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.

Ignoring the previous, as it seems to ignore a large amount of what GW have done historically, and moving on to another topic:


Now that Deathwatch are being folded into the new codex, and after today's reveal of some of the updates traits etc, it occurs to me... Unless they add in a restriction (which they may), there might be the possibility of a deathwatch successor, meaning you can pick your own two traits.

Calling it a successor would be unfluffy, but thought about a different way - you're just using different mission tactics, drawn from the wide experience your veterans have.

Not sure if any of the successor combinations are better than the default deathwatch, but might have some merits.

I think that the chapter tactic of re-roll 1's to hit vs Xenos just got a boost as it seems to ignore the 'core' role that other chapters are getting limited to. There is also the possibility of a super-doctrine to bring Deathwatch even more in line with the other chapters. Combined with the addition of the new units and the possibilities that all the new Primaris foot troopers hint at for Fortis teams and its pretty exciting!

It's very possible that SIA and Killteams are written essentially as a super doctrine now.

Niiru wrote:
Not sure if any of the successor combinations are better than the default deathwatch, but might have some merits.

Maybe the mechanic is not related to Successors, but different watch fortresses across the galaxy as they are observing different threats.

But to me this would be very surprising.

Pyrosphere wrote:

Niiru wrote:
Not sure if any of the successor combinations are better than the default deathwatch, but might have some merits.

Maybe the mechanic is not related to Successors, but different watch fortresses across the galaxy as they are observing different threats.

But to me this would be very surprising.

I'd actually be more surprised if Deathwatch -didn't- get the ability to take successors, as every other chapter in the main codex gets them so GW would have to make a special exception for Deathwatch. I wouldn't put it past them to completely forget about DW and just leave them the same as the others (at least until someone breaks it, and it gets an FAQ).

I actually think the DW trait is fairly strong when it's in use, but half of it only works against xenos which is unfortunate depending on your meta.

I do agree that SIA will end up being our Doctrine equivalent/replacement.

bmsattler wrote:
I think that the chapter tactic of re-roll 1's to hit vs Xenos just got a boost as it seems to ignore the 'core' role that other chapters are getting limited to. There is also the possibility of a super-doctrine to bring Deathwatch even more in line with the other chapters. Combined with the addition of the new units and the possibilities that all the new Primaris foot troopers hint at for Fortis teams and its pretty exciting!

Reroll 1s to hit against non-Imperium, non-Chaos is melee only. It's a nice little bonus, but in reality its doing bupkis.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:
It's very possible that SIA and Killteams are written essentially as a super doctrine now.

Kill Teams are units. Its going to be very hard to make that into a superdoctrine ability. Suddenly they disappear if you're not a pure DW army? I dont think so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pyrosphere wrote:

Maybe the mechanic is not related to Successors, but different watch fortresses across the galaxy as they are observing different threats.

But to me this would be very surprising.

This is precisely the fluff rationalization for the concept.

So, a potential imminent time to shine for the corvus blackstar? Upcoming changes that are pretty much confirmed now:
1. marine vehicles in general are probably not <CORE>
2. DW chapter tactics will be to the SM codex standard of affecting all units (no longer infantry/bikes/etc)

Assuming current prices are relatively unchanged, for 15 points more than a las pred the corvus can:
1. reroll 1's to hit against non-FLY (auspex array)
2. reroll 1's to wound against FOC of choice (less restricted than before with lieutenants available for <CORE> auras duty)
3. +3 wounds/-1 to hit/reservable/manoeuvrable for better durability compared to the pred
4. comparable raw firepower to the pred with las/stormstrikes
5. is a tougher stormtalon for the same price with assault cannon/stormstrikes

I had missed that the DW re-roll 1's to hit was only in Melee. That is considerably less good, I agree.

SIA seems to be exactly the kind of thing that they would restrict to core units.

I'd really like to be able to use a Corvus. It's an awesome model!

