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.

Not too happy with this latest preview. I fundamentally dislike the agents of the imperium for the same reason I dislike layered "free rules", they just make it difficult for the game designer to properly balance their own game.

If the game is 25% Marines, 25% Imperium, 25% Chaos and 25% Xenos and you have a set of special tool kit units that only Marines and Imperium can use, they can't be too good, they need to instead be 'just bad enough to not matter'. They were in 9th and this was in my opinion good for the game. Chaos Daemon allies in 9th were another example of this but Chaos is usually slightly better because at least there are a bunch of hoops to jump through to get your units, with matching god keywords, losing out on your cabal points, etc, so that basically the only problematic combination in 9th was just Tzeentch spells and Flamers in TSons, and that really just boiled down to the Tzeentch spells being power crept versions of TSons spells and Flamers being way too cheap. No one was having issues with Khorne/Nurgle/Slaanesh daemons in CSM/DG/WE as they tended to be sidegrades at best on what those armies already had, which was ideal.

The issue with agents of the imperium in 8th and 9th and seemingly 10th was/is there are no hoops, no downsides, it is just slot in a few units, which if good just elevate 50% of the armies in the game. And that means those armies are too good or you need to nerf the pure armies to account for the agent filled armies.

I'm also seeing lethality and possible rules layering that feel very 9th edition rather than 10th edition in the preview.

First the Vindicare. An attack sequence with a one shot weapon is a d6 to hit, a d6 to wound, a d6 to save and a d6 for damage. That gives 1,296 possible results.

A Vindicare shooting a Malignant Plaguecaster in a squad of Plague Marines has a 48.6% chance to get a kill (630 of the results). For those recreating this I got 216 misses, 360 failures to wound, 180 devastating wound procs, 90 saves, 450 not saved.

A Vindicare shooting Ahriman in a squad of Rubrics has a 25.5% chance to get a kill or a 40.7% chance if he uses Shieldbreaker.

A Vindicare shooting a Farseer in a squad of Guardian Defenders has 41.7% chance to get a kill or a 69.4% chance if he uses Shieldbreaker.

There is absolutely no sane player who will risk Ahriman or lower survivability characters being visible to the Vindicare. So yet again some factions will be playing an edition where our models stare at walls before bursting out into the open to briefly do something before being killed. I thought we were trying to stop doing that?

Second, Inquisitors who we are told can lead any IMPERIUM BATTLELINE INFANTRY so will be able to join:

Skitarii Rangers
Skitarii Vanguard
Cadian Shock Troops
Custodian Guard
Prosecutor Squad
Battle Sisters
Novitiaties
Intercessors
Heavy Intercessors
Assault Intercessors
Infiltrators
Incursors
Tactical Squad
(I also suspect they will by default also be able to lead a few agents of the imperium units like the Breachers.)

The base Inquisitor hands out FNP5+ vs mortals, so we now need to check 13+ datasheets to make sure this doesn't make them too survivable. And also check the army rule, detachment rules (there will be many once the codexes start dropping) and all the strategems that can be played on these 13+ datasheets to check the FNP5+ doesn't make them too survivable.

Then worse Greyfax hands out ANTI PSYKER 4+ to all guns which means checking the 13+ datasheets, the army rules, the detachments and all the strategems now to make sure they aren't too lethal. The obvious interation here is DEVASTATING WOUNDS availability to take advantage of critical wounds on 4s, but also you need to keep an eye out for things like re-rolling wounds to juice Greyfax's own DEVASTATING WOUNDS guns.

I'm also now concerned that the other named Inquisitors are going to hand out similar keyword buffs to represent the other Ordos, ANTI CHAOS 4+ or ANTI XENOS 4+ anyone?

I was hopeful for 10th that because each Leader unit would probably have 3~6 bodyguard units listed on their datasheet that GW would have a slim chance of testing their own rules and not building in silly stacking/compounding buff ladders, but this Inquisitor design seems to lead straight to it.

tneva82 wrote:
Just like melta's on imperium side. They won't be main at in 10th. For that bring proper at.

The idea that a melta weapon doesn't constitute "proper AT" is what people have a problem with.

IMHO Melta should have been (significant) additional Strength in half range rather than additional damage.

That way it could have been a proper AT but only when at half range.

That would've been completely fine.

EightFoldPath wrote:
Not too happy with this latest preview. I fundamentally dislike the agents of the imperium for the same reason I dislike layered "free rules", they just make it difficult for the game designer to properly balance their own game.

