'd be foolish to use a sub-optimal unit. And the best part? If you're just desperate to take them in a competitive list but it turns out you can't use them with EC, you can just take another detachment!! Woohoo! [Non]Problem solved!

The answer to the OP is quite simple and I said it in my first post. Here it is again for your reference;

I wrote:If GW release an EC book and Havocs aren't included who cares? Just ally them as another detachment in a soup list if you want to use them so badly, otherwise if you only want to play pure EC don't buy until a pure EC dex is released.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
What I actually said was that the "risk" element of purchasing a Havoc that might be removed from a codex is no different from the 'risk' of that same unit becoming unplayable because it is nerfed into the ground. Because if you're playing in narrative or open games or with a mate, you can use whatever models you please. If you're talking about competitive play then you'd be foolish to use a sub-optimal unit. And the best part? If you're just desperate to take them in a competitive list but it turns out you can't use them with EC, you can just take another detachment!! Woohoo! [Non]Problem solved!

And, again, that's a terrible argument. There are plenty of games where the expectation is that you play by the standard rules but the meta isn't so ruthlessly competitive that taking anything sub-optimal is an unacceptable choice. And taking an additional detachment is not an option that always works. You might not be able to afford the HQ tax without cutting out something else, and you might not have a free detachment slot available without sacrificing an existing detachment. So yes, it is entirely reasonable to be wary of GW making changes that invalidate your army. And buying anything with a new codex coming soon is a significant risk.

 Peregrine wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
What I actually said was that the "risk" element of purchasing a Havoc that might be removed from a codex is no different from the 'risk' of that same unit becoming unplayable because it is nerfed into the ground. Because if you're playing in narrative or open games or with a mate, you can use whatever models you please. If you're talking about competitive play then you'd be foolish to use a sub-optimal unit. And the best part? If you're just desperate to take them in a competitive list but it turns out you can't use them with EC, you can just take another detachment!! Woohoo! [Non]Problem solved!

And, again, that's a terrible argument. There are plenty of games where the expectation is that you play by the standard rules but the meta isn't so ruthlessly competitive that taking anything sub-optimal is an unacceptable choice. And taking an additional detachment is not an option that always works. You might not be able to afford the HQ tax without cutting out something else, and you might not have a free detachment slot available without sacrificing an existing detachment. So yes, it is entirely reasonable to be wary of GW making changes that invalidate your army. And buying anything with a new codex coming soon is a significant risk.

There's a few rather glaring flaws in your logic here. First and most obvious is that we have no idea IF a new codex for WE/EC is on its way. We have even less idea if its 'coming soon'. Logic says no, given the huge release CSM have just enjoyed.

There's also some serious Schizophrenic arguments going on here, which is hilarious. On one hand you may want to take a suboptimal choice in a competitive setting but on the other you'll have 'no space for that "HQ tax" (lol) in a separate detachment? Which is it? Are you playing competitively or not because it seems you can't get your own argument straight? I guess if you're willing to take suboptimal choices competitively you'll find the space to take another detachment? Or if taking another detachment is just too debilitating to your hyper competitive meta list you wouldn't take a suboptimal choice anyway?

This 'complaint' is weak. GW aren't going to tell you if and exactly when anything is coming until they deem fit to do so. We get some teasers now which is more than what we've had in the past, if the possibility of purchasing something that is later rendered obsolete is too much to bear, my advice is to wait.

Context of play in this thread is quite strongly the fact that they have to be painted differently for both ITC and GW events. It's not a counter to this to say that you can just invent your own rules for open play with a likeminded individual also willing to play with invented rules, that goes without saying, and is quite definitively not the context of this thread. As for matched play, there's numerous reasons why having a unit nerfed is not equivalent to having a unit being removed from your faction. I'll just quote myself on it:

"Many of us will happily play a model with bad rules, in fact I enjoy the challenge of making gak things have solid impact. [...] Above all, balance is changed from edition to edition, and something that is thoroughly garbage one edition is just as likely to be incredibly strong the next, just look at the ups and downs of a faction like GK, or Tyranids. There's a massive difference between weak rules, and "your models aren't even a part of this faction anymore"."


