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.

They don't get why we're annoyed That an army that has been since 3rd

Termy captain, termy troops
Sammy on bike, then Sammy on landspeeder, then master on bike, unlocks ravenwing troops (although Sammy used to be able.to join land speeder command sqauds back then)
4th
Sammy unlocked bikes as troops
Bob did same
6th
Sammy blah blah
Bob blah blah
7th
Sammy doesn't unlock bikes
Bob doesn't unlock bikes
Nobody unlocks anything

So basically since third ed changed it, we have been asking for generic master of death and ravenwing, then 7th drops and we are ignored yet again.

So no we dont accept the frankly stupid "use the formations" as an alternative, we want what we have been asking for for 10+ years, generic non special characters that have options and unlocks death/ravenwing, also a generic chapter master.

There is zero reason why this couldn't be done AND you lot can take your formations, everyone's happy, no one feels ignored... Again.

Their are no more shifts besides (for some weird reason) bikes for normal marines. It is something the studio has decided not to continue with, so we don't get to do it anymore. There is the entirety of your answer, no dismissive ness, no rudeness, just the plain truth. I had to buy either one more unit of guardians, or two more units of storm guardians and include a farseer and weapons battery in my eldar army to use their new detachment options. You may need another scout squad or two. I don't think this is as bad as you are making it out to be...

CrashGordon94 wrote:

 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!

So, you expected, what... no changes whatsoever?

You keep saying your army is SCREWED. Is it "unfieldable", as you claim, or is it just not PRECISELY what it used to be? Yes, there are new restrictions and options - this happens EVERY time a new codex comes out, and EVERY time a new rulebook comes out, to varying degrees. Not to mention that this was far and away considered the most obvious incoming change: everybody lost the FOC swapping stuff, man.

You're acting like this was a malicious change with the sole intent of making an incredibly small subset of armies, and even then only in a particular combination, invalid.

I think you'll find, if you let go of your assumptions about army composition that are rooted in the old editions, and take the time to put together a few new lists, you'll find that you can still play with the general army structure and theme you want to. Will it be exactly as it was? OF COURSE NOT - it's a new codex. Things change. Rail at it all you want - won't stop it from being the reality of the situation.

And, in the end, if you really are simply incapable or unwilling to accept change... you know you don't have to, right? The old book didn't just evaporate, talk to the guys you play with and use it instead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:
They don't get why we're annoyed That an army that has been since 3rd

Termy captain, termy troops
Sammy on bike, then Sammy on landspeeder, then master on bike, unlocks ravenwing troops (although Sammy used to be able.to join land speeder command sqauds back then)
4th
Sammy unlocked bikes as troops
Bob did same
6th
Sammy blah blah
Bob blah blah
7th
Sammy doesn't unlock bikes
Bob doesn't unlock bikes
Nobody unlocks anything

So basically since third ed changed it, we have been asking for generic master of death and ravenwing, then 7th drops and we are ignored yet again.

So no we dont accept the frankly stupid "use the formations" as an alternative, we want what we have been asking for for 10+ years, generic non special characters that have options and unlocks death/ravenwing, also a generic chapter master.

There is zero reason why this couldn't be done AND you lot can take your formations, everyone's happy, no one feels ignored... Again.

Change your thinking. You're married to a rules mechanic that doesn't exist anymore. What is it that you want, exactly? Is it really, specifically, the ability to have these two specific units in a specific slot? That sort of thing is going away. And again, if you don't like it... you don't have to get the new rules! Keep playing how you want to play if that's what you prefer!

 the_Armyman wrote:

 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.

Your 6th ed codex example is false. You couldn't take whatever you wanted. You were required to take what you could fit in the Force Organization chart you were using. If you took whatever you wanted, you'd end up with an illegal army that you couldn't play with, versus a playable Unbound army as you can with 7th edition.

CrashGordon94 wrote:

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

Azrael is Deathwing, so actually big buff for him, he can deep strike with his fellow termies and grant those guys that dreaded sweeping advance that they so desperately needed.

