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.

 jokerkd wrote:

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

There is not just the Ravenwing Strike Force, there are ALSO Ravenwing Squadron formations for use in the Lion's Blade Strike Force. Same with Deathwing.

 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. 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.

Am i missing something here? Is there a reason you cannot take this as a Deathwing redemption force as a single formation?

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:
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.

Dude, do you really have the audacity to post news and rumors in a News & Rumors thread? People have bitching to do!

If unbound isn't an option for you because no one in your group plays it, that is entirely your groups fault. If games workshop gives you EVERY tool you could possibly need in their newest rules edition, and you CHOOSE to not use them, that is entirely on you as a player.

Your house rules don't have a bearing on how they write books.

Abadabadoobaddon wrote: 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.

Great, just great... This better get fixed somehow.
And now I'm back to screwed I have to get a horrid resin model or kitbash instead of just having Azrael.

Requizen wrote: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.

And that's wrong and it should be stopped.

Requizen wrote: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.

Not if they lead to crap like this, if dumping Formations is what it takes to get rid of this crap, then screw Formations.

Requizen wrote: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.

No I shouldn't have to "adapt" this way. There was no reason for this change at all, why should I have to "adapt" to it? Tell me!
P.S. I didn't even start on 40k until 7th edition had long since been released, troll harder.

Requizen wrote: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.

No it's not relevant in the slightest. Nobody treats it as a valid way to make an army and it would put me on the level of those who make an army out of nothing but Baneblades, stop bringing it up at all whatsoever.

Requizen wrote: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.

No, plenty of people are saying that it doesn't by sticking up for it and pointing to the new Formations and meaningless Unbound nonsense.

The only people perpetuating the suck are those saying people should have to adapt when they shouldn't.

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

If they don't, it's a personal restriction and that's not a limitation of the game. Again, Tournaments are one thing, if you're playing with your FLGS and they don't let you play Unbound, then explain to them that you're not bringing 5 Superheavies (which you can do legally with Imperial Knights anyway lol), but you're just bringing a fluffy list. If they still don't let you do it, they're dicks.

B&C has some solid leaks.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
If unbound isn't an option for you because no one in your group plays it, that is entirely your groups fault. If games workshop gives you EVERY tool you could possibly need in their newest rules edition, and you CHOOSE to not use them, that is entirely on you as a player.

Your house rules don't have a bearing on how they write books.

No they don't, it seems like there are apparent issues with Unbound like abuse that stops it from being used.

And no GW didn't give every tool needed, if they did they'd keep Azrael/Belial/Sammael's FOC switching exactly like it was on top of all the other stuff.

Was it really necessary to double the point cost of a TH+SS?

Requizen wrote:

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.

Formations are one of the things wrong with it along with what you wrote. If putting an medic into a 5 man combat squad gave you FNP 6+ but putting him in a 10 man squad gave you 5+ and god forbid you put him with an IG ally blob of 50 to get 2+ FNP then you'd have a valid comparison... but they don't so neither do you. Formations reward purchasers with added in game benefits for ZERO ZIP ZILCH NONE NILL NOTHING using the metric that the company specifically developed for and uses to gauge the in game value. If you use formations, you're swapping out $$$ for free pts. It really is as simple as that and it's the "genius" tabletop equivalent of freemium video game currency to do things better/faster/stronger than you'd otherwise be able to... except that GW isn't giving away those models or rules for free but rather for an ever increasing full price. The lack of "flexibility" is akin to the old design your own regiment where you'd "disallow" the stuff you didn't own and buff the stuff you did. Where the hell is the lack of flexibility when I own a half dozen aspect warrior squads and I get completely free stat boosts to use any two I choose? Or a rhino rush or drop pod list that would use those transports anyways getting them for free just because? Either points matter or they don't. If they don't they should just drop them and stop pretending that we're playing anything more balanced than He Man versus the Thundercats under the dinner table at the holidays as kids in the 80's.

CrashGordon94 wrote:

Not if they lead to crap like this, if dumping Formations is what it takes to get rid of this crap, then screw Formations.

No I shouldn't have to "adapt" this way. There was no reason for this change at all, why should I have to "adapt" to it? Tell me!
P.S. I didn't even start on 40k until 7th edition had long since been released, troll harder.