SIA being restricted to CORE units is a tricky one... cos at the moment the DW HQ choices are already pretty slim pickings, and the Guardian Spear is (currently) picked out as being a specific weapon that gets special ammo.

I mean... it kinda makes sense that a captains "Aura of command" works to give his troops better aiming, and that it wouldn't work on himself (cos he's already a veteran marksman etc, and why would his battle orders work on himself), but having it so that your troops get special ammunition but your leaders are stuck with cheapo bargain basement shells is ... weird.

Well, it could be a simple fix of giving Deathwatch characters the Core designation. It's design space that could allow different armies to do different things. Or I could just be completely wrong.

I notice that Corvus Blackstar models are currently sold out on GW's site in the U.S.

That usually suggests that a lot of players think the model is going to be good in a new release.

 Flavius Infernus wrote:
I notice that Corvus Blackstar models are currently sold out on GW's site in the U.S.

That usually suggests that a lot of players think the model is going to be good in a new release.

Its far more likely to be the re-boxing for 9th. Everything in the marine catalog has gone through that status during the transition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

bmsattler wrote:

SIA seems to be exactly the kind of thing that they would restrict to core units.

SIA doesnt need to be core. It's a datasheet ability already. If they dont want a unit to get it, dont give it to them.

Sterling191 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

bmsattler wrote:

SIA seems to be exactly the kind of thing that they would restrict to core units.

SIA doesnt need to be core. It's a datasheet ability already. If they dont want a unit to get it, dont give it to them.

I can't imagine they'll keep SIA a datasheet ability. They'd get stuck duplicating a ton of datasheets for all the stuff that has Bolt Pistols. Seems far more likely we'll get a list of which weapons can fire SIA.

 LunarSol wrote:

I can't imagine they'll keep SIA a datasheet ability. They'd get stuck duplicating a ton of datasheets for all the stuff that has Bolt Pistols. Seems far more likely we'll get a list of which weapons can fire SIA.

We already have that. Its the second half of the SIA equation. Its why things like Aggressors or Rhinos cant use SIA.

Again, if GW doesnt want non "proper Deathwatch" units to not get SIA, they simply...dont update their datasheet to have the SIA ability. There are relatively few actual datasheets for the army. Our largest source of units at present is actually Forge World. We've already seen supplements / PAs that tack on or alter datasheet function. All they need is a half page insert with the individual units from the prime marine codex that gain SIA, alongside the weapon list of which weapons can utilize SIA. Easy peasy.

Sterling191 wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

I can't imagine they'll keep SIA a datasheet ability. They'd get stuck duplicating a ton of datasheets for all the stuff that has Bolt Pistols. Seems far more likely we'll get a list of which weapons can fire SIA.

We already have that. Its the second half of the SIA equation. Its why things like Aggressors or Rhinos cant use SIA.

Again, if GW doesnt want non "proper Deathwatch" units to not get SIA, they simple...dont update their datasheet to have the SIA ability. There are relatively few actual datasheets for the army. Our largest source of units at present is actually Forge World.

There's tons of things in the current codex that have SIA for really dumb reasons. Hellblasters being the standout, but all of the HQ variations, Captains, Librarians, Chaplains, etc. Reprinting all those datasheets for the supplement seems to defeat the purpose of making it part of the codex in the first place.

 LunarSol wrote:

There's tons of things in the current codex that have SIA for really dumb reasons. Hellblasters being the standout, but all of the HQ variations, Captains, Librarians, Chaplains, etc. Reprinting all those datasheets for the supplement seems to defeat the purpose of making it part of the codex in the first place.

Characters with SIA are dumb? That's a new one. For most marine armies character shooting is largely a formality. For Deathwatch it's significantly dangerous. And thats before you factor in possible access to prime Codex Relics and/or Special Issue Wargear.

