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.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Why are people discussing whether DW should be a full faction or not in a PA topic again?

Branching paths of discussion within a thread looking at future content for the faction.

Keep up, old chap.

 Kanluwen wrote:
I must have missed Reivers having Omni-Scramblers, Marksman Bolt Carbines, Smoke Grenades, Infiltrator Comms-Arrays? Must have missed them having Occulus Bolt Carbines and Haywire Mines as well!

But I really must have missed them being a Troops option instead of an Elite?

What exactly is the difference between that particular suite of equipment getting access to SIA and, I don't know, storm bolters? Does the special rule from the occulus bolt carbine seriously equal DOUBLE the shots a normal bolter gets? And couldn't you also say the same thing for snazzbang grenades, batman grapple thingies, and halloween spooktacular masks (Sorry, I don't know the stupid-ass GW official names for all the primaris special snowflake junk)

Deathwatch units are uniformly more expensive, and they benefit from the SIA rule. That's always been their shtick, and shockingly, it has consistently made them the WORST marine subfaction in competitive play. they have ALWAYS had close to the worst winrate, below even GK for the longest time. how the heck is giving a bunch of units that everyone was cool with 65% WR Iron Hands having and not even using in competitive lists, but somehow it'd be OP if 40something percent winrate DW uses it?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Sterling191 wrote:
You are mistaken. The DW upgrade sprue has components for vehicles on it. Components that fit perfectly fine on all the Primaris vehicles I might add.

So we've gone from disingenuous to outright moving the goalposts.

You said shoulder pads. Now you're talking about icon/bits.

I Said "shoulder pads", with exaggerated quotations. You're the one deliberately moving the goalposts here.

But nice to know you have no actual argument as to why the Impulsor and Invictor shouldnt be accessible to Deathwatch players, and instead are just interested in having a semantic tantrum.

 bullyboy wrote:
he's not wrong....Deathwatch should practically be a singular kill team in a corvus, but alas, that is not what we have. Once the cat is out of the bag, it's hard to put it back in.
This is not a viewpoint of a DW hater either, i have quite a sizeable force (over 60 vets, not counting VVs, bikers or terms).

Then we had Primaris added, with a Fortis kill team. As soon as the vanguard is available in separate kits, I expect we'll get a Vanguard one too.

If I could add a single kill team to my inquisition, I'd gladly do that. But until GW gives me rules (Say, the Ordo Xenos keyword on the fething deathwatch, militant arm of the ordo xenos?) that allow me to do that, I literally cannot and I will continue to run my DW as a battalion with the terminator captain and librarian from Space Hulk as the HQs.

I agree that it does feel kind of excessive. I'd prefer to run them just one kill team popping out of a teleportarium or dropping in in a drop pod.

the_scotsman wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
he's not wrong....Deathwatch should practically be a singular kill team in a corvus, but alas, that is not what we have. Once the cat is out of the bag, it's hard to put it back in.
This is not a viewpoint of a DW hater either, i have quite a sizeable force (over 60 vets, not counting VVs, bikers or terms).

Then we had Primaris added, with a Fortis kill team. As soon as the vanguard is available in separate kits, I expect we'll get a Vanguard one too.

If I could add a single kill team to my inquisition, I'd gladly do that. But until GW gives me rules (Say, the Ordo Xenos keyword on the fething deathwatch, militant arm of the ordo xenos?) that allow me to do that, I literally cannot and I will continue to run my DW as a battalion with the terminator captain and librarian from Space Hulk as the HQs.

I agree that it does feel kind of excessive. I'd prefer to run them just one kill team popping out of a teleportarium or dropping in in a drop pod.

I honestly think the Imperial agents was just ahead of its time. It definitely has a place in 8th with random ad-hoc detachments or units that thematically make sense as allies, ideally with a way to balance out losing mono-faction bonuses as it's based around inquisitorial detachments.

Dudeface wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
he's not wrong....Deathwatch should practically be a singular kill team in a corvus, but alas, that is not what we have. Once the cat is out of the bag, it's hard to put it back in.
This is not a viewpoint of a DW hater either, i have quite a sizeable force (over 60 vets, not counting VVs, bikers or terms).

Then we had Primaris added, with a Fortis kill team. As soon as the vanguard is available in separate kits, I expect we'll get a Vanguard one too.

If I could add a single kill team to my inquisition, I'd gladly do that. But until GW gives me rules (Say, the Ordo Xenos keyword on the fething deathwatch, militant arm of the ordo xenos?) that allow me to do that, I literally cannot and I will continue to run my DW as a battalion with the terminator captain and librarian from Space Hulk as the HQs.