So I guess I'm just not understanding what you guys are complaining about. That the exact army you want to play or were playing in a previous edition no longer exists? That you expected every single buff without a change to your specific list?

That's the way this happens. Blood Angels lost Assault Marine Troops. Necrons lost 12" Destroyer Lords, 5 man Warrior squads, and Royal Court. Eldar lost Wraith armies led by Spiritseers. It's the way it goes, you either complain and stop playing or you shrug and keep going.

CrashGordon94 wrote:
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?

Because you seem to be extremely emotional about this entire thing. Yes, you have to slighty modify your army list. Do you really just play a single army list over and over and over again? This new 'dex gives you a huge bunch of viable and - from a first glance - quite powerful options to play around with - and yet you insist that you only ever want to play ONE specific list. Which you totally can, as long as you go unbound. Why are you not just using an unbound army. If it's such a big deal to you to play THAT SPECIFIC list , why can't you play it without the advantages that a CAD gives you?

And I already answered your question:

Do whatever you want, get no rewards (=Formation/Detachment special rules). "+0 power for not following any army construction rules"
Stay within the CAD - get the related Detachment special rules "+1 power for following basic army construction rules"
Use the restrictive Lions Blade Strike Force - get additional special rules. "+2 power for following advanced army construction rules"
Bring two Demi-Companies in a LBSF - get even more specials "+3 power for following even more restricting construction rules"

Especially the detachments using a Demi-Company come with a BIG tax - a whole lot of Tac Marines - which is supposed to counter the extra power brought in by the Detachment/Formation special rules.

If you could do whatever you wanted AND get the "+1 power", you'd make the +0 power level irrelevant and unused - as well as killing any reason for sticking to the CAD rules.

to use an example brought up earlier: Bringing a feth ton of Bikes is now reflected by bringing a Ravenwing Strike Force - you don't need the CAD with special snowflake rules for that anymore. C:SM armies do not have a Ravenwing Strike Force available and THAT is the only reason why they retained that rule and C: DA did not. Because it is now obsolete thanks to the RWSF. Which is probably meant to be at the "+1 power" level.

This seems to be more of a venting thread than actual N&R now. C'mon mods, lock it up

 Jambles wrote:
[
Change your thinking. You're married to a rules mechanic that doesn't exist anymore.

Didn't that nonexistent mechanic just get used in the vanilla space marine codex that came out a few weeks ago?

 warboss wrote:

 Jambles wrote:
[
Change your thinking. You're married to a rules mechanic that doesn't exist anymore.

Didn't that nonexistent mechanic just get used in the vanilla space marine codex that came out a few weeks ago?

Space Marines always get a pass for being GW's poster boys. They would never get over screwing up all of those White Scars players with their pure bike lists.

 warboss wrote:

 Jambles wrote:
[
Change your thinking. You're married to a rules mechanic that doesn't exist anymore.

Didn't that nonexistent mechanic just get used in the vanilla space marine codex that came out a few weeks ago?

Wow, you're actually right. News to me.

So much for consistency...

Isn't there a DW formation (not detachment) inside the DA decurion that is all about dat terminator no power armor? Because you can take that without the rest of the decurion. Then just take the other self contained formations from any imperial codex to have whatevs you want.. even paint it green or bone or whatevs.

RW could even do it...even if I don't like it because they don't get RWBKs that way.

Requizen wrote:

 warboss wrote:

 Jambles wrote:
[
Change your thinking. You're married to a rules mechanic that doesn't exist anymore.

Didn't that nonexistent mechanic just get used in the vanilla space marine codex that came out a few weeks ago?

Space Marines always get a pass for being GW's poster boys. They would never get over screwing up all of those White Scars players with their pure bike lists.

But Dark Angels, who are also Space Marines, can get screwed over. Sounds fair.

 angelofvengeance wrote:
This seems to be more of a venting thread than actual N&R now. C'mon mods, lock it up

this thread is terrible.

