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.

Niiru wrote:

 Leth wrote:
Frag is 10 points because it replaces the power sword and bolter.

Power sword is irrelevant, as you have to pay extra for it anyway (its not included in the points of the squad).

Veteran is 20 points with a bolter. 23 with a power sword. 25 with a 10pt plasmagun. 30 with a 15pt frag cannon.

Unless (as I said before) plasmaguns are actually only 5pts for everyone now. In which case they're 25 for a 5pt plasmagun, and 30 with a 10 pt frag cannon. But that still makes frags worse, as they're double the cost of plasma/melta.

But the biker entry next to it says plasma is 10pt, which is the same as I thought it was in the new codex too.

Never said it was good, just clearing up the numbers. No idea where you are getting 15 points from.

Also double the cost is not an accurate presentation. 30 is not double of 25. Saying the cost of the weapon without the platform is going to lead to bad math/comparisons.

At 12.1 to 24 inches a frag Cannon is better than a plasma for the points. I believe it also is better at 12. Question is if the situations where it is better justify the 20% higher points. It is also better during assault doctrine which is during turns 3-5.

Until someone does the new math hammer I will withhold judgement on a final conclusion. Too many variables and I won’t be doing any math until I get marines in my xenos hunting hands.

No idea where you are getting 15 points from.

Maths. Explained earlier. Though it involves comparing relative values.

Essentially, plasma and melta guns are 10pts. Frag Cannons are 5 points more expensive than plasma and melta guns.

The actual issue is that GW have screwed up vet pricing. Either the body is 5 points cheaper than it should be, or the guns are 5 points cheaper than they should be.

(Eg. A meltagun vet is 25 points. That's a 10 point gun, which makes the body only 15 points.
A Frag vet is 30 points. Meaning a 15 point gun, on the same pseudo-"15 point" body.)

I would expect plasma and melta vets to end up being 30 points in the proper codex supplement. If Frag Vets remain at 30 points, then Frag may be useful. IF they go up to 35 points then I think they'll be too expensive.

Niiru wrote:

I would expect plasma and melta vets to end up being 30 points in the proper codex supplement. If Frag Vets remain at 30 points, then Frag may be useful. IF they go up to 35 points then I think they'll be too expensive.

Not without combi weapon vets going to 35 points, and that's a situation that TKOs any veteran build that isnt pure bolter and basic power weapon.

 Leth wrote:


At 12.1 to 24 inches a frag Cannon is better than a plasma for the points

It really isnt. The frag has a single purpose now (which it frankly does abjectly terribly): blob busting. As any kind of heavy infantry or vehicle hunter its abject garbage. The real comparison should be against the combi-flamer, which not only serves an identical purpose, but does it cheaper, and allows for melee upgrades or a shield.

 Leth wrote:

It is also better during assault doctrine which is during turns 3-5.

Incorrect. Assault doctrine imparts no benefit to the Frag Cannon as it is neither a Pistol or Melee type weapon.

Sterling191 wrote:
Not without combi weapon vets going to 35 points, and that's a situation that TKOs any veteran build that isnt pure bolter and basic power weapon.

Does it though? I mean it would be the same cost as any other space marine squad that carries a combi-weapon. Including chaos chosen.

Except that combi-weapons are normally just 10 points anyway, I can only assume GW are implying that an SIA boltgun is worth 5 points over a normal one? But that's not what they thought in 8th edition.

Sterling191 wrote:


It really isnt. The frag has a single purpose now (which it frankly does abjectly terribly): blob busting. As any kind of heavy infantry or vehicle hunter its abject garbage. The real comparison should be against the combi-flamer, which not only serves an identical purpose, but does it cheaper, and allows for melee upgrades or a shield.

I mean, the Frag is significantly better than a combi-flamer against most targets, especially T4 and T5 targets.

It also is better than plasma, especially at 12"+. It's basically a 2-shot plasmagun, that does 2-damage per wound without the risk of overloading. And overloading is now riskier than it used to be. Plasma is only better if you overload.