I agree that it does feel kind of excessive. I'd prefer to run them just one kill team popping out of a teleportarium or dropping in in a drop pod.

I honestly think the Imperial agents was just ahead of its time. It definitely has a place in 8th with random ad-hoc detachments or units that thematically make sense as allies, ideally with a way to balance out losing mono-faction bonuses as it's based around inquisitorial detachments.

This over and over. Same for 1x Grey Knight terminator squad, or legion of the dammed...

Heck, 1x Ork Kommandos unit in an imperial guard army like they use to be able too. Hardly any huge benefit out of it gaming wise but it would bring back narrative fun without gacking yourself.

The balance needs to be found where you can do cool, fluffy things without it harming your army so much it gets rolled over by anything, and not giving you a crazy power spike. I don't think any of the above would do that.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
he's not wrong....Deathwatch should practically be a singular kill team in a corvus, but alas, that is not what we have. Once the cat is out of the bag, it's hard to put it back in.
This is not a viewpoint of a DW hater either, i have quite a sizeable force (over 60 vets, not counting VVs, bikers or terms).

Then we had Primaris added, with a Fortis kill team. As soon as the vanguard is available in separate kits, I expect we'll get a Vanguard one too.

If I could add a single kill team to my inquisition, I'd gladly do that. But until GW gives me rules (Say, the Ordo Xenos keyword on the fething deathwatch, militant arm of the ordo xenos?) that allow me to do that, I literally cannot and I will continue to run my DW as a battalion with the terminator captain and librarian from Space Hulk as the HQs.

I agree that it does feel kind of excessive. I'd prefer to run them just one kill team popping out of a teleportarium or dropping in in a drop pod.

I honestly think the Imperial agents was just ahead of its time. It definitely has a place in 8th with random ad-hoc detachments or units that thematically make sense as allies, ideally with a way to balance out losing mono-faction bonuses as it's based around inquisitorial detachments.

This over and over. Same for 1x Grey Knight terminator squad, or legion of the dammed...

Heck, 1x Ork Kommandos unit in an imperial guard army like they use to be able too. Hardly any huge benefit out of it gaming wise but it would bring back narrative fun without gacking yourself.

The balance needs to be found where you can do cool, fluffy things without it harming your army so much it gets rolled over by anything, and not giving you a crazy power spike. I don't think any of the above would do that.

The thing is, you don't need GW to do that, just have a conversation with your friends/opponents. People getting really stuck in the strict Matched Play element of the game sucks the life out of the setting sometimes. There is already too much bloat in Matched Play, it needs to be streamlined, not expanded. Instead, people should play more narrative style games using Matched Play points...would probably have a lot more fun. Then you could have that kommando unit in your Guard, or add a kill team to your army without losing all the bonuses. It wouldn't be about finding the best combo possible...leave that for competitive, but finding the storyline that drives the game.

Except for pickup games, which are extremely common, that doesn't work. In a game as expensive as this, you shouldn't have to talk to your opponent because GW is incapable of doing things correctly. If the game can't work as pickup, you can't get new people to play, simple as that.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
he's not wrong....Deathwatch should practically be a singular kill team in a corvus, but alas, that is not what we have. Once the cat is out of the bag, it's hard to put it back in.
This is not a viewpoint of a DW hater either, i have quite a sizeable force (over 60 vets, not counting VVs, bikers or terms).

Then we had Primaris added, with a Fortis kill team. As soon as the vanguard is available in separate kits, I expect we'll get a Vanguard one too.

If I could add a single kill team to my inquisition, I'd gladly do that. But until GW gives me rules (Say, the Ordo Xenos keyword on the fething deathwatch, militant arm of the ordo xenos?) that allow me to do that, I literally cannot and I will continue to run my DW as a battalion with the terminator captain and librarian from Space Hulk as the HQs.

I agree that it does feel kind of excessive. I'd prefer to run them just one kill team popping out of a teleportarium or dropping in in a drop pod.

I honestly think the Imperial agents was just ahead of its time. It definitely has a place in 8th with random ad-hoc detachments or units that thematically make sense as allies, ideally with a way to balance out losing mono-faction bonuses as it's based around inquisitorial detachments.

This over and over. Same for 1x Grey Knight terminator squad, or legion of the dammed...

Heck, 1x Ork Kommandos unit in an imperial guard army like they use to be able too. Hardly any huge benefit out of it gaming wise but it would bring back narrative fun without gacking yourself.

The balance needs to be found where you can do cool, fluffy things without it harming your army so much it gets rolled over by anything, and not giving you a crazy power spike. I don't think any of the above would do that.