@Warboss
Yeah that was weird, but i guess we owe it to the white scars. They didn't get their own detachment after all, so there had to be a way to make a white scar list legal. More of a lazy way out for designers than anything else.

To answer the point about the vindicator, I was answering someone's question about why people are upset, because in the ravenwing strike force formation everything has to be ravenwing and obviously they don't have to have the ravenwing rule.

This means someone will have to add a different detachment (or a tax to some people). The larger issue here, I think, is that some people think there should be a way to unlock ravenwing and deathwing as troops without having to take their specific detachments and not going unbound. This does not seem unreasonable to me.

I haven't played dark Angels in over a year and I am pumped about starting them up again. I am not, however, thrilled about the restrictions being put on the ravenwing and deathwing deatchments. Blood Angels had the same thing when they lost assault marine troops. It's part of GWs strategy now.

I just don't like being shoehorned into a certain list build, which has been my concern about detachments and formations. All lists are going to start looking the same because people will run essentially the same options to get the most benefits.

Whether this is good or not is for a different thread.

Back to rumors, are there any specific deathwing or ravenwing formations that can be taken outside of the detachment?

 Jambles wrote:

CrashGordon94 wrote:

 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!

So, you expected, what... no changes whatsoever?

You keep saying your army is SCREWED. Is it "unfieldable", as you claim, or is it just not PRECISELY what it used to be? Yes, there are new restrictions and options - this happens EVERY time a new codex comes out, and EVERY time a new rulebook comes out, to varying degrees. Not to mention that this was far and away considered the most obvious incoming change: everybody lost the FOC swapping stuff, man.

You're acting like this was a malicious change with the sole intent of making an incredibly small subset of armies, and even then only in a particular combination, invalid.

I think you'll find, if you let go of your assumptions about army composition that are rooted in the old editions, and take the time to put together a few new lists, you'll find that you can still play with the general army structure and theme you want to. Will it be exactly as it was? OF COURSE NOT - it's a new codex. Things change. Rail at it all you want - won't stop it from being the reality of the situation.

And, in the end, if you really are simply incapable or unwilling to accept change... you know you don't have to, right? The old book didn't just evaporate, talk to the guys you play with and use it instead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:
They don't get why we're annoyed That an army that has been since 3rd

Termy captain, termy troops
Sammy on bike, then Sammy on landspeeder, then master on bike, unlocks ravenwing troops (although Sammy used to be able.to join land speeder command sqauds back then)
4th
Sammy unlocked bikes as troops
Bob did same
6th
Sammy blah blah
Bob blah blah
7th
Sammy doesn't unlock bikes
Bob doesn't unlock bikes
Nobody unlocks anything

So basically since third ed changed it, we have been asking for generic master of death and ravenwing, then 7th drops and we are ignored yet again.

So no we dont accept the frankly stupid "use the formations" as an alternative, we want what we have been asking for for 10+ years, generic non special characters that have options and unlocks death/ravenwing, also a generic chapter master.

There is zero reason why this couldn't be done AND you lot can take your formations, everyone's happy, no one feels ignored... Again.

Change your thinking. You're married to a rules mechanic that doesn't exist anymore. What is it that you want, exactly? Is it really, specifically, the ability to have these two specific units in a specific slot? That sort of thing is going away. And again, if you don't like it... you don't have to get the new rules! Keep playing how you want to play if that's what you prefer!

Learn to listen, we don't want to be ignored again and we have, and guess what, when the new chaos dex drops eventually, we will be ignored again by an incopemtant company who ignores it's player base, I like the new book thus far but the lack of the option is idiotic, the way we have proposed pleases everyone, the way you propose and gw seems to only pleases you.

Yes we will have to adapt our armies, no one is disputing that, even if they had allowed what we're asking for that would likely be the case still, but we should have the option.

 Commissar Merces wrote:

Back to rumors, are there any specific deathwing or ravenwing formations that can be taken outside of the detachment?