The issue is, of course, that the frag prevents you having a melee weapon. Not sure it's good -enough- to make up for that loss. But as i've said, people need to be writing this stuff to the rules team in the vague hope they'll reinstate some of the missing rules (like it going up to S9)

 Leth wrote:

It is also better during assault doctrine which is during turns 3-5.

Incorrect. Assault doctrine imparts no benefit to the Frag Cannon as it is neither a Pistol or Melee type weapon.

Easy mistake to make, considering the naming convention. Tactical doctrine though, which is active turns 2-3, would buff the frag (arguably the most important rounds in most games). It would also buff the plasma, but plasma going from -3 to -4 is mostly not a big deal, compared to going from -2 to -3.

I think the frag is close to being a choice. It may even be usable, if you can find a way to use it that means you aren't needing the chainsword in your other hand. It's losing the melee weapon that's the problem.

Unfortunately the same problem as the shotgun. Which I suspect is only the case because the only marine model that has a shotgun, carries it two-handed and so it falls under the "no model no rule" limitation.

Which is why deathwatch is likely to die off soon. All the interesting DW stuff doesn't have models, and so it wont get rules. Cassius is the only thing keeping it running, and it seems that'll be short lived.

Not sure what to change to though. DA maybe.

Niiru wrote:
I mean it would be the same cost as any other space marine squad that carries a combi-weapon. Including chaos chosen.

Incorrect. Non-DW combi weapons are 10 points apiece.

Niiru wrote:

I mean, the Frag is significantly better than a combi-flamer against most targets, especially T4 and T5 targets.

Again, incorrect. The Frag is not auto-hit anymore, is twice the cost of a combi-flamer, and doesnt come with SIA as an added bonus. The only defensive profile that the Frag is marginally better for is against T5 1W targets like some of the new Necrons, and those targets are what you're packing SIA for.

Niiru wrote:

It also is better than plasma, especially at 12"+. It's basically a 2-shot plasmagun, that does 2-damage per wound without the risk of overloading. And overloading is now riskier than it used to be. Plasma is only better if you overload.

No, it is not. S8 is a massive break point in the 40k wounding chart. And again, for every Frag you give to a Veteran, you can give two Veterans Plasma.

Frag cannons vs combiflamer/combiplasma pay for generalism.

A plasma is better for the points vs MEQ and Vehicles, but worse vs GEQ (even disregarding the potential 33% fire increase for full Blast if you do get that).

You also get range (24" full effect vs 12"), Assault type, and no gets hot. If you account for the 1/3 of a 25-pt plasma marine that you lose every time you fire an overcharged plas at MEQ or vehicles, the frag cannon is actually more efficient.

(Assuming 12" range:



The plas gives you a chainsword, which represents a significant melee boost now with AP-1 and +1A.

in general, because range isn't usually a problem with Veterans, and because in competitive settings it's usually better to take 2 specialized squads for opposite roles than 2 generalized squads, I think most will prefer the plasmas/combiflamers.

The plasma may only be strictly better *if* you are within 12" range and *if* you have a captain in range to make the gets hot drop from 30.5% to 5.5%, but as a player you can make that happen with your list setup, and 40k is very much a game where you execute your plan for the first two turns and then generally muddle through for the remainder of the game.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Combiflamer vs Frag is a bit easier to figure, since there's no risk and the range for the anti-infantry profile is the same.

Basically: Yeah, you pay for the ability to hurt MEQs and Tanks.

Combiflamer vs GEQ (+1 to wound ammo on the SIA bolter: 2.10 dead/25pts = 0.084

Frag vs GEQ (assuming 6+ blast, not 11+ blast): 1.9 dead/30pts = 0.063

Combiflamer vs Orks (+1 to wound ammo on the bolter) = 2.01 dead/25pts = 0.081

Frag vs Orks (assuming 11+ blast): 2.66 dead/30pts = 0.089

Combiflamer vs MEQ (+1D ammo on the bolter) = 0.913 wounds/25pts = 0.037

Frag Cannon vs MEQ (slug profile): 1.182 wounds/30pts = 0.039

Basically, if you're getting blast, or getting use out of the D2, the frag cannon does better for the points, if you're not getting blast or not benefitting from the AP (i.e. daemons) combiflamer is more efficient. Obviously range on the slug profile is also a thing that exists.