While true, I almost always just talk to my opponent when I play my crazy Imperial Oddballs list, and I've almost never not had them say "wow, that sounds sweet, let's do it."

My ordo xenos army has rolled into battle with:

-Deathwatch
-Admech (often using my own custom 8th ed rules for my 30k admech robots)
-Assassins
-Tempestus
-Rogue Traders
-Necromunda gangers as Acolytes
-Drukhari, often Court of the Archon characters
-Ork Freebootas
-Harlequins
-Eldar Rangers and Corsairs
-Knights
-Rebel Grots
-Genestealers (which I'll usually bring with a munitorum armored container and deploy them as if the inquisitor just ordered it airdropped onto the battlefield)

It's rare that I play them and don't have at least 5 factions on the table.

 Dysartes wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Why are people discussing whether DW should be a full faction or not in a PA topic again?

Branching paths of discussion within a thread looking at future content for the faction.

Keep up, old chap.

There is that, not to mention he could just hit the Yellow Triangle and report the (Alleged) Off-Topic Post, rather then break yet another Irony Meter by commenting about off-topic posts by posting...an off-topic post?

GW has 'set the precedent (sort of) in terms of Deathwatch being an 'army' in terms of a game of 40K.

Relegating them to WD seems a bit unfair, but I think we'll have to wait and see what actually happens and what it ends up looking like.

I still think there's a chance they show up here - or whatever book the Necrons show up in.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Except for pickup games, which are extremely common, that doesn't work. In a game as expensive as this, you shouldn't have to talk to your opponent because GW is incapable of doing things correctly. If the game can't work as pickup, you can't get new people to play, simple as that.

In a surprising turn of events, I fully agree with this. If it's at a tournament (I don't play competitive so this isn't me) it shouldn't require me to spend time discussing with my opponent being able to do something that in terms of the background of the game I SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO, without an explanation. Yeah, a kommando unit isn't going to turn a guard army into a top tier army, and players looking to win the tournament won't use it, but guys and girls looking to just have some fun and add a bit of character to an army for the craic, it shouldn't require a negotiation.

I still stand by the the worse thing that happened to DW, GK and legion of the dammed I suppose, is that they were fleshed out into a full army. They should only be single squads attache to armies. That's just my opinion though and I know some will not agree, and after building an army of them, I sympathise, but I just don't like them being a full army.

I'm hoping, the WD rules for DW allow what I'm asking above...

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Except for pickup games, which are extremely common, that doesn't work. In a game as expensive as this, you shouldn't have to talk to your opponent because GW is incapable of doing things correctly. If the game can't work as pickup, you can't get new people to play, simple as that.

I mean, there hasn't really been a "pickup game" where I play in years. We set up games the week in advance through a forum system, we don't just turn up at a club with however many points of models and just hope there's someone else there looking to spend 4 hours playing the same style of game we want to play at the same points value.

This game system supports playing with a number of miniatures between 3 and 1,000. At this point it's a bit of a wide target to try and hit for Pickup play.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Except for pickup games, which are extremely common, that doesn't work. In a game as expensive as this, you shouldn't have to talk to your opponent because GW is incapable of doing things correctly. If the game can't work as pickup, you can't get new people to play, simple as that.

But it does work just fine. Pickup play and tournaments can keep their strict rules and Matched Play points and survive just fine. The problem is, so many people have no clue that they don't have to play this way, it's kinda sad really.

This game works really well when you look at some of the narrative missions, make slight modifications etc. You just have to find like minded individuals to try it. Of course, doesn't work for a casual pickup game...but that's fine too. I think GW should keep the lists stricter for these occasions (ie stop the bloat) and allow narrative options to play as represented in some of the lore. That's why I get tired of people always saying this unit is garbage, no one ever plays that, etc. No, wrong....everyone does not always play "competitive" and those units work just fine in other games. There is a hybrid between narrative and matched play, where you still use points, but you relax some of the stricter aspects to enhance the narrative aspect of the game. It's just so hard for people to accept that this type of play is possible. It's really strange.

Except if those garbage units aren't fixed, they don't work even in a casual setting. Some armies have extremely better "casual" lists than other armies.

 bullyboy wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Except for pickup games, which are extremely common, that doesn't work. In a game as expensive as this, you shouldn't have to talk to your opponent because GW is incapable of doing things correctly. If the game can't work as pickup, you can't get new people to play, simple as that.

But it does work just fine. Pickup play and tournaments can keep their strict rules and Matched Play points and survive just fine. The problem is, so many people have no clue that they don't have to play this way, it's kinda sad really.

