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.

CrashGordon94 wrote:

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.

Commissar Merces wrote:

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.

CrashGordon94 wrote:

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?

This confuses me greatly.

Can anyone be more specific about the army they had previously that they are now "unable" to field? What adaptations and concessions need to be made precisely?

What units are you being restricted from taking in 7th edition compared to the previous codex?

Why is taking multiple detachments and formations an issue? If you want to run both wings in a single army, literally nothing has changed except the loss of objective secured. The ravenwing and deathwing detachments only require 1 HQ a piece - take librarians or captains, and it's actually CHEAPER than running Azrael as a solo HQ in a CAD with Troop DW/RW squads. The ravenwing detachment even includes heavy support slots and an elite slot to fill out the army with extra vehicles like Vindicators and such. And let's not forget the Lion's Blade.

Is the grievance really just about losing Objective Secured? If it's that big of a loss, you could probably find lots of people that would be happy to play against the old DA codex...

 Jambles wrote:

CrashGordon94 wrote:

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.

Commissar Merces wrote:

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.

CrashGordon94 wrote:

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?

This confuses me greatly.

Can anyone be more specific about the army they had previously that they are now "unable" to field? What adaptations and concessions need to be made precisely?

What units are you being restricted from taking in 7th edition compared to the previous codex?

Why is taking multiple detachments and formations an issue? If you want to run both wings in a single army, literally nothing has changed except the loss of objective secured. The ravenwing and deathwing detachments only require 1 HQ a piece - take librarians or captains, and it's actually CHEAPER than running Azrael as a solo HQ in a CAD with Troop DW/RW squads. The ravenwing detachment even includes heavy support slots and an elite slot to fill out the army with extra vehicles like Vindicators and such. And let's not forget the Lion's Blade.

Is the grievance really just about losing Objective Secured? If it's that big of a loss, you could probably find lots of people that would be happy to play against the old DA codex...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Commissar Merces wrote:
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.

Yes.

Two Ravenwing Detachments does this just fine.

Sammy is the only HQ allowed to be taken in the Ravenwing list, as the rules are currently presented.

CrashGordon94 wrote:

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.

It's not for the worse... it's just different. FOC changes didn't make DA strong. They sucked. The new codex looks to be quite good. You're just complaining about basically nothing. If the only reason you played DA was to play pure Termies and didn't care about winning or losing, well that sucks. But it was never good, so good riddance imo.

CrashGordon94 wrote:^There's plenty of pain if they don't listen...

Then don't play with them.

 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.

Well, in all truth, it likely allows more freedom in some areas, and less in others. But everyone wants to either whine about what they lost without seeing what has freed up, or cheer about what they gained without looking at what the other guy used to legally field that he now can't, and neither wants to see that it's a bit of both.

For real, this codex looks to be much, MUCH better than the last one. The new formations have some good bonuses, the fact that they included a ravenwing and deathwing detachment is perfect for the army I want to field, and the cost of some things I used to shelf went down enough that they'll probably see some use. I don't see any copious cheese, but it looks like a much more balanced and versatile army to field. If this is the kind of update GW is planning for the factions coming after this, call me pleased.

From the leaks we didn't get to see one important element that may clear up some doubts.

Command squads are still HQ? And if that, are they still unlocked by other HQs?

If not then the RW detachment has just found it's HQ choice outside Sammy.

 Jambles wrote:

CrashGordon94 wrote:

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.

Commissar Merces wrote:

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.

CrashGordon94 wrote:

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?

This confuses me greatly.

Can anyone be more specific about the army they had previously that they are now "unable" to field? What adaptations and concessions need to be made precisely?

What units are you being restricted from taking in 7th edition compared to the previous codex?

Why is taking multiple detachments and formations an issue? If you want to run both wings in a single army, literally nothing has changed except the loss of objective secured. The ravenwing and deathwing detachments only require 1 HQ a piece - take librarians or captains, and it's actually CHEAPER than running Azrael as a solo HQ in a CAD with Troop DW/RW squads. The ravenwing detachment even includes heavy support slots and an elite slot to fill out the army with extra vehicles like Vindicators and such. And let's not forget the Lion's Blade.