Frag has a distinct benefit of being very versatile. They have definitely been hurt bad compared to where they were and I would have preferred seeing that the frag version auto hit, even if a D6 shot weapon. 2D3 is better than D6 and Blast makes sure this is at least 3 shots vs 6-10 models, but a max of 6 shots is a huge nerf. The Strength and AP is good (especially in Tactical), especially vs T3 models. In that respect, it acts like a stormbolter using hellfire rounds (which I know is no longer a thing) more than a bolter with SIA.
The shell version is a slightly worse plasma weapon, but is great vs 2W units which are very prevalent and will not kill the user. If you compare directly with a combi-plasma at similar points, I think I'd prefer the frag, simply because the plasma is best when overcharged and that comes with a risk, and is less likely to hit if using both parts of the weapon (but at least won't kill you on 2s with the negative modifier).
This does leave the lack of secondary weapon. I'm not sure it's a big deal because a reasonable weapon is going to be an additional 3pts, raising the points even further on a unit that is already quite expensive. I will continue to use Frag on my units but will realize that it is an adjunct and in no way the weapon it used to be.

 bullyboy wrote:
I'm not sure it's a big deal because a reasonable weapon is going to be an additional 3pts, raising the points even further on a unit that is already quite expensive

I think you're markedly underselling the astartes chainsword. It turns a basic Vet's punching into the equivalent of a Storm Bolter with Kraken rounds, for free. Obviously i'd love to put LCs on them all the get that delicious full wound reroll, but losing the option to take the 0 point chainsword is a massive opportunity cost in my opinion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

Spoiler:

Combiflamer vs Frag is a bit easier to figure, since there's no risk and the range for the anti-infantry profile is the same.

Basically: Yeah, you pay for the ability to hurt MEQs and Tanks.

Combiflamer vs GEQ (+1 to wound ammo on the SIA bolter: 2.10 dead/25pts = 0.084

Frag vs GEQ (assuming 6+ blast, not 11+ blast): 1.9 dead/30pts = 0.063

Combiflamer vs Orks (+1 to wound ammo on the bolter) = 2.01 dead/25pts = 0.081

Frag vs Orks (assuming 11+ blast): 2.66 dead/30pts = 0.089

Combiflamer vs MEQ (+1D ammo on the bolter) = 0.913 wounds/25pts = 0.037

Frag Cannon vs MEQ (slug profile): 1.182 wounds/30pts = 0.039

Basically, if you're getting blast, or getting use out of the D2, the frag cannon does better for the points, if you're not getting blast or not benefitting from the AP (i.e. daemons) combiflamer is more efficient. Obviously range on the slug profile is also a thing that exists.

Genuine thanks for running and laying out the maths there. I dont want to get too derailed on this, but I think its pertinent to the points discussion: I really do think the individual weapons cost should be the point of consideration, not the cost of the platform. I think this way for one very specific reason: I'm bringing the Vet bodies anyway (at least until we get the supplement and a set of unfucked kill team rules).

The chainsword is significantly better than it used to be, but I'm not convinced that 1 additional attack at -1 breaks the frag cannon. Its a loss, but I probably have enough melee in the unit to not miss it. I certainly did before when fielding them.

Not to mention, the rule of cool will keep them in my list, along with the corvus, shotgun and infernus. I like distinct weapons, abd if not completely terrible, I can handle average just fine.

 bullyboy wrote:
The chainsword is significantly better than it used to be, but I'm not convinced that 1 additional attack at -1 breaks the frag cannon. Its a loss, but I probably have enough melee in the unit to not miss it. I certainly did before when fielding them.

Its not just one additional attack at -1 though. It upgrades all of a model's attacks, while also increasing the attack volume. The net effect is to nearly double the damage output against most defensive statlines.

 bullyboy wrote:

Not to mention, the rule of cool will keep them in my list, along with the corvus, shotgun and infernus. I like distinct weapons, abd if not completely terrible, I can handle average just fine.

