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.

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
He's really not a fighty kind of guy. I mean, in his novel he spends the entirety of it running away from Kharn the Betrayer.

That said, how is it that the forgers of the Heavenfall Blades succeeded in making them so different? They should all be Str 6 AP 2 Fleshbane.

Instead, they parceled out Str 6 to Az , AP 2 to Sammael, and Fleshbane to Belial. And the Halberd's still superior...

True, but he still beat kharn in the end IIRC.

"Balance" we have "balanced" wargear. I was just looking forward to Azreal becoming a LoW and gaining ap2...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not to mention he didn't GET ETERNAL WARRIOR.


Feth you GW

Anyone else think its kinda cool that we can still make a unit of 10 man Gunslinger Company Veterans with Plasma/ Bolt pistols? Sergeants too for that matter.
Plus give them an IC with the new relic for blanket preferred enemy... Stupid, but funny

this book seems to have really screwed my army. It is more complicated to build and really no better in any recognizable way. At least the old book was straight-forward and crappy. (unless you play ravenwing) this book is confusingly crappy. Let's be real, no one plays DA for greenwing.


Yeahhhhh sorry to my future competitors but i am going to use the old book with the following revisions:
DWT squads -20 points (40 ppm)
Belial +1A
RW 2 specials per squad
Techmarine +1W
Mace of redemption AP3, Smite
DWKs Hammer of Wrath

We'll consider it unbound or something... i dont care

Do we know if the Attack Bike in a RW unit still must split off on it's own (like the old RW Combat Squad)?

Or was that removed?

Azrael is definitely overpriced. Just a way to get a 4+ invul for his unit and transport. I would never take him in an army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Do we know if the Attack Bike in a RW unit still must split off on it's own (like the old RW Combat Squad)?

Or was that removed?

it actually can't be split off unless the bike sqd is full strength.
see combat sqds on the leak docu

 bullyboy wrote:
Azrael is definitely overpriced. Just a way to get a 4+ invul for his unit and transport. I would never take him in an army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Do we know if the Attack Bike in a RW unit still must split off on it's own (like the old RW Combat Squad)?

Or was that removed?

it actually can't be split off unless the bike sqd is full strength.
see combat sqds on the leak docu

Okay... I just saw it... page 148. It splits it into THREE units! Two units of 3 bikes and the single attack bike.

Interesting... Not really that big of a dealio.

it's nice to have 3 bikes with 2 melta and the AB in one unit.

CrashGordon94 wrote:

Decision - THEM deciding that Unbound isn't valid.
And now, that's not my opinion, that's their decision! I personally wouldn't care about my opponent doing Unbound that much but I know that everyone hates it and has made that decision and I'm afraid of it being applied to myself and others. So stop saying it's my opinion, I'm not the one thinking that way, it's THEM!
But it doesn't matter, it's the people you call "jerks" who are making the decision rather than you or me, I can't stop them! They would just take it out on me if I tried!

...there is no THEM. There is no shadowy council of 40k Illuminati that puts down rules that you have to follow. You are the only one here saying Unbound requires physical violence. Multiple other people in this thread have said that Unbound is ok and that it's a good way to play a fluffy army that doesn't fit a CAD or Formation. There isn't anyone sitting behind you with a gun forcing you to not play Unbound or suffer the consequences.

So either you're trolling (poorly), or you're just looking for an excuse to make your "argument" sound more valid. Either way you're failing. Nothing you say, no imaginary group of people you can blame, can make Unbound illegal as a whole. It can be made illegal for an event, or with specific groups of people, but that doesn't make it globally banned or hated. A high percentage (possibly the majority) of people allow, play, or play against Unbound. The "Them" you want to blame for your own opinions doesn't exist.

Please stop.

 emperorscorpion wrote:
Anyone else think its kinda cool that we can still make a unit of 10 man Gunslinger Company Veterans with Plasma/ Bolt pistols? Sergeants too for that matter.
Plus give them an IC with the new relic for blanket preferred enemy... Stupid, but funny

We'll call them... the Cyphers!