Is the grievance really just about losing Objective Secured? If it's that big of a loss, you could probably find lots of people that would be happy to play against the old DA codex...

You can't run vindis in the raven wing strike force because they do not have the ravenwing special rule...

@ Requizen: Its understood you're a play where the GW ball lays kind of person.

That doesn't have any bearing on another person's legitimate complaint to that philosophy.

OT:
Do we know yet what the base cost of a RW and RWBK squads are. I understand they are 25pts a piece for additional. I was just wondering if like the previous book the Sgt is 1 less point then the additional guys. Never could figure out why the first 3 RW bikers were 80pts but the last 3 bikers were 81pts lol.

Right now I think the squads I was running are a total of 10pts cheaper, minus the landspeeders 75pts (I guess they don't exist in the squad now?). I am not convinced that the point reduction will amount to anything useful.

Cynicism is slowly taking hold lol.

10 less point on the lvl 2 librarians too. 2 less point for each black knight.

They add up in the end.

Don't forget the 4pts per terminator. That's almost a free CML per squad. Also, 1 point per scout if not using sniper rifles.
We don't know yet how cheap DWK got.

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

You guys need to relax! I am sure there will be a 400$ one click web bundle available for two hours that will allow you to field dual wing with objective secured.

Spoletta wrote:
From the leaks we didn't get to see one important element that may clear up some doubts.

Command squads are still HQ? And if that, are they still unlocked by other HQs?

If not then the RW detachment has just found it's HQ choice outside Sammy.

That's really not what anyone is hoping for. If you can't take Libs/Chaps/etc on a bike with the RW detachment, they really screwed the pooch.

I'm 95%+ sure that you will be able either to take ICs on bikes with the RW detachment on release, or shortly after release when they FAQ it, because even GW is not quite daft enough to mess that up (though they're quite daft enough to phrase the rules badly so that it seems messed up).

From my rudimentary german, I guess that terminator armour grants twin-linked to the model's ranged weapons the turn it deep strikes (almost the same wording as the 6th edition apart from not explicitly disallowing twin-linked psychic powers). Could this mean that it is now possible to twin-link witchfires?

Spoletta wrote:
10 less point on the lvl 2 librarians too. 2 less point for each black knight.

They add up in the end.

Well seeing as I ran RWCS instead of RWBKs there is no net gain. RWCS were already 40pts. Though I guess I did gain 10pts from the libby and 65pts because the SoD is gone lol.

So far with point reductions, a horribly over pointed army is now...30pts*° cheaper...wooooooo lol. After I switch melta to grav that will be a gain of 10pts lol.

*I don't count the SoD as its a net loss in firepower right now.
° With not requiring Sammael right now, I am unsure what the gain in points from featuring 2 libbys will be. Also if libbys can even be taken in a RW force lol.

 Commissar Merces wrote:
You can't run vindis in the raven wing strike force because they do not have the ravenwing special rule...

Why would you? At least based on the new fluff for the DA chapter organisation, the Ravenwing is the biker/landspeeder/aerofighter part of the Dark Angels Chapter.
That means that there are no "Ravenwing Vindicators". That's why Vindicators do not have the Ravenwing special rule and why you can't bring them as part of a Ravenwing-exclusive formation or detachment.
I think there're enough English words there to make this chart usable for everyone:


This means the following:

1) If you want to bring parts of the entire Dark Angels chapter, bring either the default CAD or the Lion's Blade Strike Force which is meant to show a 'true' DA strike force. Yes, you have to take a Land Speeder for each Bike Squad you want to add, deal with it. It's called a tax, everyone gets that.

2) If you want to go apegak on Bikes, bring the Ravenwing Strike Force. But you can't bring non-Ravenwing units in that detachment, you have to bring them in their own detachment.

3) If you want to go apegak on Bikes but the Ravenwing SF is too strict for what you want to do - go unbound. Bring whatever "Ravenwing Siege Tank" you like, that's up to you.