Yeah Deathwing and Ravenwing each get both a flexible Detachment and a Formation that can be within a Lion's Blade meta-formation. But I believe those formations can also be taken outside of the Lion's Blade.

 Commissar Merces wrote:
I just don't like being shoehorned into a certain list build, which has been my concern about detachments and formations. All lists are going to start looking the same because people will run essentially the same options to get the most benefits.

Welcome to competitive 40k since forever. Netlisting and min/maxing power builds has been the way things have been done since the first time people decided to play seriously and not just dick around. There is basically no book (save maybe Eldar) where you can take whatever fluffy list you like and have it do as well as a power build.

Back to rumors, are there any specific deathwing or ravenwing formations that can be taken outside of the detachment?

Any Formation can be taken independently. From the looks of it, there's a Deathwing Formation and three Ravenwing Formations, one with Bikes, one with Land Speeders, and one with Flyers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:

Learn to listen, we don't want to be ignored again and we have, and guess what, when the new chaos dex drops eventually, we will be ignored again by an incopemtant company who ignores it's player base, I like the new book thus far but the lack of the option is idiotic, the way we have proposed pleases everyone, the way you propose and gw seems to only pleases you.

Yes we will have to adapt our armies, no one is disputing that, even if they had allowed what we're asking for that would likely be the case still, but we should have the option.

No one is saying your way is worse. It would be fine, and would be fun and fluffy. But it's not going to happen, and having 6+ pages on here lamenting about how it should have been doesn't change that. It's just complaining for the sake of complaining, and people trying to point out workarounds to help are being yelled at for not complaining as well.

It's annoying.

 Jambles wrote:

 warboss wrote:

 Jambles wrote:
[
Change your thinking. You're married to a rules mechanic that doesn't exist anymore.

Didn't that nonexistent mechanic just get used in the vanilla space marine codex that came out a few weeks ago?

Wow, you're actually right. News to me.

So much for consistency...

I hope that sheds a bit of light onto why folks who built legal armies are having trouble with this. I have a pure deathwing force and I personally can't stand using formations as I feel they exemplify everything that is wrong with 40k at the moment. You have points values next to the models to gauge their relative use in the game; you shouldn't be able to cheat by using another metric like $$$ to get more than that utility from those exact same models. I had hoped to still be able to use my deathwing in a CAD but no such luck (especially with the auto you lose deathwing turn 2+ deepstrike instead of the previous turn 1). Will I adapt? Probably... but they cost themselves a sale due to stuff like that combined with other important factors (balance, book life cycles, etc). It is doubly odd when they used that exact same mechanic for a similar type of army (bike lists in vanilla marines) but neglected to with ravenwing. I just can't help but feel that there isn't a single person in HQ Nottingham that "gets it" anymore. YMMV.

We shouldn't HAVE to "adapt". It was legal before so it should remain that way unless there's a specific reason to take it away.
Taking stuff away was wrong in all those other instances too.
Screwing over existing stuff for no reason is NOT valid or reasonable. The units being different? Sure. New options? Sure. Invalidating previously valid things for no reason? NO!

nekooni wrote:
Because you seem to be extremely emotional about this entire thing. Yes, you have to slighty modify your army list. Do you really just play a single army list over and over and over again? This new 'dex gives you a huge bunch of viable and - from a first glance - quite powerful options to play around with - and yet you insist that you only ever want to play ONE specific list. Which you totally can, as long as you go unbound. Why are you not just using an unbound army. If it's such a big deal to you to play THAT SPECIFIC list , why can't you play it without the advantages that a CAD gives you?

And I already answered your question:

Do whatever you want, get no rewards (=Formation/Detachment special rules). "+0 power for not following any army construction rules"
Stay within the CAD - get the related Detachment special rules "+1 power for following basic army construction rules"
Use the restrictive Lions Blade Strike Force - get additional special rules. "+2 power for following advanced army construction rules"
Bring two Demi-Companies in a LBSF - get even more specials "+3 power for following even more restricting construction rules"

Especially the detachments using a Demi-Company come with a BIG tax - a whole lot of Tac Marines - which is supposed to counter the extra power brought in by the Detachment/Formation special rules.