So you've only ever played an edition where Formations exist and you want to tell people that Formations are ruining the game that you know and love?

Formations aren't ruining anything. If they make it unfun for you, you don't have to play the game. It's a worldwide hobby, it's not going to revolve around your preferences. Get over yourself.

CrashGordon94 wrote:

Requizen wrote: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.

No it's not relevant in the slightest. Nobody treats it as a valid way to make an army and it would put me on the level of those who make an army out of nothing but Baneblades, stop bringing it up at all whatsoever.

If your group doesn't like it, that's not everyone. Plenty of people play with Unbound lists. Not every Unbound list is all Baneblades (which sucks anyway). Unbound is a part of the game that is relevant, accepted, and in every form of the rules. Get over yourself.

CrashGordon94 wrote:

Requizen wrote: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.

No, plenty of people are saying that it doesn't by sticking up for it and pointing to the new Formations and meaningless Unbound nonsense.

The only people perpetuating the suck are those saying people should have to adapt when they shouldn't.

Formations and Unbound is the way the game is played now. The only nonsense here is your opinion on how 7e should be played.

Get over yourself.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 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.

Or he can use the Deathwing Redemption Force formation.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

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.

Unbound isn't always an option. Not every group allows for it. I have met plenty of people who don't want to play against an unbound list, no matter what. There's also tourneys which outright forbid unbound lists. So yes, it might be legal but it's not overall accepted, even a year after release.

 jokerkd wrote:

Am i missing something here? Is there a reason you cannot take this as a Deathwing redemption force as a single formation?

The Deathwing Redemption Force states "All units in this formation must be placed in Deep Strike Reserve", in the same codex the Deathwing lost the ability to arrive from Deep Strike at turn 1. IE: Play Deathwing Redemption Force and you lose because at the end of game turn 1, the Sudden Death rule kicks in. Dreadnought Drop Pods also arrive with the rest of the force, as the rule states. So we can't let a Dreadnought arrive a turn early and hope for the best, nor can we place a squad on table and hope for the best. Arguably, and mentioned by others, you're not allowed to take Land Raiders with RAW because they can't be placed in Deep Strike Reserve. Given, I will take most will houserule that away, but there will be players who will complain about it.

 warboss wrote:

Requizen wrote:

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.

Formations are one of the things wrong with it along with what you wrote. If putting an medic into a 5 man combat squad gave you FNP 6+ but putting him in a 10 man squad gave you 5+ and god forbid you put him with an IG ally blob of 50 to get 2+ FNP then you'd have a valid comparison... but they don't so neither do you. Formations reward purchasers with added in game benefits for ZERO ZIP ZILCH NONE NILL NOTHING using the metric that the company specifically developed for and uses to gauge the in game value. If you use formations, you're swapping out $$$ for free pts. It really is as simple as that and it's the "genius" tabletop equivalent of freemium video game currency to do things better/faster/stronger than you'd otherwise be able to... except that GW isn't giving away those models or rules for free but rather for an ever increasing full price. The lack of "flexibility" is akin to the old design your own regiment where you'd "disallow" the stuff you didn't own and buff the stuff you did. Where the hell is the lack of flexibility when I own a half dozen aspect warrior squads and I get completely free stat boosts to use any two I choose? Or a rhino rush or drop pod list that would use those transports anyways getting them for free just because? Either points matter or they don't. If they don't they should just drop them and stop pretending that we're playing anything more balanced than He Man versus the Thundercats under the dinner table at the holidays as kids in the 80's.

I seriously can't tell what you're mad about. Do Formation bonuses make you that mad?

You take specific units to the exclusion of other things you want to take and you get a buff. There's nothing wrong with that.

 tydrace wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

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.

Unbound isn't always an option. Not every group allows for it. I have met plenty of people who don't want to play against an unbound list, no matter what. There's also tourneys which outright forbid unbound lists. So yes, it might be legal but it's not overall accepted, even a year after release.

 jokerkd wrote:

Am i missing something here? Is there a reason you cannot take this as a Deathwing redemption force as a single formation?

