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.

lonewolf81 wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 Thairne wrote:

lonewolf81 wrote:
Flyers must always start in reserve and the rulebook states "Flyers must begin the game as Reserves. Special rules that allow an owning player to
move one or more of their units out of Reserves after deployment but before the game
begins (for example the C’tan Shard power ‘Grand Illusion’) cannot be used to move a
Flyer out of Reserves unless they specifically state that Flyers can start the game deployed
on the table (such as a Skyshield Landing Pad’s ‘Ready for Takeoff’ rule)" So if you take the ravenwing formation you ll have to put all your units in reserves
cause flyers cant move out of reserves and with "strike as one" all the formation units must be deployed together. So if you take only the ravenwing formation and flyers
in it, you auto loose cause of no units on the table turn one.

This is getting ridiculous.
No flyers because that is an autoloss?
That means you cannot pair DW with Flyers outside a CAD and the Lion's Blade.

Let me get this straight.
If you run RWSF with a flyer, you loose.
If you run a DWSF, you loose.
If you run a DWSF with a RWSF and a flyer, you loose.

Seriously?

The only possible loophole for the RW Strike Force I can see is that the rule reads "either put everything in reserves and arrive at start of turn 2 OR deploy as usual". That'd mean that you can deploy your regular forces in turn 1 and your flyers go to reserves "as usual". But let's wait for the English wording before we loose our gak over this.

Maybe you are not supposed to use fliers and only this formation. And if you wanna do it you should also take a support squadron to be deployed in the table turn one. Also having fliers auto arrive turn 2 is huge.

The way is worded i take it "reserves or not reserves (deploy normaly)" Definetely needs an FAQ

No it isn't. It literally says "The units of this detachment must all go to reserves or deploy all of them as normal". The question is whether or not "deploying as normal" includes placing units in reserves as per normal rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 raiden wrote:

nekooni wrote:

CrashGordon94 wrote:
Yes, some people like these Formations, great. They should have the option, and maybe I could work with it.
But WHY can't the old FOC moving still be an option? For those who prefer to work that way and DON'T like these Formations and for those who would be willing to give up those bonuses to make their force the way they want in a simpler and easier way.
Never got an answer to this, and got accused of just wanting to complain (for not answering a question that was never asked, no less...), so it's time to answer it!

Can't you just use a CAD or even go full-on unbound? There's no rule that prevents you from doing that. Yes, you loose those bonuses, but you just said you would be willing to give those up, right?

Apparently, you keep the rerollable jink.

That's a special rule tied to the unit and NOT to the formation or detachment - so yes, you keep it. Just like any other unit specific rules.

Kanluwen wrote:]
You've seen the Deathwing and Ravenwing Detachments, right?

"FOC swaps" were cool and all, but they also were tied to specific characters. That's not the case anymore. I'm much happier with unique Detachments instead of FOC swaps.

Yes, and I'm trying to adapt to them but I'm screwed over because I'll have to either completely abandon several units (a Vindicator, a Bikeless Power Armor Librarian, a Tactical Squad, an Assault Squad and a Company Master/to-be-converted Azrael proxy) or buy some new stuff I don't really want in order to field no less than THREE BLOODY DETACHMENTS in order to fit everything I want.

That's the thing, "instead of". Why not both? Why not keep FOC swapping for those who like it the old way AND add new Formations for people willing to work with that? Best of both worlds and everyone (probably) happy!

nekooni wrote:Can't you just use a CAD or even go full-on unbound? There's no rule that prevents you from doing that. Yes, you loose those bonuses, but you just said you would be willing to give those up, right?

CAD: Not anymore. My original plan (As seen in progress here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/652582.page) was an Azrael-lead CAD but that's not an option anymore because it doesn't work without him turning Ravewing and Deathwing into Troops. If they kept that I would've happily kept going down that line, but I don't even get the CHOICE to do so!
Unbound: Absolutely not an option in the slightest.

People are getting antsy, but it clearly states "deploy as normal" nothing says everything has to start on the table. You deploy AS YOU NORMALLY WOULD "

You have more freedom now. You could even ignore the character and any sort of force org chart and just run an army of nothing but bikes. They gave you more options, as well as more fluffy bonuses for running them. The ONLY thing they lost was objective secured, so there iis your answer. They didn't remove an option, they swapped a special rule. That is well within their purview.

 Brillow80 wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
so based on what we've seen so far where do people feel the new codex sits?
On a scale of 1 - 10, where are the new DA, 6e DA and the new SM.