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:

 emperorscorpion wrote:
Anyone else think its kinda cool that we can still make a unit of 10 man Gunslinger Company Veterans with Plasma/ Bolt pistols? Sergeants too for that matter.
Plus give them an IC with the new relic for blanket preferred enemy... Stupid, but funny

We'll call them... the Cyphers!

I don't understand this reference, who would you be referring to?

As a separate note, please refer to your local Interrogator-Chaplain for a completely unrelated questioning and/or mind wipe.

Requizen wrote:

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:

 emperorscorpion wrote:
Anyone else think its kinda cool that we can still make a unit of 10 man Gunslinger Company Veterans with Plasma/ Bolt pistols? Sergeants too for that matter.
Plus give them an IC with the new relic for blanket preferred enemy... Stupid, but funny

We'll call them... the Cyphers!

I don't understand this reference, who would you be referring to?

As a separate note, please refer to your local Interrogator-Chaplain for a completely unrelated questioning and/or mind wipe.

Cypher this weird guy in black armor wields two pistols, thus gaining the Gunslinger rule.

Edit: Lays head down on desk.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

Requizen wrote:

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:

 emperorscorpion wrote:
Anyone else think its kinda cool that we can still make a unit of 10 man Gunslinger Company Veterans with Plasma/ Bolt pistols? Sergeants too for that matter.
Plus give them an IC with the new relic for blanket preferred enemy... Stupid, but funny

We'll call them... the Cyphers!

I don't understand this reference, who would you be referring to?

As a separate note, please refer to your local Interrogator-Chaplain for a completely unrelated questioning and/or mind wipe.

Cypher wields two pistols, thus gaining the Gunslinger rule.

I think you missed that one...

Requizen wrote:

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:

 emperorscorpion wrote:
Anyone else think its kinda cool that we can still make a unit of 10 man Gunslinger Company Veterans with Plasma/ Bolt pistols? Sergeants too for that matter.
Plus give them an IC with the new relic for blanket preferred enemy... Stupid, but funny

We'll call them... the Cyphers!

I don't understand this reference, who would you be referring to?

As a separate note, please refer to your local Interrogator-Chaplain for a completely unrelated questioning and/or mind wipe.

What if I told you I am the Chaplains? Then who was hunt!

Talk about cypher, any info on his new book?
I'm confused on this one is he csm or dark angel. Is he usable by both? Seems a strange book to tack into the collectors edition

gungo wrote:
Talk about cypher, any info on his new book?

as long as it can be used with the dark angels codex

gungo wrote:
Talk about cypher, any info on his new book?
I'm confused on this one is he csm or dark angel. Is he usable by both? Seems a strange book to tack into the collectors edition

It's not a "new book"--it's his Dataslate, which is currently available. Same page counts and everything.

 Deuce11 wrote:
this book seems to have really screwed my army. It is more complicated to build and really no better in any recognizable way. At least the old book was straight-forward and crappy. (unless you play ravenwing) this book is confusingly crappy. Let's be real, no one plays DA for greenwing.


Yeahhhhh sorry to my future competitors but i am going to use the old book with the following revisions:
DWT squads -20 points (40 ppm)
Belial +1A
RW 2 specials per squad
Techmarine +1W
Mace of redemption AP3, Smite
DWKs Hammer of Wrath

We'll consider it unbound or something... i dont care

Can't you still use the CAD in the new codex? Why stick with the old one just because you have the option of formations now?

Requizen wrote:
...there is no THEM. There is no shadowy council of 40k Illuminati that puts down rules that you have to follow. You are the only one here saying Unbound requires physical violence. Multiple other people in this thread have said that Unbound is ok and that it's a good way to play a fluffy army that doesn't fit a CAD or Formation. There isn't anyone sitting behind you with a gun forcing you to not play Unbound or suffer the consequences.