The Deathwing Redemption Force states "All units in this formation must be placed in Deep Strike Reserve", in the same codex the Deathwing lost the ability to arrive from Deep Strike at turn 1. IE: Play Deathwing Redemption Force and you lose because at the end of game turn 1, the Sudden Death rule kicks in. Dreadnought Drop Pods also arrive with the rest of the force, as the rule states. So we can't let a Dreadnought arrive a turn early and hope for the best, nor can we place a squad on table and hope for the best. Arguably, and mentioned by others, you're not allowed to take Land Raiders with RAW because they can't be placed in Deep Strike Reserve. Given, I will take most will houserule that away, but there will be players who will complain about it.

My bad, i thought that was just the strike force rules. Ive only just read the english copy

 jokerkd wrote:


My bad, i thought that was just the strike force rules. Ive only just read the english copy

No worries, the rules are just flowing in. Damn shame about it though, both the Strike Force or Redemption Force can't be taken solo, so there's no option but to add in non-Deathwing units.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:
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.

Dude, do you really have the audacity to post news and rumors in a News & Rumors thread? People have bitching to do!

Exalted! God, I wish the mods would intervene about all the off-topic complaining (that gak should be in the 40k General Discussion or YMDC or something).

Personally, I'm looking forward to changing up my Dark Angels army. It is turning out to be a good thing that my collection is a little bit of everything since that is what the Lion's Blade kind of needs to work. It inspired me to get one of the new Devastator squad boxes (gonna have to go mixed weapons since I don't want to buy another just yet, I'll probably do gravs and lascannons). I guess score one for GW for that one. Now I should probably get a techmarine (unless someone knows a good way to convert one, I'll look around) so I can use the formation of killbawkses. I'm almost going nuts with excitement waiting for my LE codex. It had better actually arrive on Saturday or I might explode or something lol

 warboss wrote:

Requizen wrote:

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.

Formations are one of the things wrong with it along with what you wrote. If putting an medic into a 5 man combat squad gave you FNP 6+ but putting him in a 10 man squad gave you 5+ and god forbid you put him with an IG ally blob of 50 to get 2+ FNP then you'd have a valid comparison... but they don't so neither do you. Formations reward purchasers with added in game benefits for ZERO ZIP ZILCH NONE NILL NOTHING using the metric that the company specifically developed for and uses to gauge the in game value. If you use formations, you're swapping out $$$ for free pts. It really is as simple as that and it's the "genius" tabletop equivalent of freemium video game currency to do things better/faster/stronger than you'd otherwise be able to... except that GW isn't giving away those models or rules for free but rather for an ever increasing full price. The lack of "flexibility" is akin to the old design your own regiment where you'd "disallow" the stuff you didn't own and buff the stuff you did. Where the hell is the lack of flexibility when I own a half dozen aspect warrior squads and I get completely free stat boosts to use any two I choose? Or a rhino rush or drop pod list that would use those transports anyways getting them for free just because? Either points matter or they don't. If they don't they should just drop them and stop pretending that we're playing anything more balanced than He Man versus the Thundercats under the dinner table at the holidays as kids in the 80's.

Let me overemphasise your PoV for a sec: "I've got 100 Tac Marines here with naked Captains, and all you folks using tanks and bikes and drop pods and all those other pay to win options are ruining my gameplay, fething Pay2Win game!"
Having more money always offered advantages to a 40k player, it's just how games with a "collectible" aspect work and 40k is one of them.
Every model would have to have the same exchange rate from points to cash. A single Tac Squad Grav Cannon would cost exactly as much as a Drop Pod model. Sounds kinda strange, doesn't it? I mean, the Grav Can is like a really small piece of plastic, and the drop pod is huge! But hey - no longer Pay2Win, amirite?!

If you disagree on the collectible part - great, use tokens or whatever to simulate your models and you instantaneously removed the entire Pay2Win argument from the whole game, including formations and detachments. That was a viable way to play BattleTech, and it was a lot of fun.

TL;DR: Tabletops are not videogames. Deal with it.

Requizen wrote:

Formations and Unbound is the way the game is played now. The only nonsense here is your opinion on how 7e should be played.

Get over yourself.