That's an entirely fair approach to take.

I mean I definitely think they've got different roles.

If I'm going to be taking a unit that's say, a Proteus kill team with SB/Power Weapon terminators providing 11pt per wound t4 2+ 5++ profiles, and they're going to be midfield objective holders I'll probably consider Frag Cannons on some of the veterans at least, because they have 24" reach on the move.

What do you think about CML terminators at 53pts? As far as I can tell, because their datasheet is "up to 3 models can equip" and not "for every X models, Y can equip" the restriction from constructing kill teams actually doesn't apply, so you could have a proteus kill team with 5 SS vets and 5 CML terminators for 405pts.

4 Missile dev squads are 150, meaning it would cost in theory 366pts to get the same number of missile shots out of devastator squads, and your CML proteus team gets benefits in...preeeeeetty much every area as compared to them. 20 extra attacks with power swords when charged. 5 storm bolters and 5 SIA bolters. 5 models with terminator armor and 5 models with storm shields vs 10 otherwise unprotected MEQs.

the_scotsman wrote:
I
What do you think about CML terminators at 53pts?

They've got serious legs. Losing SIA hurts, but gaining a wound, upgrading the melee weapon, actually fixing their keyword mess so they can always benefit from Bolter Discipline, and becoming cheaper I think balances it out. The current (pre-Codex) cost for the configuration is 56 points. Im eyeballing a backfield kill team with two of them, plus or minus a pair of missile vets, that can potentially combat squad down depending on the map, as well as upgrading effectively every Terminator I slot into a Proteus team.

The upgrade to 2d6 shots in Frag profile is horrific against 11+ model units due to Blast.

Man, I REALLY hope that when DW gets a full codex that they don't just import all the garbage from the get-you-by list. I started DW as a conversion army, and it morphed into the army I take just to be cheeky. I have two different lists for 2000 points, one has 16 frag cannons backed up by cyclone terminators, the other is running and gunning vets with stormbolters backed up by 20 intercessors. Both lists are DOA now.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Man, I REALLY hope that when DW gets a full codex that they don't just import all the garbage from the get-you-by list. I started DW as a conversion army, and it morphed into the army I take just to be cheeky. I have two different lists for 2000 points, one has 16 frag cannons backed up by cyclone terminators, the other is running and gunning vets with stormbolters backed up by 20 intercessors. Both lists are DOA now.

Cyclone terminators are still ok I think.

And tbh I still think Frags aren't -bad-. S7 with two shots up to 24", and 2 damage per wound, still lets it compare to plasma (especially when you take into account the zero risk of insta-gibbing yourself). And the blast profile still has a use. Combi-flamer or combi-plasma may still be more efficient, but this is a single gun that can do both in a pinch. And you never could have a melee weapon with it anyway, so no loss there. Those 16 frag cannons also cost half as much now, so you have 160 points spare to spend on something to shore up the anti-tank weakness.

Stormbolters, I suspect, will be gone for good. DW don't have a stormbolter model for sale that I know of, and so that's it. It's gone. Same reason shotgunners don't get melee weapons anymore - the shotgun guy is carrying it two-handed. No model, no rules. Stupid as that is. But combi-bolters, SIA and bolter discipline help to soften that a bit. And intercessors are still fine (they just don't get SIA...)

I think the only changes that are even remotely likely, are intercessors gaining some kind of SIA access (I suspect they won't, but it's possible), and frags getting a small tweak in their rules (maybe auto-hitting getting returned, or maybe S9 within 12", but it won't get both).

Personally I'm still thinking of going in on frags + shotguns, cos it'll be different and might be fun. I'll have to back them up somehow with dedicated melee units, or run mixed squads, cos losing melee weapons is a pain... but there we are.

Deathwatch was the last bastion of conversion. I'm praying to the Dice Gods that that option remains, even if it doesn't get SIA.