Yes, you can't do whatever you want without going unbound - guess what? Noone can. That's the point.

@Jambles: My original army was planned out as follows:
HQ: Azrael, Librarian (Power Armored with no bike)
Troops: Tactical Squad, DW Terminators, DW Terminators, RW Bikers
Elites: DW Knights, Venerable Dreadnought, Venerable Dreadnought.
Fast Attack: Assault Squad
Heavy Support: Vindicator
Plans were to get ore Termies/Knights (to fill up all those squads) and loads more Bikes (to fill the rest of the Troops slots with full squads of RW Bikers and the rest of the Fast Attack slots with full squads of Black Knights).
But as it stands I'm screwed, I need a squad of either Tactical Marines or Scouts AND two more HQs (one of which apparently has to be Sammy meaning I need to buy an over-complicated, over-priced and probably fragile failcast model or go nuts with kitbashing) in order to make it happen at all.
Whereas if they kept FOC-switching I could've kept on my merry way...

Requizen wrote:

It's not for the worse... it's just different. FOC changes didn't make DA strong. They sucked. The new codex looks to be quite good. You're just complaining about basically nothing. If the only reason you played DA was to play pure Termies and didn't care about winning or losing, well that sucks. But it was never good, so good riddance imo.

Really, because I found the FOC changes to be so awesome that I built my army around them.
Care to explain why they made things worse and removing them was good in the absence of all other factors? (Because in case you haven't gotten the point yet, FOC switching is not mutually exclusive with all this other stuff, including the bloody Formations!)
And since nobody answered the point at all, WHAT'S WRONG WITH HAVING BOTH THE FOC SWITCHING AND FORMATIONS?!

Requizen wrote:
Then don't play with them.

And yet that wouldn't be an issue if they kept the FOC changes...

nekooni wrote:

 Commissar Merces wrote:
You can't run vindis in the raven wing strike force because they do not have the ravenwing special rule...

Why would you? At least based on the new fluff for the DA chapter organisation, the Ravenwing is the biker/landspeeder/aerofighter part of the Dark Angels Chapter.
That means that there are no "Ravenwing Vindicators". That's why Vindicators do not have the Ravenwing special rule and why you can't bring them as part of a Ravenwing-exclusive formation or detachment.
I think there're enough English words there to make this chart usable for everyone:

Spoiler:

This means the following:

1) If you want to bring parts of the entire Dark Angels chapter, bring either the default CAD or the Lion's Blade Strike Force which is meant to show a 'true' DA strike force. Yes, you have to take a Land Speeder for each Bike Squad you want to add, deal with it. It's called a tax, everyone gets that.

2) If you want to go apegak on Bikes, bring the Ravenwing Strike Force. But you can't bring non-Ravenwing units in that detachment, you have to bring them in their own detachment.

3) If you want to go apegak on Bikes but the Ravenwing SF is too strict for what you want to do - go unbound. Bring whatever "Ravenwing Siege Tank" you like, that's up to you.

Yes, you can't do whatever you want without going unbound - guess what? Noone can. That's the point.

That's not the Ravenwing Strike Force Detachment. This is:

CrashGordon94 wrote:
@Jambles: My original army was planned out as follows:
HQ: Azrael, Librarian (Power Armored with no bike)
Troops: Tactical Squad, DW Terminators, DW Terminators, RW Bikers
Elites: DW Knights, Venerable Dreadnought, Venerable Dreadnought.
Fast Attack: Assault Squad
Heavy Support: Vindicator
Plans were to get ore Termies/Knights (to fill up all those squads) and loads more Bikes (to fill the rest of the Troops slots with full squads of RW Bikers and the rest of the Fast Attack slots with full squads of Black Knights).
But as it stands I'm screwed, I need a squad of either Tactical Marines or Scouts AND two more HQs (one of which apparently has to be Sammy meaning I need to buy an over-complicated, over-priced and probably fragile failcast model or go nuts with kitbashing) in order to make it happen at all.
Whereas if they kept FOC-switching I could've kept on my merry way...