Where Eldar is an 11 and Necrons are 10.5 I'd say

6e DA: 6
7e DA: 8
SM: 8.5-9 (Cents, better veterans, Stormraven/Stormtalon, relics, TFC, more offensive-based CT)

I reserve the right to adjust after playing a few games with the new book but it does seem like it's very internally balanced, just like BA and SW before it.

Oh, one thing I hear people ask is "What is codex xyz's answer to Imperial Knights"
So, um, what is DA's (besides an IK)?

Err... What?

C:Craftwords are a 10 (I can admit it - I play them and I love it)
Cark Eldar are easily an 9 (maybe 9.5 if you care to get that specific)
C:SM is probably an 8. It's a solid dex that has a lot of flexibility and unless you suck at playing or are facing one of the two books above it - you have a good chance of winning.
C:SW is probably next at a 7.5. Arguably also an 8
C:BA is maybe a 6.5 or a 7. They are tough to play due to poor point balancing
C:CSM are doing pretty badly. I'd feel dishonest if I gave them anything higher than a 5. Unless you are just a phenomenal player AND you frequently play unskilled opponents you will not win many games. Your point costs are so high that you'll typically bring 25% the total number of models you enemy does (unles you are using cultists, but then you're just wasting time).
C:Orks ... not sure they even fit on the scale. I mean - they aren't competitive but ... who doesn't love to hate orks? They're a hoot, even to lose with.
C:Tau and C:Necrons are probably tied at a 3.5 or a 4. They suck... period. I have never lost a game to anyone using either army. Now, I will say that my experience (anecdotal I realize) has been that most Tau/Necron players are new players or just less skilled players so that may be a factor.
And obviously at the bottom I will place the Sisters... because honestly you can't really play them atm. They suck. badly... GW needs to wake up and fix this. I've never once met a player that didn't have some interest in seeing them get a new (real) release.

So where do I put DA?

Well, the 6e DA dex was mostly garbage with some oddly good parts. DW as troops made is playable, but it was tough to put any real number of models on the table for the point costs at the time.
7e DA seems to be addressing this, but baed on the 'leaks' it seams like there are some other detractors now as well. Formations are also ging to hurt it.

One that imo fits very well.

Dark angels arent the most reliable chapter to hold onto key objectives after all...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 En Excelsis wrote:

 Brillow80 wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
so based on what we've seen so far where do people feel the new codex sits?
On a scale of 1 - 10, where are the new DA, 6e DA and the new SM.

Where Eldar is an 11 and Necrons are 10.5 I'd say

6e DA: 6
7e DA: 8
SM: 8.5-9 (Cents, better veterans, Stormraven/Stormtalon, relics, TFC, more offensive-based CT)

I reserve the right to adjust after playing a few games with the new book but it does seem like it's very internally balanced, just like BA and SW before it.

Oh, one thing I hear people ask is "What is codex xyz's answer to Imperial Knights"
So, um, what is DA's (besides an IK)?

Err... What?

C:Craftwords are a 10 (I can admit it - I play them and I love it)
Cark Eldar are easily an 9 (maybe 9.5 if you care to get that specific)
C:SM is probably an 8. It's a solid dex that has a lot of flexibility and unless you suck at playing or are facing one of the two books above it - you have a good chance of winning.
C:SW is probably next at a 7.5. Arguably also an 8
C:BA is maybe a 6.5 or a 7. They are tough to play due to poor point balancing
C:CSM are doing pretty badly. I'd feel dishonest if I gave them anything higher than a 5. Unless you are just a phenomenal player AND you frequently play unskilled opponents you will not win many games. Your point costs are so high that you'll typically bring 25% the total number of models you enemy does (unles you are using cultists, but then you're just wasting time).
C:Orks ... not sure they even fit on the scale. I mean - they aren't competitive but ... who doesn't love to hate orks? They're a hoot, even to lose with.
C:Tau and C:Necrons are probably tied at a 3.5 or a 4. They suck... period. I have never lost a game to anyone using either army. Now, I will say that my experience (anecdotal I realize) has been that most Tau/Necron players are new players or just less skilled players so that may be a factor.
And obviously at the bottom I will place the Sisters... because honestly you can't really play them atm. They suck. badly... GW needs to wake up and fix this. I've never once met a player that didn't have some interest in seeing them get a new (real) release.

So where do I put DA?

Well, the 6e DA dex was mostly garbage with some oddly good parts. DW as troops made is playable, but it was tough to put any real number of models on the table for the point costs at the time.
7e DA seems to be addressing this, but baed on the 'leaks' it seams like there are some other detractors now as well. Formations are also ging to hurt it.