If you could do whatever you wanted AND get the "+1 power", you'd make the +0 power level irrelevant and unused - as well as killing any reason for sticking to the CAD rules.

to use an example brought up earlier: Bringing a feth ton of Bikes is now reflected by bringing a Ravenwing Strike Force - you don't need the CAD with special snowflake rules for that anymore. C:SM armies do not have a Ravenwing Strike Force available and THAT is the only reason why they retained that rule and C: DA did not. Because it is now obsolete thanks to the RWSF. Which is probably meant to be at the "+1 power" level.

How "emotional" or not I am is irrelevant. As is Unbound, stop bringing it up in any form.
I should be able to take in a CAD and shouldn't have to lose CAD stuff because that's how it worked and there's no reason at all to change it.
The only reasons given are "It's a new Codex", which isn't a reason (screwing over existing stuff isn't a valid choice) and "They have Formations now" which isn't either (Because they could have switching AND Formations).
So it should stay.
And it's not slightly, I already mentioned about needing to get new HQs and something else to fill that Troops slot and basically re-arrange the entire thing. AT BEST. WHEN THERE'S NO REASON I SHOULD HAVE TO.

Quite frankly it's appalling that the person who suggested taking out the switching wasn't simply fired on the spot.

Requizen it's not complaining for the sake of complaining, it's a legitimate grievance and while the news of the new book is overwhelmingly positive, that one thing could put people off, what if some guy read the old book and decided that they wanted a pure deathwing army and didn't realise that bob doesn't open up termies as troops anymore, reading this thread could help.

So don't be so dismissive of people opinions that differ to yours.

To those who might not completely understand why we're frustrated with no pure Deathwing option:

Two months ago I bought Belial and four Terminator squads. Add in the terminator squad I had in from Dark Vengeance and I have an HQ and five squads, enough for various 1000-1250 point lists.

This army is now invalid. I can't play it anymore. It's an investment of 200 euros I can't use as is anymore. Instead, t make this work, I need to spent more money.

That's what's frustrating me. I would've gladly bought Greenwing seeing as they're really viable in this book. I'm no so much interested in Ravenwing, but I could've included them as well. Instead, I'm frustrated and grumbling with the rest of the Deathwing crew.

It's not so that we want to have instant-win options with super-cheap terminators costing 5 points each, it's that we just want to be able to play the army we spent money on.

 Ian Sturrock wrote:

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

Not so secret!

You are not a million miles away, if you are around the Swindon area, give us a shout for a game!

English codex is up on 4chan.

Confirmed: bikes do not grant Ravenwing special rule.
Confirmed: Ravenwing Strike Force has 2 superfluous HQ slots that can never be used.
Confirmed: GW rules writers are just awful at their jobs.

warboss wrote:I hope that sheds a bit of light onto why folks who built legal armies are having trouble with this.

This isn't new news. Legal armies get invalidated every time a book comes out. Or get changed to the point that they're not useful anymore. Or a new build becomes more prevalent and makes people want to switch. DA is not unique in this.

warboss wrote: I have a pure deathwing force and I personally can't stand using formations as I feel they exemplify everything that is wrong with 40k at the moment. You have points values next to the models to gauge their relative use in the game; you shouldn't be able to cheat by using another metric like $$$ to get more than that utility from those exact same models.

Lol? I actually have no idea what you are trying to say in this statement.

Formations are what's wrong with 40k? If anything, the prevalence and power of Superheavies and Gargantuans are the biggest problem. Formations are awesome. They give you bonuses for taking specific units, giving you a trade off for flexiblity by giving power in trade.