Requizen wrote:

It's not for the worse... it's just different. FOC changes didn't make DA strong. They sucked. The new codex looks to be quite good. You're just complaining about basically nothing. If the only reason you played DA was to play pure Termies and didn't care about winning or losing, well that sucks. But it was never good, so good riddance imo.

Really, because I found the FOC changes to be so awesome that I built my army around them.
Care to explain why they made things worse and removing them was good in the absence of all other factors? (Because in case you haven't gotten the point yet, FOC switching is not mutually exclusive with all this other stuff, including the bloody Formations!)
And since nobody answered the point at all, WHAT'S WRONG WITH HAVING BOTH THE FOC SWITCHING AND FORMATIONS?!

Requizen wrote:
Then don't play with them.

And yet that wouldn't be an issue if they kept the FOC changes...

I think what he meant was that FOC swapping didn't boost DA to a point where they suddenly became a strong 'dex - they still sucked. Just rephrasing Requizen to help you two communicate, not a statement of my own


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 Commissar Merces wrote:
You can't run vindis in the raven wing strike force because they do not have the ravenwing special rule...

Why would you? At least based on the new fluff for the DA chapter organisation, the Ravenwing is the biker/landspeeder/aerofighter part of the Dark Angels Chapter.
That means that there are no "Ravenwing Vindicators". That's why Vindicators do not have the Ravenwing special rule and why you can't bring them as part of a Ravenwing-exclusive formation or detachment.
I think there're enough English words there to make this chart usable for everyone:

Spoiler:

This means the following:

1) If you want to bring parts of the entire Dark Angels chapter, bring either the default CAD or the Lion's Blade Strike Force which is meant to show a 'true' DA strike force. Yes, you have to take a Land Speeder for each Bike Squad you want to add, deal with it. It's called a tax, everyone gets that.

2) If you want to go apegak on Bikes, bring the Ravenwing Strike Force. But you can't bring non-Ravenwing units in that detachment, you have to bring them in their own detachment.

3) If you want to go apegak on Bikes but the Ravenwing SF is too strict for what you want to do - go unbound. Bring whatever "Ravenwing Siege Tank" you like, that's up to you.

Yes, you can't do whatever you want without going unbound - guess what? Noone can. That's the point.

That's not the Ravenwing Strike Force Detachment. This is:

I know? What I linked is the overview for the Dark Angels chapter. The Ravenwing is part of the Dark Angels chapter. The Ravenwing Strike Force detachment does not allow ANY Vindicators, since Vindicators do not have the Ravenwing special rule. And the reason for that is that the Ravenwing simply does not own any Vindicators, as can be seen by the organizational chart shown for the Lion's Blade Strike Force detachment

It's pretty obvious any HQ IC on a bike is meant to be ravenwing. Otherwise why give the detatchments 3 HQ slots? Maybe we can just take Sammy 3 times.

CrashGordon94 wrote:
@Jambles: My original army was planned out as follows:
HQ: Azrael, Librarian (Power Armored with no bike)
Troops: Tactical Squad, DW Terminators, DW Terminators, RW Bikers
Elites: DW Knights, Venerable Dreadnought, Venerable Dreadnought.
Fast Attack: Assault Squad
Heavy Support: Vindicator
Plans were to get ore Termies/Knights (to fill up all those squads) and loads more Bikes (to fill the rest of the Troops slots with full squads of RW Bikers and the rest of the Fast Attack slots with full squads of Black Knights).
But as it stands I'm screwed, I need a squad of either Tactical Marines or Scouts AND two more HQs (one of which apparently has to be Sammy meaning I need to buy an over-complicated, over-priced and probably fragile failcast model or go nuts with kitbashing) in order to make it happen at all.
Whereas if they kept FOC-switching I could've kept on my merry way...

That will still be a valid list, all you have to do is simply take a second squad of Tacticals or a unit of Scouts. I'm sure you can find the points for that.

CAD:
Librarian
Tacticals, Scouts
Ven Dread, Ven Dread
Assault Squad, RW Bikers
Vindicator

Deathwing Strike Force
Azrael
Terminators, Terminators, Knights

Voila, Battle Forged and with all the same units, give or take some upgrades to get the Troops.