I suspect that the things that got SIA in kill team Cassius will keep it, rest wont. I believe the rapid fire Intercessor weapon will get it, the rest won’t, and I a, fine with that.

Personally I am thinking we can make some MEAN bike lists give the infantry treatment as well as 5 man squads. ATVs will also be pretty powerful as our anti-tank units(especially if we can trans-human them). I personally am not a fan of eliminators in our lists, but I can see a unit of three or so being a so,I’d pick.

What are you guys buying to be your home objective holders? That is where I am thinking heavy intercessors might be good, but I have not played any games of 9th yet so insights would be helpful(almost at the point where I just set up a damn table in my living room).

If I could redo my DW army I'd go multiple units of intercessors (especially if they do end up getting SIA), add in 5 outriders, then combat squad them.

You end up with several units of Intercessors as fire support and Objective Secured holding objectives in the back field while you have 5-man units of Outriders with Objective Secured to run out and capture far away objectives.


Now, one thing I am wondering about is how the Terminators' homing beacon works. Can you take one of those in a veteran squad? If so it would be neat to run a fast unit (Outriders) up the field, then dump a large squad out near them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As a side note, it looks like one of my other gimmicky squads has survived the change, 10-man unit with Meltaguns and chainswords in a drop pod.

Due to the way GW have structured the keyword rules, the Teleport Homer will not function in a mixed Proteus Kill Team.

Im going to wait until I get my codex today to start assembling my lists. I spent some of yesterday re-configuring some of my unpainted vets (and taking SS off 2 stalker bolt dudes).
I don't expect the supplement will differ much from the Index, why would it? It is already printed and probably due out in a few weeks. It makes no sense to put out an index with fundamental differences.
I added to my regular bolter dudes and reduced my SB/SS guys, plus added a few other variations (sitting on 50+ vets) so will play around with points. I still need to see what will be my main AT platforms in new format. Currently is 2 las vendreads (will stay in for sure), a mini dev sqd (ML) and a las razorback (may switch to rhino to take my SS/SB dudes).

Sterling191 wrote:
Due to the way GW have structured the keyword rules, the Teleport Homer will not function in a mixed Proteus Kill Team.

To add to this, it doesn't work the same as before. The previous poster said about giving it to some outriders to run forward and get some terminators to drop on to it. But now it seems to ork by giving it to a terminator squad, and that then gives the squad the ability to relocate for free, either to your deployment zone or to within however many inches of any friendly units.

Don't know if this is standard equipment for marines these days? But even if you can't use it on a mixed team right now (this is something that may actually change, as it doesn't rely on models) it still seems decent to be able to teleport terminators around the board.

Leth wrote:I suspect that the things that got SIA in kill team Cassius will keep it, rest wont. I believe the rapid fire Intercessor weapon will get it, the rest won’t, and I a, fine with that.

cuda1179 wrote:If I could redo my DW army I'd go multiple units of intercessors (especially if they do end up getting SIA), add in 5 outriders, then combat squad them.

Just a note that Fortis teams are not intercessor squads - even if they do get SIA back they will not have the same damage potential as regular codex intercessors due to losing out on the rapid fire strat. If the supplement rules dont do much to change things up, gravis or phobos teams might be the only primaris with any meaningul difference to basic codex units.

**edit
For funnies - we could ally in codex intercessors (imperial fists maybe) and use them as a "proper" primaris kill team as they have better bolters (rapid fire, bolter drill etc).

Insularum wrote:

Leth wrote:I suspect that the things that got SIA in kill team Cassius will keep it, rest wont. I believe the rapid fire Intercessor weapon will get it, the rest won’t, and I a, fine with that.

cuda1179 wrote:If I could redo my DW army I'd go multiple units of intercessors (especially if they do end up getting SIA), add in 5 outriders, then combat squad them.

Just a note that Fortis teams are not intercessor squads - even if they do get SIA back they will not have the same damage potential as regular codex intercessors due to losing out on the rapid fire strat. If the supplement rules dont do much to change things up, gravis or phobos teams might be the only primaris with any meaningul difference to basic codex units.