"Cheat that by using $$$". What game have you been playing? Is putting an Apothecary into a unit to get FNP also bad? Is using Psykers to get more than the points value from a unit just the worst? Is someone using his $$$ metric to buy a strong unit ruining the game for you? This is such an asinine statement that I can't stand it.

CrashGordon94 wrote:We shouldn't HAVE to "adapt".

Yes you should. The game changes. If you hate it that much you can get your friends to play 5e with you and tell us all about how great it is compared to 7e.

CrashGordon94 wrote:How "emotional" or not I am is irrelevant. As is Unbound, stop bringing it up in any form.

Unbound is completely relevant. It's in the BRB. It's even referenced in the Codices themselves. What is irrelevant is your opinion on it.

CrashGordon94 wrote:I should be able to take in a CAD and shouldn't have to lose CAD stuff because that's how it worked and there's no reason at all to change it.
The only reasons given are "It's a new Codex", which isn't a reason (screwing over existing stuff isn't a valid choice) and "They have Formations now" which isn't either (Because they could have switching AND Formations).
So it should stay.
And it's not slightly, I already mentioned about needing to get new HQs and something else to fill that Troops slot and basically re-arrange the entire thing. AT BEST. WHEN THERE'S NO REASON I SHOULD HAVE TO.

Quite frankly it's appalling that the person who suggested taking out the switching wasn't simply fired on the spot.

And it sucks. No one says it doesn't. We all agree it sucks. We can move on now and not talk about how much it sucks because talking about how much it sucks does, in itself, suck.

Stop perpetuating the suck.

axisofentropy wrote:

 Commissar Merces wrote:

Back to rumors, are there any specific deathwing or ravenwing formations that can be taken outside of the detachment?

Yeah Deathwing and Ravenwing each get both a flexible Detachment and a Formation that can be within a Lion's Blade meta-formation. But I believe those formations can also be taken outside of the Lion's Blade.

The ravenwing strike force is not part of the decurion detatchment

 warboss wrote:
I hope that sheds a bit of light onto why folks who built legal armies are having trouble with this. I have a pure deathwing force and I personally can't stand using formations as I feel they exemplify everything that is wrong with 40k at the moment. You have points values next to the models to gauge their relative use in the game; you shouldn't be able to cheat by using another metric like $$$ to get more than that utility from those exact same models. I had hoped to still be able to use my deathwing in a CAD but no such luck (especially with the auto you lose deathwing turn 2+ deepstrike instead of the previous turn 1). Will I adapt? Probably... but they cost themselves a sale due to stuff like that combined with other important factors (balance, book life cycles, etc). It is doubly odd when they used that exact same mechanic for a similar type of army (bike lists in vanilla marines) but neglected to with ravenwing. I just can't help but feel that there isn't a single person in HQ Nottingham that "gets it" anymore. YMMV.

Removing the FOC swap was clearly a choice by GW, not negligence. And I assume the reasoning behind that was "OK, we gave that rule to C:SM so that White Scars work and we gave it to C: DA so that their Ravenwing worked. We were too lazy to come up with chapter-specific formations and detachments for anything but Ultramarines in C:SM, but at least we managed to finally create special rules (Formations AND Detachments!) so people can field a Ravenwing properly - so we don't need the workaround "FOC swap" for C: DA anymore.

Honestly, from my PoV GW was lazy writing the C:SM codex and went all-out (in a positive way) on the C: DA. They should've added a detachment for each of the chapters in C:SM, including a White Scars one, and get rid of the FOC swapping entirely.

 tydrace wrote:
To those who might not completely understand why we're frustrated with no pure Deathwing option:

Two months ago I bought Belial and four Terminator squads. Add in the terminator squad I had in from Dark Vengeance and I have an HQ and five squads, enough for various 1000-1250 point lists.

This army is now invalid.

No it isn't. Please read the army construction rules, specifically the section entitled "Army Selection Method" of the 7th edition Warhammer 40k rulebook.

You army is completely legal in all respects.

Legal if people allow unbound, I'm not aware of anyone that does?