Requizen wrote:

It's not for the worse... it's just different. FOC changes didn't make DA strong. They sucked. The new codex looks to be quite good. You're just complaining about basically nothing. If the only reason you played DA was to play pure Termies and didn't care about winning or losing, well that sucks. But it was never good, so good riddance imo.

Really, because I found the FOC changes to be so awesome that I built my army around them.
Care to explain why they made things worse and removing them was good in the absence of all other factors? (Because in case you haven't gotten the point yet, FOC switching is not mutually exclusive with all this other stuff, including the bloody Formations!)
And since nobody answered the point at all, WHAT'S WRONG WITH HAVING BOTH THE FOC SWITCHING AND FORMATIONS?!

Requizen wrote:
Then don't play with them.

And yet that wouldn't be an issue if they kept the FOC changes...

I get it. No one likes losing things. But honestly, are you so pissed off about losing something that is in the end pretty much completely inconsequential that you are willing to ignore the fact that this book makes DA actually strong for the first time in how many editions? If being able to tick Terminators under Troops was the only thing that made you giddy, then I don't know what to tell you. But they're now functionally more or less the same with slight differences and without ObSec. I honestly can't fathom how that minor difference makes you so blindly angry that you can't just stop complaining about it on the internet. It is, frankly, baffling.

"I'm so angry that I can't use my 5th edition style list with 6th/7th edition Objective Secured."

riburn3 wrote:
It's pretty obvious any HQ IC on a bike is meant to be ravenwing. Otherwise why give the detatchments 3 HQ slots? Maybe we can just take Sammy 3 times.

Or maybe like Zogwort in the old Orks 'dex couldn't use most of his psychic powers because GW gave him a BS0 and never bothered to FAQ it. RAW vs. RAI. If a character on a bike doesn't have the RW rule, guess what? Besides, I've already been told ITT that the ONLY captain of the 2nd Company is Sammael.

The amount of schadenfreud in this thread is approaching epic level with people telling other people to "just deal". Let people air their grievances without being so dismissive. Or worse, telling them "everything's fine" just "go unbound". No one here is complaining about wargear nerfs or special rules for a specific unit, they're complaining about fundamental shifts in army composition. That seems like a pretty reasonable criticism.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
"I'm so angry that I can't use my 5th edition style list with 6th/7th edition Objective Secured."

Edited by insaniak. Please see Dakka's Rule #1. No one is saying that. The Dark Angels book is 2 years old, So saying this is just an attempt to flamebait.

There is no fundamental shift in army composition though.

In 4th/5th we needed Deathwing/Ravenwing to be troops, because that was the only way to take more than 3 squads of either of them, and even then you had to take a couple of tac squads too.

In 7th we finally have a codex with way more flexibility (without going unbound), in an edition where the very concepts of both Troops and force orgs have undergone a massive shift, and people are complaining that SCs no longer make your deathwing troops? I do not get it. I've played DAs in tournaments and casual play for around 7 years and as far as I can see, we're now both way more powerful and have way more options than ever during that time. Including for Deathwing or Ravenwing armies.

 the_Armyman wrote:

riburn3 wrote:
It's pretty obvious any HQ IC on a bike is meant to be ravenwing. Otherwise why give the detatchments 3 HQ slots? Maybe we can just take Sammy 3 times.

Or maybe like Zogwort in the old Orks 'dex couldn't use most of his psychic powers because GW gave him a BS0 and never bothered to FAQ it. RAW vs. RAI. If a character on a bike doesn't have the RW rule, guess what? Besides, I've already been told ITT that the ONLY captain of the 2nd Company is Sammael.

The amount of schadenfreud in this thread is approaching epic level with people telling other people to "just deal". Let people air their grievances without being so dismissive. Or worse, telling them "everything's fine" just "go unbound". No one here is complaining about wargear nerfs or special rules for a specific unit, they're complaining about fundamental shifts in army composition. That seems like a pretty reasonable criticism.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
"I'm so angry that I can't use my 5th edition style list with 6th/7th edition Objective Secured."