If the game is 25% Marines, 25% Imperium, 25% Chaos and 25% Xenos and you have a set of special tool kit units that only Marines and Imperium can use, they can't be too good, they need to instead be 'just bad enough to not matter'. They were in 9th and this was in my opinion good for the game. Chaos Daemon allies in 9th were another example of this but Chaos is usually slightly better because at least there are a bunch of hoops to jump through to get your units, with matching god keywords, losing out on your cabal points, etc, so that basically the only problematic combination in 9th was just Tzeentch spells and Flamers in TSons, and that really just boiled down to the Tzeentch spells being power crept versions of TSons spells and Flamers being way too cheap. No one was having issues with Khorne/Nurgle/Slaanesh daemons in CSM/DG/WE as they tended to be sidegrades at best on what those armies already had, which was ideal.

The issue with agents of the imperium in 8th and 9th and seemingly 10th was/is there are no hoops, no downsides, it is just slot in a few units, which if good just elevate 50% of the armies in the game. And that means those armies are too good or you need to nerf the pure armies to account for the agent filled armies.

I'm also seeing lethality and possible rules layering that feel very 9th edition rather than 10th edition in the preview.

First the Vindicare. An attack sequence with a one shot weapon is a d6 to hit, a d6 to wound, a d6 to save and a d6 for damage. That gives 1,296 possible results.

A Vindicare shooting a Malignant Plaguecaster in a squad of Plague Marines has a 48.6% chance to get a kill (630 of the results). For those recreating this I got 216 misses, 360 failures to wound, 180 devastating wound procs, 90 saves, 450 not saved.

A Vindicare shooting Ahriman in a squad of Rubrics has a 25.5% chance to get a kill or a 40.7% chance if he uses Shieldbreaker.

A Vindicare shooting a Farseer in a squad of Guardian Defenders has 41.7% chance to get a kill or a 69.4% chance if he uses Shieldbreaker.

There is absolutely no sane player who will risk Ahriman or lower survivability characters being visible to the Vindicare. So yet again some factions will be playing an edition where our models stare at walls before bursting out into the open to briefly do something before being killed. I thought we were trying to stop doing that?

Second, Inquisitors who we are told can lead any IMPERIUM BATTLELINE INFANTRY so will be able to join:

Skitarii Rangers
Skitarii Vanguard
Cadian Shock Troops
Custodian Guard
Prosecutor Squad
Battle Sisters
Novitiaties
Intercessors
Heavy Intercessors
Assault Intercessors
Infiltrators
Incursors
Tactical Squad
(I also suspect they will by default also be able to lead a few agents of the imperium units like the Breachers.)

The base Inquisitor hands out FNP5+ vs mortals, so we now need to check 13+ datasheets to make sure this doesn't make them too survivable. And also check the army rule, detachment rules (there will be many once the codexes start dropping) and all the strategems that can be played on these 13+ datasheets to check the FNP5+ doesn't make them too survivable.

Then worse Greyfax hands out ANTI PSYKER 4+ to all guns which means checking the 13+ datasheets, the army rules, the detachments and all the strategems now to make sure they aren't too lethal. The obvious interation here is DEVASTATING WOUNDS availability to take advantage of critical wounds on 4s, but also you need to keep an eye out for things like re-rolling wounds to juice Greyfax's own DEVASTATING WOUNDS guns.

I'm also now concerned that the other named Inquisitors are going to hand out similar keyword buffs to represent the other Ordos, ANTI CHAOS 4+ or ANTI XENOS 4+ anyone?

I was hopeful for 10th that because each Leader unit would probably have 3~6 bodyguard units listed on their datasheet that GW would have a slim chance of testing their own rules and not building in silly stacking/compounding buff ladders, but this Inquisitor design seems to lead straight to it.

This sums up my feeling on imperal agents almost exactly. I was really hoping they just had a detachment rule and army rule and we're a playable faction. Nothing previewed would be too powerfull in its own faction but when it can be tossed into half the armys In the game somthing is likely to break.

EightFoldPath wrote:

Spoiler:

Not too happy with this latest preview. I fundamentally dislike the agents of the imperium for the same reason I dislike layered "free rules", they just make it difficult for the game designer to properly balance their own game.