The amount of wrong here is so high... I'm not sure if trolling or serious.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
You have more freedom now. You could even ignore the character and any sort of force org chart and just run an army of nothing but bikes. They gave you more options, as well as more fluffy bonuses for running them. The ONLY thing they lost was objective secured, so there iis your answer. They didn't remove an option, they swapped a special rule. That is well within their purview.

This is just a fundamental disagreement that probably is not worth exploring further. The fact remains, I am going to need to take the ravenwing detachment and an additional CAD, Detachment, formation, whatever to get access to more than just one wing of the dark angel army without going unbound (which everyone in my area bans).

So that leaves me having to pay at least another HQ and troops of some kind tax. I don't really consider that flexibility.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:You have more freedom now. You could even ignore the character and any sort of force org chart and just run an army of nothing but bikes. They gave you more options, as well as more fluffy bonuses for running them. The ONLY thing they lost was objective secured, so there iis your answer. They didn't remove an option, they swapped a special rule. That is well within their purview.

No, they took away an important option: Running a CAD with Ravenwing/Deathwing/both as Troops, and that was an option that many BUILT THEIR ARMIES AROUND and that these formations can't quite replace because you might have put stuff in that modified CAD that doesn't fit in those other detachments.
Whereas if they just kept the "X as Troops" rules instead of going out of their way to remove them and had both that AND the Formations as options, nobody would be screwed over!
And what's wrong with giving both options?

I started with the 4th edition codex. I think GW suck at writing rules, and stuffs. I am STILL massively looking forward to playing with a codex that might have more than 2-3 viable competitive builds. HUZZAH FOR GW.

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
I started with the 4th edition codex. I think GW suck at writing rules, and stuffs. I am STILL massively looking forward to playing with codex that might have more than 2-3 viable competitive builds. HUZZAH FOR GW.

Ian? Is that you? Didn't know you were a secret Dark Angel!

Am I the only one that doesn't really care about the loss of ObjSec for RW/DW? I feel the new special rules in all the formations/detatchments are a good trade off and this army now has far more flexibility than it ever had. Granted, I've never run pure DW or RW force to begin with and like their synergy together, but I still don't really think it's a big deal.

Have the rules for stasis bombs been confirmed "Stasis bomb has the same effect as before. In addition, models hit by it must pass an initiative test or be removed from play. Cost is 160."

quoted in this thread and spikey bitz.

I can't believe this is correct this would be wildly over powered. would make d weapons look like las guns

MongooseMatt wrote:
Ian? Is that you? Didn't know you were a secret Dark Angel!

Not so secret!

With the changes to war gear (grav), unit stats, ect...did it make the Advent data slate, The Unrelenting Hunt actually a good formation!?

CrashGordon94 wrote:

jakejackjake wrote:You can take whatever you want. That is totally possible.

No it's not, they took away the option he wanted to use.

All this newer talk is worrying me now, concerned I might be screwed...

They took away the option to take whatever you want that is unbound? The only downside is his terminators don't have objective secured but terminators suck anyway which means if you were playing a mostly terminator army you were losing. So you can take them and continue to lose if that's what you want.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Space Marine players when there book came out "This is basically the same as the last book" Which isn't true the new book was stronger

Dark Angels players when theres is just leaked"OMG they changed too much and even though they made us good instead of awful this makes me rage" This book is going to be very competitive

Eldar players when theirs was about to drop "how can we make it so that we aren't too strong so that people won't get upset when they play us" Both the Marines and the DA books will compete with this pretty well

This is what I heard on Dakka from these three books.

riburn3 wrote:Am I the only one that doesn't really care about the loss of ObjSec for RW/DW? I feel the new special rules in all the formations/detatchments are a good trade off and this army now has far more flexibility than it ever had. Granted, I've never run pure DW or RW force to begin with and like their synergy together, but I still don't really think it's a big deal.

It's not really an issue of Objective Secured. It's more that people built their armies around just shifting things to Troops and leaving everything else the same, and the DW/RW formations aren't the same thing.
Just for an example, you could've had Belial in charge, 4+ DW Termies as Troops, a bunch of Company Veteran Squads as Elites, Assault Marines as Fast Attack and Predators or something in Heavy Support.
An army like that is boned, you can't just shove all that into the Deathwing Formation and you can't build it as an ordinary CAD. See the problem?

jakejackjake wrote:They took away the option to take whatever you want that is unbound? The only downside is his terminators don't have objective secured but terminators suck anyway which means if you were playing a mostly terminator army you were losing. So you can take them and continue to lose if that's what you want.