I agree unfortuantely with the first two parts but you may want to take that last part of your advice and follow it yourself seeing as how the nonsense is alot closer to home that you apparently suspect. If 9 dark reapers are worth X points in one squad at BS4 but worth X+Y points if you make them BS5, why the feth is taking 3 squads of 3 at BS5 with added morale benefits worth NOTHING? Why the hell is taking a bunch of 10 man squads with rhinos MORE expensive than taking a bunch of 5 man squads of almost the exact same models with FREE rhinos? Discounts for buying in bulk should stay at the grocery store and out of wargaming. There is no expectation that your apples will be equally balanced against your oranges in your tabletop fruit basket unlike in a tabletop game that uses points for each unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nekooni wrote:

Having more money always offered advantages to a 40k player, it's just how games with a "collectible" aspect work and 40k is one of them.
Every model would have to have the same exchange rate from points to cash. A single Tac Squad Grav Cannon would cost exactly as much as a Drop Pod model. Sounds kinda strange, doesn't it? I mean, the Grav Can is like a really small piece of plastic, and the drop pod is huge! But hey - no longer Pay2Win, amirite?!

If you disagree on the collectible part - great, use tokens or whatever to simulate your models and you instantaneously removed the entire Pay2Win argument from the whole game, including formations and detachments. That was a viable way to play BattleTech, and it was a lot of fun.

TL;DR: Tabletops are not videogames. Deal with it.

40k is NOW one of them... it wasn't for the previous 20 years and the results show the response. I agree that I should deal with it and I have... I've stopped buying. Until YOU personally pay full current retail for my 20,000pts of painted 40k that is both literally and figuratively being devalued by GW with each passing year, I will however continue to comment on my dislike for the continuously negative changes within the bounds of the dakka rules. I suggest YOU deal with THAT.

@Nekooni

That's not what he said at all. He is saying that if you pay X amounts of points for a unit it should have the capabilities of X amounts of points.

With many formations this is just not the case.

Paying that X amounts of points for a Firebase Cadre for the Tau gets you extra effectiveness over someone who has bought the same units and equipped them the same and so paid the same amount of points but hasn't bought the Firebase Support Cadre dataslate thing.

That is absolutely terrible game design, flat out.

the only thing missing in this thread right now is the stamping of feet. It's getting pretty silly.

It was no surprise that they took the bikes and terms as Troops away, EVERYONE saw it coming (yes, I can use caps too...wonderful isn't it?). In it's place you got pure DW and RW formations with their own formation rules. So yes, your army still contains DW as Troops....they are basically the Troops of the formation, they just don't get obsec. The problem seems to be that some of you want to take Greenwing support without actually taking Greenwing troops, even though these support choices do not belong to the RW and DW. If you want greenwing support, take some Greenwing Troops to unlock them.
CAD is becoming a the minority way to build armies these days, expecting pure flexibility is asking too much.

As for the SM codex, it was definitely lazy that they didn't do a WS bike formation. I feel that ravenwing actually got more respect in that it got it's own formation and special rules.

No, I will not "get over" myself, I haven't done anything wrong. Stop fobbing people off for having valid problems!

Requizen wrote:
So you've only ever played an edition where Formations exist and you want to tell people that Formations are ruining the game that you know and love?

Formations aren't ruining anything. If they make it unfun for you, you don't have to play the game. It's a worldwide hobby, it's not going to revolve around your preferences.

Apparently they are ruining many things by invalidating perfectly legit armies for no reason. If they're the cause of me and my legit army being put in the same box as Mr. All Baneblades, then they need to go and they were a terrible idea.
Not just for me but for anyone who built their army that way (which in case you hadn't noticed is a load of people) and anyone else who builds their army in a perfectly valid way and then has it deleted just because of this pointless, worthless and nonsensical crap.

Requizen wrote:
If your group doesn't like it, that's not everyone. Plenty of people play with Unbound lists. Not every Unbound list is all Baneblades (which sucks anyway). Unbound is a part of the game that is relevant, accepted, and in every form of the rules.

It's not "my group", it's pretty much everyone. Basically nobody I've ever seen excepts it, this is basically the first time I've seen this treated as anything other than meaningless and pointless TFG-ing outside of a GW salesman telling me it's legit just to get me to buy stuff.
It's not relevant because I actually want a valid army list that works, is real, is accepted and people don't get to turn me down because I'm a stupid cheater just like Mr. All Baneblades now since GW killed my army.
It's not accepted, many reject it.
And yes, it's in the rules. And according to The Most Important Rule in my rulebook I can do literally anything as long as my opponent agrees - by that logic I could make an army out of My Little Pony figures with made-up-on-the-spot rules if my opponent's down with that. Yet, I still don't imagine that would be a valid army even if it IS permitted by the rules. Am I wrong?