Aside from that, we understand that balance is a work in progress, and that sometimes things will suck, this is a risk that is much less avoidable than the one being discussed here, and yet, is also another facet that people ask to be improved - yourself being a prime example of this.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
otherwise if you only want to play pure EC don't buy until a pure EC dex is released.

So basically, exactly what the feedback was before you even posted. The EC/WE dexes may not even be coming - you yourself said you think they might not. The complaint is that you cannot safely buy into EC or WE right now without the risk of half your models not even being present in the army in a years time, all for a dex that may or may not be coming, and that this risk could be solved by a small measure of transparency from GW on the subject. The answer isn't "don't buy an EC army", that's the problem, and so people are talking about what they'd like GW to change so that they will start playing this faction. Why does this bother you so much? There's a lot of things I see people arguing against on here that make me scratch my head, but this one is just silly.

There's no even a world eaters codex, though. Not even any indication that it's in the near-future pipeline. I don't see the problem here.

I suggest that if you want to petition GW to change how transparent they are, you're probably better off contacting them directly rather than creating a topic here.

Somehow I don't think GW will change their decades old business practices based on a topic on here, particularly when they have been so lucrative of late/ever.

You claim that these business practices are actively stopping GW selling to those people who won't buy anything that runs the risk of not being in a so far unconfirmed codex. I suspect that GW knows the vast majority of people don't follow your demographic and hence the reason they act as they do. Most people will probably buy Havocs if they like the look of them, then if an EC/WE codex is released AND they aren't an option they'll simply ally them in or chose not to use them, as suits. Perhaps start a second 'pure' CSM army.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

There's also some serious Schizophrenic arguments going on here, which is hilarious. On one hand you may want to take a suboptimal choice in a competitive setting but on the other you'll have 'no space for that "HQ tax" (lol) in a separate detachment? Which is it? Are you playing competitively or not because it seems you can't get your own argument straight? I guess if you're willing to take suboptimal choices competitively you'll find the space to take another detachment? Or if taking another detachment is just too debilitating to your hyper competitive meta list you wouldn't take a suboptimal choice anyway?

Because if I have to buy a whole nother detachment to play a single unit for my monodex army, I wouldn't have bought the unit in the first place, let alone one that doesn't play cohesively with my army, interact with any of my established auras or other board presence. And you keeeep forgetting that the model you painted up for EC will have to be repainted and have its faction changed anyway, completely defeating the point of the purchase. On top of that, you may not identify with it but many people who play this game are faction loyalists, and stick to the one codex for playing, even in a competitive setting - in fact, ITC just changed Best in Faction to represent monodex players only, after an overwhelming majority of the community voting that way.

GW aren't going to tell you if and exactly when anything is coming until they deem fit to do so. We get some teasers now which is more than what we've had in the past

in the past it wasn't conceivable that GW would be removing units you can buy from them, from the army you bought them for at the time. The risk of this happening was miniscule, the risk of it happening with the godsworn Chaos dexes is tremendous. There is no equivalency here for the feedback being given, nor if there were, would precedence be a relevant point for dismissal.

As a side note, for the past two years, we've had a pretty good idea about what was coming in what order, and I feel like there's generally been a fairly long lead time on knowing what's coming up, especially if it's coming with new models.

The problem seems to be that, for the past two years, we've pretty much known the whole year, or at least most of it, in advance. However, this year, there's an undefined gap between Vigilus and Sisters of Battle that it seems is being largely filled with wishlisting that's being taken as expectation.

Anyway, I'm not convinced that a World Eaters codex is in the immediate pipeline, so you're probably safe getting your havocs.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I suggest that if you want to petition GW to change how transparent they are, you're probably better off contacting them directly rather than creating a topic here.

Thoroughly agree, which is why that can be done there, and threads like this can be made here to discuss the topic, raise support, or see if anyone has a rational view that either makes you reconsider, or reinforce your beliefs, or just generally engage with the community on a topic and gauge the community's feelings on the matter. This is what a forum is for.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
You claim that these business practices are actively stopping GW selling to those people who won't buy anything that runs the risk of not being in a so far unconfirmed codex. I suspect that GW knows the vast majority of people don't follow your demographic and hence the reason they act as they do. Most people will probably buy Havocs if they like the look of them, then if an EC/WE codex is released AND they aren't an option they'll simply ally them in or chose not to use them, as suits. Perhaps start a second 'pure' CSM army.