No, the seemingly universally-despised and mostly used for cheating option of Unbound remains.
They took away the option of just playing a CAD with Termies/Bikers in Troops for no reason and now people are potentially screwed out of their armies unless they buy a bunch of stuff they don't want, throw a load of things away or take a non-option that their opponent would reject and puts their formerly-legit (and no longer legit for no reason) army on the level of a list with nothing but Baneblades.
All of which could've been avoided by keeping the FOC-switch options AND the new Formations, and what would be wrong with that?

For someone smarter than myself who understands the way detachments work and all that jazz, if I wanted to roll the following army, could it be done without going unbound?

Sammy
Librarian lvl 2, bike

3 bikes, two grav guns
3 bikes, two grav guns
3 bikes, two grav guns
3 bikes, two grav guns
3 bikes, two grav guns
3 bikes, two grav guns

5 deathwing terminators, one assault cannon and one chain fist
5 deathwing terminators, one assault cannon and one chain fist

Dark Talon

land raider


Cause from my understanding, this list wouldn't be legal without going unbound, yet it would be legal in the last codex (without the grav obviously)

I don't understand how these detachments are more freedom.

Yeah I don't get all the crying. Before it was DA aren't powerful enough. Now it's they changed too much from the book I was just complaining wasn't powerful enough.

I love the changes and the synergy within the builds they create.

If the librarian has a terminatour armor then you can.

Sammy and all the bikes in a RW detachment.
Lib and 2 Termies into the DW detachment. Get a LR as dedicated transport. Done and you get a deepstriking LR.

Edit: Oh the Dark talon too goes in the RW detachment.


Anyway, not much longer until unbound is allowed into all tournaments. Formations are getting strong, so going unbound is becoming less and less broken.

But I don't want a Libby in termie armor I want him on a bike. That's my point. I don't see how anyone can say that the book allows more freedom with a straight face.

 Commissar Merces wrote:
But I don't want a Libby in termie armor I want him on a bike...

I would pay serious money for such a model just to stick on a shelf =]

There should be a special terminator bike that's all gothic and Heavy-fied!

CrashGordon94 wrote:

riburn3 wrote:Am I the only one that doesn't really care about the loss of ObjSec for RW/DW? I feel the new special rules in all the formations/detatchments are a good trade off and this army now has far more flexibility than it ever had. Granted, I've never run pure DW or RW force to begin with and like their synergy together, but I still don't really think it's a big deal.

It's not really an issue of Objective Secured. It's more that people built their armies around just shifting things to Troops and leaving everything else the same, and the DW/RW formations aren't the same thing.
Just for an example, you could've had Belial in charge, 4+ DW Termies as Troops, a bunch of Company Veteran Squads as Elites, Assault Marines as Fast Attack and Predators or something in Heavy Support.
An army like that is boned, you can't just shove all that into the Deathwing Formation and you can't build it as an ordinary CAD. See the problem?

I get it, it sucks to basically be forced to buy new models to run an army you already have. But you're not the first to go through it. Grey Knights players had to go through it, Blood Angels players had to go through it, Eldar players had to go through it. Maybe you need to pick up a couple boxes of Scouts, that's honestly not that bad, Scouts kick ass now.

jakejackjake wrote:They took away the option to take whatever you want that is unbound? The only downside is his terminators don't have objective secured but terminators suck anyway which means if you were playing a mostly terminator army you were losing. So you can take them and continue to lose if that's what you want.

No, the seemingly universally-despised and mostly used for cheating option of Unbound remains.
They took away the option of just playing a CAD with Termies/Bikers in Troops for no reason and now people are potentially screwed out of their armies unless they buy a bunch of stuff they don't want, throw a load of things away or take a non-option that their opponent would reject and puts their formerly-legit (and no longer legit for no reason) army on the level of a list with nothing but Baneblades.
All of which could've been avoided by keeping the FOC-switch options AND the new Formations, and what would be wrong with that?

Unbound isn't cheating. It's only cheating if you make a dickish list, like 8 Wraithknights and nothing else. Unbound by itself isn't a big deal, my group uses it all the time to make fluffy lists or when someone doesn't have enough Troops/HQs for what they want to bring. Anyone who says that you can't bring a perfectly fine Unbound list is just being stubborn.

It's not a big deal. Plenty of other players have had to adapt their armies and get new stuff or drop things that they used before. You can do it too.

riburn3 wrote:Yeah I don't get all the crying. Before it was DA aren't powerful enough. Now it's they changed too much from the book I was just complaining wasn't powerful enough.