**edit
For funnies - we could ally in codex intercessors (imperial fists maybe) and use them as a "proper" primaris kill team as they have better bolters (rapid fire, bolter drill etc).

Right, this is what I was thinking too. An army of DW intercessors and outriders is like any other non-DW space marine army, but without the doctrines and strats that make them effective.

Sure, you can take 15 obsec outriders instead of 9 non-obsec outriders, but if you played, for example, Salamanders, you would have 3 different ways to make your outriders obsec as needed, plus all the Salamander rules. You’re giving up a lot to get those 6 extra outriders and not getting much in return compared with codex chapters.

SIA is what makes Deathwatch more than just a generic space marine chapter with no doctrines.

Sterling191 wrote:
Due to the way GW have structured the keyword rules, the Teleport Homer will not function in a mixed Proteus Kill Team.

But the "Building a Kill Team"-rules explicitly say so.
"A model in a Kill Team unit retains any abilities that applied to that model on its original datasheet."

The rule for the Teleport Homer also is worded in a way, that you need a Terminator model in "a unit", not "a Terminator unit", for that ability to work.

I'm now looking at what AT to add to my DW. Some of the new tanks and speeders are super expensive, probably not worth it. Eradicators of course, but nothing new there. Same with ATV MM. I dont rate the firestrike turret at all. Probably stick with my melta platforms, MLs and melee. I do have a Pred leftover, but not sure if it will go with my DA or DW.

Right now, I think the two prime plays for AT (other than the oppressively obnoxious Eradicators) are CML terminators or dreadnoughts.

The former is nearly as points efficient as the Eradicator if you use the strat to count them as stationary (the chip damage from the storm bolter plus the 2+ save and the melee profile for 53 points is not to be underestimated IMO), while the inclusion of Duty Eternal for all Codex dread options is a terrifying prospect.

The Redemptor especially is one im keeping my eye on. 185 points fully kitted out in the plasma configuration is *very* tempting as an all aspect threat. Especially if you're contemplating more melee oriented kill teams.

Pyrosphere wrote:

Sterling191 wrote:
Due to the way GW have structured the keyword rules, the Teleport Homer will not function in a mixed Proteus Kill Team.

But the "Building a Kill Team"-rules explicitly say so.
"A model in a Kill Team unit retains any abilities that applied to that model on its original datasheet."

The rule for the Teleport Homer also is worded in a way, that you need a Terminator model in "a unit", not "a Terminator unit", for that ability to work.

Under the keywords section on the same page of that doc, mixed units do not retain any original keywords, but on the various team entries if there is exclusive squad membership certain keywords can return. So I guess the conflict is that a kill team terminator isn't a terminator unless it's a combat squad of 5 not-terminators - then it magically is again?

It's another example of how wolves and both types of angels got reasonably well thought out datasheet and ability updates to transition to the new codex with a selection of decent buffs and nerfs, while DW just had content deleted and enough rules included to function. As previously mentioned, hopefully this is temporary.

Insularum wrote:

Under the keywords section on the same page of that doc, mixed units do not retain any original keywords, but on the various team entries if there is exclusive squad membership certain keywords can return. So I guess the conflict is that a kill team terminator isn't a terminator unless it's a combat squad of 5 not-terminators - then it magically is again?

Correct. A Proteus Kill Team does not have the Terminator keyword unless it is comprised exclusively of Terminators. The teleport homer requires a model with the Terminator keyword to function.

Although I'm going to wait on the suppIement to fully decide on my Kill Teams, I'm thinking that this will be my current make up of the primaris (not spamming for combat squads, not my style).

Fortis...5 Auto bolt Intercessors with PF on sgt, 3 assault intercessors, 2 auto plasma hellblasters. No outriders here as I think they're not good unless you take the 5 as a combat squad. Not sure i would even Combat Squad this team.

Indomitor...5 Heavy Intercessors, 2 eradicators, 1 aggressor, 2 Inceptors. Not really an optimized team, it really comes down to what I have leftover from my other marine lists. This is one that might change the most when I see the supplement.