If the game is 25% Marines, 25% Imperium, 25% Chaos and 25% Xenos and you have a set of special tool kit units that only Marines and Imperium can use, they can't be too good, they need to instead be 'just bad enough to not matter'. They were in 9th and this was in my opinion good for the game. Chaos Daemon allies in 9th were another example of this but Chaos is usually slightly better because at least there are a bunch of hoops to jump through to get your units, with matching god keywords, losing out on your cabal points, etc, so that basically the only problematic combination in 9th was just Tzeentch spells and Flamers in TSons, and that really just boiled down to the Tzeentch spells being power crept versions of TSons spells and Flamers being way too cheap. No one was having issues with Khorne/Nurgle/Slaanesh daemons in CSM/DG/WE as they tended to be sidegrades at best on what those armies already had, which was ideal.

The issue with agents of the imperium in 8th and 9th and seemingly 10th was/is there are no hoops, no downsides, it is just slot in a few units, which if good just elevate 50% of the armies in the game. And that means those armies are too good or you need to nerf the pure armies to account for the agent filled armies.

I'm also seeing lethality and possible rules layering that feel very 9th edition rather than 10th edition in the preview.

First the Vindicare. An attack sequence with a one shot weapon is a d6 to hit, a d6 to wound, a d6 to save and a d6 for damage. That gives 1,296 possible results.

A Vindicare shooting a Malignant Plaguecaster in a squad of Plague Marines has a 48.6% chance to get a kill (630 of the results). For those recreating this I got 216 misses, 360 failures to wound, 180 devastating wound procs, 90 saves, 450 not saved.

A Vindicare shooting Ahriman in a squad of Rubrics has a 25.5% chance to get a kill or a 40.7% chance if he uses Shieldbreaker.

A Vindicare shooting a Farseer in a squad of Guardian Defenders has 41.7% chance to get a kill or a 69.4% chance if he uses Shieldbreaker.

There is absolutely no sane player who will risk Ahriman or lower survivability characters being visible to the Vindicare. So yet again some factions will be playing an edition where our models stare at walls before bursting out into the open to briefly do something before being killed. I thought we were trying to stop doing that?

Second, Inquisitors who we are told can lead any IMPERIUM BATTLELINE INFANTRY so will be able to join:

Skitarii Rangers
Skitarii Vanguard
Cadian Shock Troops
Custodian Guard
Prosecutor Squad
Battle Sisters
Novitiaties
Intercessors
Heavy Intercessors
Assault Intercessors
Infiltrators
Incursors
Tactical Squad
(I also suspect they will by default also be able to lead a few agents of the imperium units like the Breachers.)

The base Inquisitor hands out FNP5+ vs mortals, so we now need to check 13+ datasheets to make sure this doesn't make them too survivable. And also check the army rule, detachment rules (there will be many once the codexes start dropping) and all the strategems that can be played on these 13+ datasheets to check the FNP5+ doesn't make them too survivable.

Then worse Greyfax hands out ANTI PSYKER 4+ to all guns which means checking the 13+ datasheets, the army rules, the detachments and all the strategems now to make sure they aren't too lethal. The obvious interation here is DEVASTATING WOUNDS availability to take advantage of critical wounds on 4s, but also you need to keep an eye out for things like re-rolling wounds to juice Greyfax's own DEVASTATING WOUNDS guns.

I'm also now concerned that the other named Inquisitors are going to hand out similar keyword buffs to represent the other Ordos, ANTI CHAOS 4+ or ANTI XENOS 4+ anyone?

I was hopeful for 10th that because each Leader unit would probably have 3~6 bodyguard units listed on their datasheet that GW would have a slim chance of testing their own rules and not building in silly stacking/compounding buff ladders, but this Inquisitor design seems to lead straight to it.

I don't disagree with any of this. I would have preferred a system that emphasized Agent detachments designed for small-game Crusade, rather than this method. It's amazing how easy to make serviceable army lists for each of the Agent subfactions without adding new models to the range- you just have to give the appropriate models the appropriate keywords, and unit split all Agent Kill Teams the same way a Corsair KT builds two units or an Arbites box builds 3. Navis Imperialis Becomes a real faction of you make the Master of the Fleet a Navis HQ, unit split the Breachers and add the Valkyrie, Vulture, Thunderbolt and Avenger. For the Coup de Gras, add the Navigator and Astropath for psychic support. If you aren't aiming for 2k, that's a damn decent army list. And not a single new model is required to do it (though the Astropath and Master of the Fleet models are very much in need of an update if GW intends to keep them in the game- scale creep hit them HARD).