I love the changes and the synergy within the builds they create.

It's because the change that's causing problems (Removing FOC-shifting) is unrelated to and unnecessary for all the other stuff.

then you're Unbound...deal with it. You don't seem to mind adding the grav which you couldn't before.

Codexes change, army lists change with new books. This has been the way with GW for years and years. You have to expect to make minor modifications with new books, that's just the way it is.
I bought the iyanden army box...3 guard, 2 lords, 1 knight. The new formation only has 1 wraithlord, but i didn't get all pissed off about it. If I want to run 2, I just CAD with a few rangers and add the 2nd Lord. nbd.

 Commissar Merces wrote:
But I don't want a Libby in termie armor I want him on a bike. That's my point. I don't see how anyone can say that the book allows more freedom with a straight face.

If you want more freedom then go unbound. It is really that simple. Not sure what the big deal is.

If anything the book allows more competitive variety. Now it's actually worth it to use models most DA players never touched.

riburn3 wrote:

 Commissar Merces wrote:
But I don't want a Libby in termie armor I want him on a bike. That's my point. I don't see how anyone can say that the book allows more freedom with a straight face.

If you want more freedom then go unbound. It is really that simple. Not sure what the big deal is.

If anything the book allows more competitive variety. Now it's actually worth it to use models most DA players never touched.

There is a huge stigma against unbound armies, even when they're not cheese lists, and many players and groups will simply not play with unbound lists. Period.

Maybe that will change, but it's an extremely common sentiment.

Requizen wrote:
I get it, it sucks to basically be forced to buy new models to run an army you already have. But you're not the first to go through it. Grey Knights players had to go through it, Blood Angels players had to go through it, Eldar players had to go through it. Maybe you need to pick up a couple boxes of Scouts, that's honestly not that bad, Scouts kick ass now.

Requizen wrote:
It's not a big deal. Plenty of other players have had to adapt their armies and get new stuff or drop things that they used before. You can do it too.

But we shouldn't HAVE to, and neither should those other people either!
Just because it happened before doesn't make it right and there's absolutely no reason that it had to happen! (Anyone hearing me when I say that they could've kept both the FOC-shifting AND Formations?)

Requizen wrote:
Unbound isn't cheating. It's only cheating if you make a dickish list, like 8 Wraithknights and nothing else. Unbound by itself isn't a big deal, my group uses it all the time to make fluffy lists or when someone doesn't have enough Troops/HQs for what they want to bring. Anyone who says that you can't bring a perfectly fine Unbound list is just being stubborn.

Some people might not make the distinction at all, and it's still losing stuff that would've made THE EXACT SAME LIST a real valid army with the benefits of that.
It shouldn't HAVE to be Unbound or lose the benefits of not being Unbound.

 bullyboy wrote:
then you're Unbound...deal with it. You don't seem to mind adding the grav which you couldn't before.

Codexes change, army lists change with new books. This has been the way with GW for years and years. You have to expect to make minor modifications with new books, that's just the way it is.
I bought the iyanden army box...3 guard, 2 lords, 1 knight. The new formation only has 1 wraithlord, but i didn't get all pissed off about it. If I want to run 2, I just CAD with a few rangers and add the 2nd Lord. nbd.

People aren't complaining about unrelated things (but for the record I don't care about Grav and probably won't use it) because they're unrelated. Someone doesn't HAVE to object to Grav weapons to object to losing FOC-shifting.

Yes, things change, but that doesn't make pointless changes for the worse perfectly fine.

Locrian wrote:

riburn3 wrote:

 Commissar Merces wrote:
But I don't want a Libby in termie armor I want him on a bike. That's my point. I don't see how anyone can say that the book allows more freedom with a straight face.

If you want more freedom then go unbound. It is really that simple. Not sure what the big deal is.

If anything the book allows more competitive variety. Now it's actually worth it to use models most DA players never touched.

There is a huge stigma against unbound armies, even when they're not cheese lists, and many players and groups will simply not play with unbound lists. Period.

Maybe that will change, but it's an extremely common sentiment.

People said the same thing about Superheavies/Gargantuans, the same thing about Formations, the same thing about Multiple Formation Detachments like the Decurion. Just bring a sane Unbound list and explain the setup. No pain.

^There's plenty of pain if they don't listen...

 Commissar Merces wrote:
But I don't want a Libby in termie armor I want him on a bike. That's my point. I don't see how anyone can say that the book allows more freedom with a straight face.

Did you seriously believe that you wouldn't have to change a single model with an edition shift?
Actually you are one of the lucky ones, since you only have to change an option on a single model!