Spectrus...5 Infiltrators, 1 Incursor with HW mine, 1 Reiver, 3 Eliminators. I don't think 9 eliminators in my Ravenguard is worth it anymore, so I'll transport 3 over to the Deathwatch. Combat squad 3 Infils with incursor and reiver. Eliminators will join 2 infiltrators.

So much of this will be dictated by the codex, but I do have a lot of spare Primaris to allocate to Deathwatch.

Sterling191 wrote:

Insularum wrote:

Under the keywords section on the same page of that doc, mixed units do not retain any original keywords, but on the various team entries if there is exclusive squad membership certain keywords can return. So I guess the conflict is that a kill team terminator isn't a terminator unless it's a combat squad of 5 not-terminators - then it magically is again?

Correct. A Proteus Kill Team does not have the Terminator keyword unless it is comprised exclusively of Terminators. The teleport homer requires a model with the Terminator keyword to function.

But you still added a Terminator MODEL from the original Datatsheet because the Datasheet is called Terminator Squad.
I am talking about the act of adding it, not what Keyowords it has afterwards. The rule for the teleport home explicitly say model, not "model with keyword X".

In your Logic, if it's not a Terminator (despite that's the model's name), what is it instead then?
If you were right, the whole wording of that rule would be pointless because Terminator squads are the only Datasheet with that keyword. In that case they could have written "this unit" (as GW usually does) and didn't need to change the wording to "a unit" to be more generic compared to the usual way. But having GW changed it implies that it is intended to be working with more than one Datasheet

Pyrosphere wrote:


In your Logic, if it's not a Terminator (despite that's the model's name), what is it instead then?

First things first, it's not my logic. It's GW's explicit rules language regarding what it means to put a word or section in bold. Look at your BRB (I don't have it on hand to give you a page reference unfortunately), but there is a section dedicated entirely to defining what it means to use a keyword or a model or unit name. If memory serves it's near the beginning of the Core Rules section.

As to your question, it's a Deathwatch Terminator model with the Infantry, Core, Kill Team, Proteus keywords. The teleport homer ability keys off of the Terminator keyword. If it did not, it would not function for a standalone Deathwatch Terminator team as they are Deathwatch Terminators, not Terminators. Yes, GW's rules definitions are that pedantic.

The rule for the teleport home explicitly say model, not "model with keyword X".

Incorrect. The wording of the teleport homer ability is as follows:

"Once per battle, at the start of your Movement phase, if this unit contains a Terminator model, you can remove this unit from the battlefield and then, in the Reinforcements step of your next Movement phase, you can set this unit back up on the battlefield, anywhere wholly within your own deployment zone and more than 9" away from any enemy models, or anywhere within 3" of a friendly Deathwatch model and more than 9" away from any enemy models. If the battle ends and this unit is not on the battlefield, it is destroyed. If this unit has split into two units because of its Combat Squads ability, only one of those units can use the Deathwatch Teleport Homer abilit"

Per the 9th BRB, that is a keyword, not a model name. Otherwise you're going to need to explain what the "Deathwatch" model they're referencing later in the rule is (hint, it's not a model, it's another Keyword).

If you were right, the whole wording of that rule would be pointless because Terminator squads are the only Datasheet with that keyword. In that case they could have written "this unit" (as GW usually does) and didn't need to change the wording to "a unit" to be more generic compared to the usual way. But having GW changed it implies that it is intended to be working with more than one Datasheet

I am right, and the ability is in fact pointless as written when inherited by a mixed Proteus kill team. As are most of the abilities inherited by the kill teams in the current index for precisely the same reason. You cant use the Reiver strat on a Spectrus kill team because it doesnt inherit the correct keyword unless its comprised entirely of Reivers. You cannot use the Intercessor rapid fire strat on a Fortis kill team because it cannot under any circumstances gain the Intercessor Keyword.

And so on, and so forth. As I've said previously in the thread, the potential for a lot of combos are there, but are currently explicitly excluded because of rules nuance exceptions like this. Had GW proofed this index better, we'd have a significantly more functional army ruleset. But they didnt, and we dont.