No one is saying that. The Dark Angels book is 2 years old, So saying this is just an attempt to flamebait.

If you played in any Meta that wouldn't allow Zog a BS2 for psychic powers or wouldn't allow a DA IC on a Bike be included as ravenwing I feel sorry for you. You're treating this as way more serious business than it needs to be. Anyone with half a brain knows the intent, even if they never FAQ it, and will allow rule as intended. Calm down it's not a big deal.

If we're going to stay on this tangent, can we at least not quote entire blocks of posts?

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
There is no fundamental shift in army composition though.

In 4th/5th we needed Deathwing/Ravenwing to be troops, because that was the only way to take more than 3 squads of either of them, and even then you had to take a couple of tac squads too.

In 7th we finally have a codex with way more flexibility (without going unbound), in an edition where the very concepts of both Troops and force orgs have undergone a massive shift, and people are complaining that SCs no longer make your deathwing troops? I do not get it. I've played DAs in tournaments and casual play for around 7 years and as far as I can see, we're now both way more powerful and have way more options than ever during that time. Including for Deathwing or Ravenwing armies.

This for sure.

Seems like a lot of the problems ITT are simply due to a lack of understanding the way armies are structured now compared to previous editions. There's talk of scrapping armies without even a cursory attempt to adapt the collection to new rules.

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
There is no fundamental shift in army composition though.

*sigh*

6th Ed. Codex

Belial, 2 termie squads, fill the rest of the army with whatever I want = legal, battleforged list

7th Ed. Codex

Belial, 2 termie squads, fill the rest of the army with whatever I want = Unbound only

Do you see the difference? I'm done discussing this since it's sorta pointless.

nekooni wrote:I think what he meant was that FOC swapping didn't boost DA to a point where they suddenly became a strong 'dex - they still sucked. Just rephrasing Requizen to help you two communicate, not a statement of my own

If that's the case then it's utterly irrelevant to all my complaints and he should instead recognize that this screws up people's lists and maybe say why new 'dex upgrades but no switching is better than new 'dex upgrages AND switching.

Requizen wrote:That will still be a valid list, all you have to do is simply take a second squad of Tacticals or a unit of Scouts. I'm sure you can find the points for that.

CAD:
Librarian
Tacticals, Scouts
Ven Dread, Ven Dread
Assault Squad, RW Bikers
Vindicator

Deathwing Strike Force
Azrael
Terminators, Terminators, Knights

1) That's still another unit of crappy Troops I don't want and I'm not sure I WOULD have the points given that that would mean less upgrades for the units I actually care about and want.
2) I'm pretty sure Azrael can't go in the Deathwing Formation because he has Artificer Armor instead of Terminator Armor and isn't Deathwing
3) I did say I wanted more Bikes, this only has room for filling out that one squad and getting another, whereas if I still had switching I could just go nuts with Bikes without adding any more HQs or Detachments at all.

Requizen wrote:I get it. No one likes losing things. But honestly, are you so pissed off about losing something that is in the end pretty much completely inconsequential that you are willing to ignore the fact that this book makes DA actually strong for the first time in how many editions? If being able to tick Terminators under Troops was the only thing that made you giddy, then I don't know what to tell you. But they're now functionally more or less the same with slight differences and without ObSec. I honestly can't fathom how that minor difference makes you so blindly angry that you can't just stop complaining about it on the internet. It is, frankly, baffling.

Because it screws up my entire army and happened FOR NO REASON!
You still fail to acknowledge that keeping switching and having all this other stuff are not mutually exclusive, I repeatedly asked "what's wrong with having both?" and STILL haven't got an answer!
I'm not talking about the other things now because they're not relevant.
And how can you not see how having my entire army boned for no reason whatsoever is making me upset?

 Jambles wrote:
Seems like a lot of the problems ITT are simply due to a lack of understanding the way armies are structured now compared to previous editions. There's talk of scrapping armies without even a cursory attempt to adapt the collection to new rules.

Because they shouldn't HAVE to be adapted!