Requizen wrote:
Formations and Unbound is the way the game is played now. The only nonsense here is your opinion on how 7e should be played.

No, the nonsense here is killing valid armies for no reason and expecting people to take it on the chin because of meaningless "Unbound" garbage.

 bullyboy wrote:
the only thing missing in this thread right now is the stamping of feet. It's getting pretty silly.

There is a stamping of feet... out the figurative door to other games.

 bullyboy wrote:
the only thing missing in this thread right now is the stamping of feet. It's getting pretty silly.

It was no surprise that they took the bikes and terms as Troops away, EVERYONE saw it coming (yes, I can use caps too...wonderful isn't it?). In it's place you got pure DW and RW formations with their own formation rules. So yes, your army still contains DW as Troops....they are basically the Troops of the formation, they just don't get obsec. The problem seems to be that some of you want to take Greenwing support without actually taking Greenwing troops, even though these support choices do not belong to the RW and DW. If you want greenwing support, take some Greenwing Troops to unlock them.
CAD is becoming a the minority way to build armies these days, expecting pure flexibility is asking too much.

As for the SM codex, it was definitely lazy that they didn't do a WS bike formation. I feel that ravenwing actually got more respect in that it got it's own formation and special rules.

Errrr, the problem with a pure Deathwing army is that it auto loses on turn one.

The problem with Ravenwing is that it can only take one HQ, despite having 3 HQ slots.

The rules are really bad for people who want customisation and options.

 bullyboy wrote:

It was no surprise that they took the bikes and terms as Troops away, EVERYONE saw it coming

Not to add fuel to the flame, but Space Marines can take bikes as Troops, and Grey Knights can take terminators as Troops.

Can we start ignoring the endless complainers and get back on topic? And English dex stuff up?

 tydrace wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

It was no surprise that they took the bikes and terms as Troops away, EVERYONE saw it coming

Not to add fuel to the flame, but Space Marines can take bikes as Troops, and Grey Knights can take terminators as Troops.

the bikes as Troops for SM was just laziness for not doing a WS formation.
As for Grey Knights, they are in no way organized like the Dark Angels, so isn't even relevant. In a DWSF, your terminators ARE troops. In a RWSF, your bikes are Troops. Granted, they don't get Obsec, but thy do get other bonuses.
I really don't think this is a big issue at all. I'm sorry some of you feel like you can't play with your toys anymore over this minor change (which still seems ridiculous to me), but the changes are not that drastic. people should be a LOT more concerned with the fact that the DWSF cannot be played by itself and that there are no other RW characters other than Sammael. These are issues that should cause concern, not losing Terms and bikes as Troops. If units were removed entirely from the codex, that would be another story.

 tydrace wrote:

Unbound isn't always an option. Not every group allows for it.

The house rules you play with are your concern, not the game's.

 tydrace wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

It was no surprise that they took the bikes and terms as Troops away, EVERYONE saw it coming

Not to add fuel to the flame, but Space Marines can take bikes as Troops, and Grey Knights can take terminators as Troops.

Thats because WS scars dont have their own formation and GK have to pay the points for being better than standard

 bullyboy wrote:

 tydrace wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

It was no surprise that they took the bikes and terms as Troops away, EVERYONE saw it coming

Not to add fuel to the flame, but Space Marines can take bikes as Troops, and Grey Knights can take terminators as Troops.

the bikes as Troops for SM was just laziness for not doing a WS formation.
As for Grey Knights, they are in no way organized like the Dark Angels, so isn't even relevant. In a DWSF, your terminators ARE troops. In a RWSF, your bikes are Troops. Granted, they don't get Obsec, but thy do get other bonuses.
I really don't think this is a big issue at all. I'm sorry some of you feel like you can't play with your toys anymore over this minor change (which still seems ridiculous to me), but the changes are not that drastic. people should be a LOT more concerned with the fact that the DWSF cannot be played by itself and that there are no other RW characters other than Sammael. These are issues that should cause concern, not losing Terms and bikes as Troops. If units were removed entirely from the codex, that would be another story.

Those are part of the concern. If there was an option that allowed for Deathwing to be taken as troops in a CAD then pure Deathwing build would be possible (CAD and DWSF). But there isn't so Deathwing players are stuck with other stuff.