Sterling191 wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

There's tons of things in the current codex that have SIA for really dumb reasons. Hellblasters being the standout, but all of the HQ variations, Captains, Librarians, Chaplains, etc. Reprinting all those datasheets for the supplement seems to defeat the purpose of making it part of the codex in the first place.

Characters with SIA are dumb? That's a new one. For most marine armies character shooting is largely a formality. For Deathwatch it's significantly dangerous. And thats before you factor in possible access to prime Codex Relics and/or Special Issue Wargear.

I mean there's a bunch of stuff that technically has SIA you wouldn't think of immediately that would need to be reprinted for no reason other than to add SIA on it. It caught me all the time when they charged for it. There's no reason to make DW part of the main codex and then reprint every datasheet than can take a Bolt Pistol. SIA would work much better as an army wide special rule that effects a list of weapons. That would also future proof it for whatever new Primaris kits they release in the future.

I don't get why you want to reprint SIA on every Datasheet. Right now this is a List of Weapons that can use them and for a generic Marine codex you can just slap a list of units that have them right on the next page.
There are several examples where this solution is already used by GW for other exceptions.

 LunarSol wrote:

I mean there's a bunch of stuff that technically has SIA you wouldn't think of immediately that would need to be reprinted for no reason other than to add SIA on it. It caught me all the time when they charged for it. There's no reason to make DW part of the main codex and then reprint every datasheet than can take a Bolt Pistol. SIA would work much better as an army wide special rule that effects a list of weapons. That would also future proof it for whatever new Primaris kits they release in the future.

This isnt just about pistols and you know it. Furthermore, i've already provided a workaround, and one that GW have already demonstrated a willingness to utilize.

Pyrosphere wrote:
I don't get why you want to reprint SIA on every Datasheet.

Because it gives substantially more flexibility in titrating the power of the ability. If all you have is a list of weapons, then every weapon gets the ability. If all you have is the ability itself, then everything with the ability gets the bonus. With the two working in tandem you can be selective. And selectivity means a significantly lower risk of blanket nerfs that feth over an entire army.

Pyrosphere wrote:
Right now this is a List of Weapons that can use them and for a generic Marine codex you can just slap a list of units that have them right on the next page.

I fully expect to see something like this as part of the Day 1 bridging FAQ for Deathwatch, and a physical page in the supplement.

What models with a SIA capable weapon shouldn't be affected? If its just vehicles that's something that's trivial to filter out with the rule itself (though even that I find kind of suspect).

Pistols matter, simply because there's a bunch of models in our codex that only had SIA for their pistols. A lot of similar models that aren't in our codex are in the same boat. It's really clunky right now where we have units with the same weapons but only certain ones have SIA because SIA isn't future proofed in its current form.

 LunarSol wrote:
What models with a SIA capable weapon shouldn't be affected?

That should be determined on a case by case basis, and not something as inane as "welp, you technically have the Vehicle keyword, therefore you cant use it" without an evaluation of the unit as a whole. Interlocking systems are complex. I get it. But nuance in rules manipulation is critical to find the middle ground between broken (overpowered) and broken (not worth playing).

 LunarSol wrote:

Pistols matter, simply because there's a bunch of models in our codex that only had SIA for their pistols.

Nowhere did I say pistols dont matter. What I said was that reducing the argument down to "a whole bunch of units have pistols, therefore it's too resource intensive to keep SIA as an ability" was shortsighted, and a recipe for the kinds of blanket nerfs that break armies.

 LunarSol wrote:

A lot of similar models that aren't in our codex are in the same boat. It's really clunky right now where we have units with the same weapons but only certain ones have SIA because SIA isn't future proofed in its current form.

We're in a brand new edition. Which makes this the perfect time to fix SIA by doing something as wildly creative as...defining a way beyond reprinting datasheets that a particular definition can be codified in rules and modularized. Like, for instance, the way that the bulk of the codices, supplements and rules updates post 8th's 2.0 Marine function.