So either you're trolling (poorly), or you're just looking for an excuse to make your "argument" sound more valid. Either way you're failing. Nothing you say, no imaginary group of people you can blame, can make Unbound illegal as a whole. It can be made illegal for an event, or with specific groups of people, but that doesn't make it globally banned or hated. A high percentage (possibly the majority) of people allow, play, or play against Unbound. The "Them" you want to blame for your own opinions doesn't exist.

Please stop.

I'm not trolling and I already told you these are not MY views (so please stop saying they are), it legitimately always came across that way whenever it came up, everyone always banning it.
If not, that's fine, but that doesn't make it my view, if you want to say that I was misinterpreting others' thoughts that's fine but it;s absolutely not my opinion in any way, it's what I thought others were saying and doing.
In any case, suggesting that people use an option that could just be banned isn't really a good idea, they'd be screwed in such a place whereas stuff like CADs would universally accepted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 zgort wrote:
Can't you still use the CAD in the new codex? Why stick with the old one just because you have the option of formations now?

Probably not without Azrael/Belial/Sammael's switching, that was removed.

It doesn't matter if some people ban Unbound. Some people ban formations. Some people ban Lords of War. Some people ban Named Characters, or vehicles with AV over 12. Don't play your game based on what some people ban, and don't tell others to do it either.

Requizen wrote:
It doesn't matter if some people ban Unbound. Some people ban formations. Some people ban Lords of War. Some people ban Named Characters, or vehicles with AV over 12. Don't play your game based on what some people ban, and don't tell others to do it either.

Except he's not. He said what he was going to play, not that everyone else should play it that way. So far you've been the one telling people how they should play and that they should shut up for complaining that options which were present in the previous book were removed which made their army incompatible with the new rules.

And really if nobody in his area wants to play unbound then he either has to play based on that ban or not play at all.

So are you saying that he just shouldn't play at all because GW made needless changes?

Stop arguing with rezquim crash, dude don't listen and your wasting your time.

I see what your saying as I have experienced it too, if 80% of the people refuse to play unbound and 20% are cool with it, then it's not viable, rulebook or not, it's one of those situations where a few people have given it a bad name and the majority who want to try it get told no due to that.

Here's the thing though crash, if you speak to your local gaming group and explain the issue, they will most likely allow it with no issues at all, as it is quite frankly stupid that generic hq's with the relevant POINTED upgrades can't take this or that as troops.

Expect the same with chaos, khorne lord, take the khorne detachment, otherwise bezerkers are elites, btw they are now 28pts each with a chainaxe, I bet you this will happen.

CrashGordon94 wrote:

Probably not without Azrael/Belial/Sammael's switching, that was removed.

Ah, didn't think of that. Still - seems strange to cherry pick the favorite rules. As an opponent I think I'd prefer if I was fighting 6E or 7E, not 6E with parts I like of 7E.

 Deuce11 wrote:
this book seems to have really screwed my army. It is more complicated to build and really no better in any recognizable way. At least the old book was straight-forward and crappy. (unless you play ravenwing) this book is confusingly crappy. Let's be real, no one plays DA for greenwing.


Yeahhhhh sorry to my future competitors but i am going to use the old book with the following revisions:
DWT squads -20 points (40 ppm)
Belial +1A
RW 2 specials per squad
Techmarine +1W
Mace of redemption AP3, Smite
DWKs Hammer of Wrath

We'll consider it unbound or something... i dont care

Well good luck with playing DA as a homebrew chapter from now on - snapping up all buffs from the new codex while taking everything that was removed/nerfed back from 6th ed is really cute and people will totally let you play that. /s

Seriously - just play fething Unbound. That's not even nearly as cheesy - even WITHOUT taking a look at your actual army lists - as your cherry-picking from both codexes. Why not go all-out and add some rules from other codexes as well, how about replacing your bolters with Rail Guns and some sweet Necron reassembly for your Dreamwing? Jesus.