It's even easier to do that with the Inquisition... PA: Pariah was so damn close to making them right... They just needed a troops choice, a Lord profile upgrade that could be attached to the Generic Inquisitor to get around the "One inquisitor" rule (you could take a Lord upgrade and a regular generic Inquisitor to represent a Master/ Apprentice team) and vehicles. Again, no new models required.

Arbites require an HQ and vehicles. The HQ should get a model (though just the datacard would be fine), and I'd do cartwheels for a Repressor upgrade sprue that worked with the Sisters Rhino- the datacard could be added to both Sisters and Arbites lists. If GW is too lazy to do that despite the RoI, then even adding a generic rhino would work.

The most important thing is bespoke Crusade content for all of them, because again, these army lists fit best in small army Crusade, and most of the people who want these lists want them so we can use them that way. Viable army rules are necessary to make this happen- the plug-and-play drop in Agent army needs to still be possible- even if it's limited to <Ordos> into their Chambers, Hereticus to Arbites, Navy and Rogue Traders to Guard, but it shouldn't be the sole focus of Agents or the only way to use them.

Agreed. Agents are a bit too easy to slot in as wild cards.

So I was thinking about weapon profiles such as melta and blasters and the added granularity of toughness now. I believe this will have the opposite desired effect on weapon choices. Instead compressing weapon choices.

For example S5 profiles are even better now with the devaluing of staple weapons such as melta, plasma, blasters and similar S7 and S8 weapons. Or i.e. the lowest strength weapon with high rof that can still wound T9 on 5s benefits more. Shuriken cannons and such also qualify.

Anyone have a different perspective on this?

 Tyran wrote:
IMHO Melta should have been (significant) additional Strength in half range rather than additional damage.

That way it could have been a proper AT but only when at half range.

Completely agree.

dominuschao 809431 11541292 wrote:

Anyone have a different perspective on this?

I don't think so. The stormbolters on my dudes are better anti tank, then a 3 shot psycanon, just because I am rolling dice for 9 dudes. Also any form of +1 to wound or re-roll to wound is going to have a huge impact on multi shot weapons.

 Tyran wrote:
IMHO Melta should have been (significant) additional Strength in half range rather than additional damage.

That way it could have been a proper AT but only when at half range.

Increasing Toughness was a mistake, it was Sv that should have been improved. Multi-meltas and D6+2 Damage weapons were too lethal, but instead of fixing the few problematic weapons, they're ruining tonnes of fair weapons. Reduce plasma to S7 and then melta gets a little better vs T7 and a lot better vs T8 relative to plasma. Auto cannons haven't been a problem for the entirety of 9th, why are vehicles being made less susceptible to them again?

EightFoldPath 809431 11541230 wrote:

There is absolutely no sane player who will risk Ahriman or lower survivability characters being visible to the Vindicare. So yet again some factions will be playing an edition where our models stare at walls before bursting out into the open to briefly do something before being killed. I thought we were trying to stop doing that?

Or maybe GW wants this to be the tank and transport edition, and we end up playing 2500 or even 3000pts basic games. In HH they already do that and I am sure GW loves the idea of armies running multiple land raiders, dreadnoughts and rhinos in armies.

Karol wrote:

dominuschao 809431 11541292 wrote:

Anyone have a different perspective on this?

I don't think so. The stormbolters on my dudes are better anti tank, then a 3 shot psycanon, just because I am rolling dice for 9 dudes. Also any form of +1 to wound or re-roll to wound is going to have a huge impact on multi shot weapons.

Potentially yes but that's basically what I'm saying. You just carried it forward even more. I believe they inadvertently devalued much of the former dedicated AT to the point where anti infantry supercedes in that role.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:

EightFoldPath 809431 11541230 wrote:

There is absolutely no sane player who will risk Ahriman or lower survivability characters being visible to the Vindicare. So yet again some factions will be playing an edition where our models stare at walls before bursting out into the open to briefly do something before being killed. I thought we were trying to stop doing that?

Or maybe GW wants this to be the tank and transport edition, and we end up playing 2500 or even 3000pts basic games. In HH they already do that and I am sure GW loves the idea of armies running multiple land raiders, dreadnoughts and rhinos in armies.