Diiiid I claim that though?

Rather than what you've invented me saying, let's take a look at what I actually said about the impact of the business practices here:

 SHUPPET wrote:
from a business standpoint, it probably makes sense - they WANT you to buy the Havocs and the possessed, they don't want you choosing not to because a World Eater dex got announced and they said Havocs won't be included.

The definitive opposite of what you claimed I said.

Had to do a lot of editing and deleting in this thread. Please remember the rules especially the one that says be polite.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
There's also some serious Schizophrenic arguments going on here, which is hilarious. On one hand you may want to take a suboptimal choice in a competitive setting but on the other you'll have 'no space for that "HQ tax" (lol) in a separate detachment? Which is it? Are you playing competitively or not because it seems you can't get your own argument straight? I guess if you're willing to take suboptimal choices competitively you'll find the space to take another detachment? Or if taking another detachment is just too debilitating to your hyper competitive meta list you wouldn't take a suboptimal choice anyway?

You know that HQ choices don't come free, right? And that if you have to spend 150 points on a HQ you have to remove some other unit from your army to compensate? And that there's a limit on how many detachments you can have, detachments you might have already committed to something else? Playing in a less than 100% competitive meta where you can take a single unit that isn't top-tier is not the same thing as ignoring all list optimization questions entirely.

I play a lot of game systems, most of which let you know about the release schedule far in advance of GW and while its nice, I honestly don't know that I actually prefer it. Most of the time it just creates a situation where the community gets stuck living in a future state of the game that doesn't exist. People chew and theorize models and by the time they're out, just aren't excited to actually put some practical application on the table. The in the now excitement is about the same overall, but I find GW's schedule leads to more of that excitement making it to the table.

 LunarSol wrote:
I play a lot of game systems, most of which let you know about the release schedule far in advance of GW and while its nice, I honestly don't know that I actually prefer it. Most of the time it just creates a situation where the community gets stuck living in a future state of the game that doesn't exist. People chew and theorize models and by the time they're out, just aren't excited to actually put some practical application on the table. The in the now excitement is about the same overall, but I find GW's schedule leads to more of that excitement making it to the table.

That was a massive problem with X-Wing in V1, by the time the new product was released it had been theory crafted to death.

If you're only buying Codex: Chaos Space Marines to play a World Eaters list, then you can guarantee the book will be of no use to you if a Codex: World Eaters arrives. If you've bought it anyway because you're happy to only be able to use it in the meantime, then there's your answer for the Havocs.

If money isn't a problem, then there isn't one. And even if it were, you can always sell off whatever is no longer of any use to you. We all have miniatures we don't need, but none of us should have miniatures we don't want.

So with that in mind, I don't think there's a problem with the way GW reveals upcoming products.

Peregrine wrote:And that there's a limit on how many detachments you can have, detachments you might have already committed to something else?

No there aren't. Not in the base rules, at least. Anything which limits how many detachments you can have is a house rule, suggestion (so, not compulsory), or is specific to events which introduce extra rules like some tournaments. They aren't compulsory, they aren't universal, and they shouldn't be counted.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Peregrine wrote:And that there's a limit on how many detachments you can have, detachments you might have already committed to something else?

No there aren't. Not in the base rules, at least. Anything which limits how many detachments you can have is a house rule, suggestion (so, not compulsory), or is specific to events which introduce extra rules like some tournaments. They aren't compulsory, they aren't universal, and they shouldn't be counted.

Pretty hot-take there mate, considering even GW disagrees with you on this point. The game is being balanced around ITC, GW understands that is their competitive scene.

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Peregrine wrote:And that there's a limit on how many detachments you can have, detachments you might have already committed to something else?

No there aren't. Not in the base rules, at least. Anything which limits how many detachments you can have is a house rule, suggestion (so, not compulsory), or is specific to events which introduce extra rules like some tournaments. They aren't compulsory, they aren't universal, and they shouldn't be counted.