And to people whining about "But people don't accept unbound" - how about explaining your list to them? I really don't see why people would object to you bringing a list that isn't cheesy. Unbound has such a bad rep because too many people think everyone that uses Unbound just wants to cheese it - Show them your list, tell them WHY you want to go unbound, stay calm and reasonable while explaining it. Don't go "bla fething GW fethed me over so now i want to play this Unbound stuff and you probably will call me a cheater for doing so" on them, tell them you want to play a composition that you really like which isn't overpowered.
Once you find one or two guys that let you play Unbound and you show them that it really isn't hidden cheese or whatever, people will take notice of that and start making less noise about >your< Unbound armies - as long as you don't start with the cheese.

Come on mods... lock it up here. Any discussions about Dark Angels can go elsewhere.

 raiden wrote:

Not to mention he didn't GET ETERNAL WARRIOR.

This confuses me, because Uncle Sam had it. Why does 2nd Company Master get to wear eternal warrior cape, instead of Chapter Master? He should be loaning to Azzy.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Except he's not. He said what he was going to play, not that everyone else should play it that way. So far you've been the one telling people how they should play and that they should shut up for complaining that options which were present in the previous book were removed which made their army incompatible with the new rules.

And really if nobody in his area wants to play unbound then he either has to play based on that ban or not play at all.

So are you saying that he just shouldn't play at all because GW made needless changes?

Would you mind going back and reading the posts?

This is how the conversation went:

"I can't run my models like I used to with the FOC change!"
"Yeah, it sucks, but you can either buy some Troops or play Unbound."
"I don't want to buy Troops, I don't want anything to change."
"Then play Unbound. It's right there in the BRB."
"Unbound is cheating garbage."
"It's not, it's literally in the rules."
"Everyone who plays Unbound is the same as bringing all Baneblades."
"It's not, it's a fluffy list that happens to not fit into a CAD or Formation."
"If you play Unbound, people will hurt you and break your models."
"No, plenty of people play Unbound."
"You can't just tell people to play Unbound, what if someone doesn't like it?"
"Tough, that's their decision and not part of the game."
"Unbound is illegal."

Do you see where the frustration may come from? Unbound is not illegal. It's not cheesy. It's not threaten-worthy. It's literally just another way to build a list. Telling people anything otherwise is misleading.

Do some groups frown on it or ban it? Yes. But that doesn't make it any less a part of the game. Telling people that they're going to get beaten up and screamed at is just something else.

Thank you for understanding Malus, it really means a lot.

Formosa, you're probably right, mostly lately I was getting locked in by how he was saying it was MY view when it was what I saw OTHERS do... But really there isn't a whole lot I can do about it.
I'm probably gonna need to adapt to the new Formations (Don't really have one central community I'd be aiming for. For other stuff would be playing with two particular guys who'd be reasonable and I'd be reasonable back, or at GW itself where they probably wouldn't listen at all so not sure staying with the old setup would be feasible), just feel upset about having to.

zgort wrote:Ah, didn't think of that. Still - seems strange to cherry pick the favorite rules. As an opponent I think I'd prefer if I was fighting 6E or 7E, not 6E with parts I like of 7E.

Yeah, that's an odd solution. I could understand mild stuff like "I'd like to play 7E, but with FOC-swapping put back in", clear that up and I'm sure that reasonable people would be reasonable about it.
That however... That would be quite a longshot! At that point one might as well try and talk the opponent in allowing full homebrew rules.

the simplest solution would be to adapt to the new codex. I'm sure most other people will be tweaking their lists a little too....getting a couple extra landspeeders for the support squadron etc. You never know, you may enjoy how the new force plays...and let's face it...it will be new, so kind of fun.
Just have to get past the zero deployment conundrum.

 Deuce11 wrote:
Let's be real, no one plays DA for greenwing.

Your argument is invalid. I started Dark Angels with Greenwing by building the 5th company (only missing some vets with grav, dedicated transport and maybe another dread to be fully completed). It was before I even played with a single Bike or Terminator. So please rephrase with "not everyone play Dark Angels for Greenwing."

Nice army, Watcher