Agreed and I'm a tread head so it does have a certain appeal. But I prefer to run treads when it's not so mainstream.
This is also why I think the optimism for drukhari poison is going to wear off quickly.

 vict0988 wrote:
Increasing Toughness was a mistake, it was Sv that should have been improved. Multi-meltas and D6+2 Damage weapons were too lethal, but instead of fixing the few problematic weapons, they're ruining tonnes of fair weapons. Reduce plasma to S7 and then melta gets a little better vs T7 and a lot better vs T8 relative to plasma. Auto cannons haven't been a problem for the entirety of 9th, why are vehicles being made less susceptible to them again?

The way GW used (or didn't use) their Toughness bracket, leaving most 'tough' things at 8 and Warlord Titans reaching the heights of 9 (wow...) was the mistake. The lack of high toughness and the multitude of sources of higher AP value (or even just basic -1 on so many weapons) was a real issue.

The problem is that they've left Meltaguns behind.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

The problem is that they've left Meltaguns behind.

This trips me out actually. Never thought I'd see a statement like this feel so true.

That is a bit of a problem though, because some armies are armed with just MM as their only source of anti tank. MM contemptors are or at least were crucial to playing custodes. SoB are Melta The Faction. GK don't have many sources of anti tank either, and I liked using Aimed MM dreadnoughts in my army.

Now to make melta valid again it would either have to have twice as many shots, but then it just becomes a better plasma for same points. Or it has to have an option to get +1 or +2 to wound easily or double it strenght somehow. Otherwise we are a looking at a 9th ed marine lascanon case of a weapon, only with shorter range and worse stats, comperativly to what it is being used against.

But who knows maybe there will be some powerful faction, that just makes vehicles non valid to run, and we will be back to running infantry armies and the melta problem won't bother most people.

Ya marines could go full grav and and las spam probably be okay with full rerolls but many others won't have an answer. Basically I think this is the vehicle edition similar to what we've seen before from around 5th.. only without melta and plasma.

I remember playing against wave serpent spam with assault cannon only deathwing and thinking this is the most miserable experience I've had in awhile. It could be like that.

GW had 4 editions of expiriance on top of 5th ed, and there were ton of other table top games of various kind entering the market. I guess that the design studio should avoid a mass problem of unkillable vehicles, because of that. But an army can always slip past. All it takes is for it to not be popular in the studio, and we end up with 9th ed pre codex knights. Rules can create problems, and they often break the game. Wonder how the game is going to be looking point wise. Is the 10th army going to be the same size as a 9th army. Will it be bigger or smaller. The points number doesn't matter as much as the actual model count needed to play the basic game.

But I guess I have a bit of a shock from seeing how big HH games are last weekend.

 Tyran wrote:
4 Haywire Scourges with PT rerolls should kill a Rhino on average. The same is true for Dark Lance Scourges but they also have to be stationary.

Well. If they cost 3x they should delete in one go.

If less than 3x is taken it's too lethav

 H.B.M.C. wrote:


The problem is that they've left Meltaguns behind.

It's the good old pendulum swing, they were a boogeyman in 9th and I think they recognised the buff to them and the introduction of some melta units had pushd it too far, so now it's on the apology tour. Personally I'd have given it Anti-vehicle/monster 3+ in melta range

Dudeface wrote:
It's the good old pendulum swing, they were a boogeyman in 9th and I think they recognised the buff to them and the introduction of some melta units had pushd it too far, so now it's on the apology tour. Personally I'd have given it Anti-vehicle/monster 3+ in melta range

It might be a pendulum swing too far - but this idea of "vehicles & monsters are too fragile"/"but meltas (and so on) should hit on 3s, wound on 3s and allow no save for loads of damage" doesn't make sense.
You can't "reduce lethality" and then do nothing about the weapons that were the cause of that lethality.

I'm a bit excited about the No Escape rule on Greyfax's datasheet – I hope we'll also see it on things like Warp Talons and Fiends of Slaanesh.

Tyel wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
It's the good old pendulum swing, they were a boogeyman in 9th and I think they recognised the buff to them and the introduction of some melta units had pushd it too far, so now it's on the apology tour. Personally I'd have given it Anti-vehicle/monster 3+ in melta range

It might be a pendulum swing too far - but this idea of "vehicles & monsters are too fragile"/"but meltas (and so on) should hit on 3s, wound on 3s and allow no save for loads of damage" doesn't make sense.
You can't "reduce lethality" and then do nothing about the weapons that were the cause of that lethality.

i don't think "Lethality" in general is an issue. The problem is and was that there are weapons that are technically designed for a specific task but are too cheap and readily available that they spill out of their niche.