Pretty hot-take there mate, considering even GW disagrees with you on this point. The game is being balanced around ITC, GW understands that is their competitive scene.

They don't disagree whatsoever. Their words on the matter were "if you are using Matched Play for an organised event such as a tournament, we suggest using the table below".

Considering that:
1) Not all games are Matched Play
2) Not all games are tournaments
3) It's only a suggestion, not an imperative

suggesting that there is a hard limit on detachments in 40k as a whole is to assume that everyone plays Matched tournaments using GW's house rules - which is most certainly not the case.

If GW changed the core rules themselves to say "all games of 40k must use the table below" or even just "Matched Play games must use the table below", then you'd have a point, but just because the competitive scene use those rules doesn't mean they're core rules, or even compulsory ones, in the slightest.

If this thread were in "Tournament Discussions", you'd have a point, but this isn't in that subforum.

I think the point where GW started attending ITC events and outright saying "hey we're looking to balance our game for these" (and yes, by all accounts this is what they have said) is the point where this idea starts to fall apart. House rules ITC may be, but these house rules are also being balanced around by the official design team, plenty of whom are pulling double duty between both.

Regardless of all that however, it's still pretty fair feedback for a customer to say they'd like to know whether they can run their current World Eater units as World Eaters in 6 months time, or whether they need to repaint them, run them as a different warband, and purchase an entire separate detachment just to run them. That's what this thread is about.

 Sir Heckington wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:


There is absolutely nothing stopping you buying Havocs (or any other CSM unit) now and IF they are removed from EC just ally them in as another detachment. This feels like a load of whinging for nothing to be honest.

You can do this, but then they aren't EC, you have to bring them as something else.

Idk, it's why it's always been silly to me that they lose so much and Gw doesn't tell us.

If I paint them as Emperor's Children, then they're Emperor's Children. I define what my army is, not the rules.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 Sir Heckington wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:


There is absolutely nothing stopping you buying Havocs (or any other CSM unit) now and IF they are removed from EC just ally them in as another detachment. This feels like a load of whinging for nothing to be honest.

You can do this, but then they aren't EC, you have to bring them as something else.

Idk, it's why it's always been silly to me that they lose so much and Gw doesn't tell us.

If I paint them as Emperor's Children, then they're Emperor's Children. I define what my army is, not the rules.

Cool well the rules also define how you have to paint them, and that is visually different and separate to your EC color scheme

No they don't, otherwise this forum wouldn't be full of threads about using the grey horde as different Chapters, or fielding Ultramarines using Chaos Marine rules.

How different is different? All the ones with blue shoulder pads are one detachment, all the ones with purple are another. Or something equally garish.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
No they don't, otherwise this forum wouldn't be full of threads about using the grey horde as different Chapters, or fielding Ultramarines using Chaos Marine rules.

How different is different? All the ones with blue shoulder pads are one detachment, all the ones with purple are another. Or something equally garish.

I've been on here 6 years. I've literally never even once SEEN someone talk about fielding Ultramarines as CSM. That's probably pushing what would fly at any sort of event also, I think you're unlikely to get allowed it most places. You're definitely not allowed grey tide at events.

People are a lot more lax on the modelling side of the hobby in a casual game. Obviously almost nobody is enforcing painting standards there.

The only time rules matter at all is competitive play, and for competitive play, GW events and ITC events both have a set of rules that force you to differentiate the color scheme.

If I painted up something like this and you told me "LOL JUST PAINT ONE OF THE SHOULDER PADS BLUE BRO", I think the sound of my facepalm would be audible from China.

Oh that thread exists, Shuppet: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/773698.page

Never doubt the depths Dakka will sink to, haha.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Oh that thread exists, Shuppet: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/773698.page

Never doubt the depths Dakka will sink to, haha.

Thanks for the info. Retracting everything I said about my skepticism on this being a topic. I should have known.


Oh well, that's pretty wack. But at least 2/3's of people said no to that (thankfully).



It's definitely a blurrier area than the rules for distinguishing paint schemes though.