Perhaps something as crazy as say, a list of units printed in a supplement (and expanded or edited in a digital FAQ as needed) that lists all units that gain the SIA ability if they did not otherwise have it.

Sterling191 wrote:

We're in a brand new edition. Which makes this the perfect time to fix SIA by doing something as wildly creative as...defining a way beyond reprinting datasheets that a particular definition can be codified in rules and modularized. Like, for instance, the way that the bulk of the codices, supplements and rules updates post 8th's 2.0 Marine function.

Perhaps something as crazy as say, a list of units printed in a supplement (and expanded or edited in a digital FAQ as needed) that lists all units that gain the SIA ability if they did not otherwise have it.

If the most recent rumours are to be believed (and a lot of them are pretty believable) the creative solution GW have for SIA in the new codex is... to just remove it entirely. Also no bike squads.

Niiru wrote:

If the most recent rumours are to be believed (and a lot of them are pretty believable) the creative solution GW have for SIA in the new codex is... to just remove it entirely. Also no bike squads.

Putting aside the fact that recent "rumors" are sourceable to quite literally a poster on Dakka with zero attribution or corroboration, why do you expect SIA to be in the prime Marine Codex? Marine units have never had SIA. Deathwatch units do.

SIA is in the Supplement, just like it was in the Deathwatch Codex in 8th. It'll be dealt with where the rules for this specific faction are delineated.

Sterling191 wrote:

Niiru wrote:

If the most recent rumours are to be believed (and a lot of them are pretty believable) the creative solution GW have for SIA in the new codex is... to just remove it entirely. Also no bike squads.

Putting aside the fact that recent "rumors" are sourceable to quite literally a poster on Dakka with zero attribution or corroboration, why do you expect SIA to be in the prime Marine Codex? Marine units have never had SIA. Deathwatch units do.

SIA is in the Supplement, just like it was in the Deathwatch Codex in 8th. It'll be dealt with there.

This is definitely the case - the same "source" has a BA WL trait listed as a singular option, which is exactly the same standard as the last codex - chapter tactics and a single trait in the codex, all other unique sub faction content is in the supplement. Expect the promised day 1 FAQ to cover over a few gaps.

Also maybe they will tie it directly to “X” infantry weapons rather than being a unit datasheet.

I just hope it’s realty soon so we are not in a vacuum.

SIA not being listed wasn't really a serious comment (the odds of losing SIA is pretty slim, as it would effectively legend Deathwatch as a faction, and GW won't be likely to do that AND bother releasing a supplement. Unless it turns out to be another white dwarf 'supplement' like last time).

However the loss of bike squads for deathwatch seemed... weird.

And yeh, sure, "unconfirmed rumours etc etc" blah blah, but a lot of them are very feasible, and this just seems like... why make up a detail like that? I mean why troll deathwatch players? There's dozens of us!

Sterling191 wrote:
Putting aside the fact that recent "rumors" are sourceable to quite literally a poster on Dakka with zero attribution or corroboration, why do you expect SIA to be in the prime Marine Codex? Marine units have never had SIA. Deathwatch units do.

SIA is in the Supplement, just like it was in the Deathwatch Codex in 8th. It'll be dealt with where the rules for this specific faction are delineated.

As I already mentioned in that specific thread: Sternguard always had SIA

And yes, Sterling is right. SIA ist still there. If it is not in the Codex it's in the Supplement, because GW already has confirmed it's existence in the codex show on Twitch. But I am repeating myself here.

It will be interesting to see what they give us to balance out that half of our chapter tactics are worthless most of the time.

also be interesting to see what options we have to change targets of re-roll wounds.

It will be interesting to see what they give us to balance out that half of our chapter tactics are worthless most of the time.

also be interesting to see what options we have to change targets of re-roll wounds.

It will be interesting to see what they give us to balance out that half of our chapter tactics are worthless most of the time.

also be interesting to see what options we have to change targets of re-roll wounds.