F.e. Longtime that was plasma, then melta based weaponry to top it off, doubled with the fact that you could splitfire and concentrate far more heavy weaponry then in the past.
Couple that with the removal of mechanics like AV and a bad to wound table , e voila, recipie for desaster.

 Souleater wrote:
Thank you, Tyran.

I’ll be quite happy deleting Marines with Blasters, so Silver Lining and all that. 😄

"Dark Eldar really don't have many reliable anti-vehicle weapons in 10th."

"No, you're wrong, Blasters are still fantastic anti-vehicle weapons."

"That's demonstrably untrue." Shows that it takes your entire allotment of Scourges to kill a single Rhino.

"Well it's okay because I love using anti-vehicle weapons to kill single Marines!"

Perhaps you've forgotten the original concern?

 Tyran wrote:
4 Haywire Scourges with PT rerolls should kill a Rhino on average. The same is true for Dark Lance Scourges but they also have to be stationary.

Okay.

What about all the DE units that can't take Haywire and are now stuck with piss-poor Blasters (or, God help us, Blast Pistols) as their only anti-tank?

Also, I love how the "amazing" Pain Token army rule is already proving to be a massive a crutch that is apparently needed for every single DE weapon to be functional. Good job we have an unlimited quantity of them or I might start feeling concerned.

 vict0988 wrote:
Increasing Toughness was a mistake, it was Sv that should have been improved. Multi-meltas and D6+2 Damage weapons were too lethal, but instead of fixing the few problematic weapons, they're ruining tonnes of fair weapons. Reduce plasma to S7 and then melta gets a little better vs T7 and a lot better vs T8 relative to plasma. Auto cannons haven't been a problem for the entirety of 9th, why are vehicles being made less susceptible to them again?

Completely agree.

Hey don't worry about Dark Elder we are soon going to see how many important key words are lavished on the flandersised Marine Chapters...after all they need to Marines +1

Wow, most HH stuff will not be allowed in GW Tourneys now.

 Lord Clinto wrote:
Wow, most HH stuff will not be allowed in GW Tourneys now.

NVM all the daemonengines that look good compared to the dinobots.

 Tyran wrote:
IMHO Melta should have been (significant) additional Strength in half range rather than additional damage.

That way it could have been a proper AT but only when at half range.

Honestly, if the X in Melta simply added to both Strength and Damage the Melta would be looking more like the weapon it used to be, but as is Meltas have unfortunately become rather underwhelming in 10th compared to all other previous editions.

It isn't underwhelming. You guys should really try to get over this mental barrier.

To a Rhino...

...a Blaster does ( 3+ to hit ) - 1
...Haywire Blaster does ( 4+ ) - 1.5 ( 2.25 for the twin )
...MM does ( 4+ ) - 1.75 ( long range )

Just because the window shifted doesn't make it bad.

EightFoldPath wrote:
First the Vindicare.

Yea, he's scary, but Lone Operative isn't all that and it's likely why Aircraft can't come on turn 1. The vindicare is going to need body blockers to keep flyers getting to within 12". He's incredibly fragile otherwise.

The design of the Agents being slightly strong evens off the fact that they'll get no OoM or any other army ability for the trouble of showing up. I can't say if they'll be overwhelming since we don't have points.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/06/01/warhammer-40000-faction-focus-space-marine-chapters/

Christ those Deathwatch Rules. You get three doctrines, one per turn once each, and that wargear is disgusting. They combined the: Shotgun, stalker Bolter, all 4 combi-weapons, all 4 special weapons, storm bolter, and all 5 pistols into one statline, they combined all 4 power weapons, lightning claw, chainsword, and either the regular or heavy thunder hammer into one weapon as well. No more heavy weapons besides the frag cannon and Infurnus bolter, no blackshields, and no combat shield. Christ alive.

At launch:

Loyalist marines 6 detachments to choose from.

Want to give Dark Angels a rule called Red Thirst? Easy enough to do- just field a Dark Angels Sons of Sanguinus detachments. Yes, no kidding... It's an actual thing that you can do- you might not be able to bring named characters, and perhaps a few other units may not be able to show up, but other than that, the Dark Angels are more than happy to exhibit the fighting style of their Primarch Sanguinus lol.

So yep, any Loyalist marine army can use the Gladius or any of the five previewed today for a total of 6 detachment choices. Despite this spoiling for choice at Launch, Loyalist dex comes first.

Every other faction in the game? One detachment choice. And months long, or even years long waits until alternatives arrive.

Terrible system.