This game works really well when you look at some of the narrative missions, make slight modifications etc. You just have to find like minded individuals to try it. Of course, doesn't work for a casual pickup game...but that's fine too. I think GW should keep the lists stricter for these occasions (ie stop the bloat) and allow narrative options to play as represented in some of the lore. That's why I get tired of people always saying this unit is garbage, no one ever plays that, etc. No, wrong....everyone does not always play "competitive" and those units work just fine in other games. There is a hybrid between narrative and matched play, where you still use points, but you relax some of the stricter aspects to enhance the narrative aspect of the game. It's just so hard for people to accept that this type of play is possible. It's really strange.

bingo but apparently some players, the thought of spending 5 minutes talking about the game before is repugnant to them.

The principle is there shouldn't be a NEED for discussion about whether or not your opponent or you should use certain units. That's defending GWs incompetence by saying "do the balancing for them". That's as bad as the "forge the narrative" garbage they were pushing.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Except if those garbage units aren't fixed, they don't work even in a casual setting. Some armies have extremely better "casual" lists than other armies.

That's not true at all, you just aren't playing casual, at least admit it. I used assault marines fairly recently, did quite well actually. Guess what, the other side had casual units too, the door can swing both ways.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The principle is there shouldn't be a NEED for discussion about whether or not your opponent or you should use certain units. That's defending GWs incompetence by saying "do the balancing for them". That's as bad as the "forge the narrative" garbage they were pushing.

Of course there should. There are too many possibilities in this system to have everything infinitely balanced. TO's should start limiting what they allow in tournaments list wise to create a better standard of balance. However, GW does not need to fix this across the board....TOs do.

it's not a "need"
it's a perfectly reasonable thing everyone should do before playing.

Now for a tournament, campaign, etc... the organizer sets specific rules/limitation and everyone agrees to play by the exact same guidelines.

A pick up game has a wide variation in expectations, so as previously stated spending 5 mins out of a 3-3.5hr game discussing the game is exactly how GW plays the game(& writes rules for).

If you're spending money on something with rules you dont like, it boggles the mind why you would waste so much time & money on it.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
That's as bad as the "forge the narrative" garbage they were pushing.

Ah yes, encouraging people to be creative and friendly while engaging with their hobby in a way which brings them enjoyment.

How degenerate.

Racerguy180 wrote:
it's not a "need"
it's a perfectly reasonable thing everyone should do before playing.

Now for a tournament, campaign, etc... the organizer sets specific rules/limitation and everyone agrees to play by the exact same guidelines.

A pick up game has a wide variation in expectations, so as previously stated spending 5 mins out of a 3-3.5hr game discussing the game is exactly how GW plays the game(& writes rules for).

If you're spending money on something with rules you dont like, it boggles the mind why you would waste so much time & money on it.

I think the idea is if everyone confirms to within the rules then its a nice to have rather than a must. I agree its always better to have a chat with your opponent beforehand, but homebred content or random cross army allies etc. Isn't a minor alteration to how a match pointed game is intended.

the_scotsman wrote:

Deathwatch units are uniformly more expensive, and they benefit from the SIA rule. That's always been their shtick, and shockingly, it has consistently made them the WORST marine subfaction in competitive play. they have ALWAYS had close to the worst winrate, below even GK for the longest time. how the heck is giving a bunch of units that everyone was cool with 65% WR Iron Hands having and not even using in competitive lists, but somehow it'd be OP if 40something percent winrate DW uses it?

Not true. They've been one of the more useable marine subfactions for most of 8th when marines as a model type were pretty terrible otherwise. Storm Bolter/Shield marines are a pretty decent value right up until all marines got SIA without having to pay for it plus bonus rules on top of that (and bonus rules on top of that).

 LunarSol wrote:
Rules without having to pay for it plus bonus rules on top of that (and bonus rules on top of that).

Where 8th lost it's way. Paint unlocking rules that aren't accounted for in the points cost. With Pandora's box open now I can't see them going back either. I guess there's a chance that subfactions get points in 9th but that seems like a huge undertaking.

 Eldarain wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
Rules without having to pay for it plus bonus rules on top of that (and bonus rules on top of that).

Where 8th lost it's way. Paint unlocking rules that aren't accounted for in the points cost. With Pandora's box open now I can't see them going back either. I guess there's a chance that subfactions get points in 9th but that seems like a huge undertaking.

Subfactions don't need point costs, they need to be equal. Word Bearers as is are a joke, even if you added points to everyone else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 bullyboy wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Except if those garbage units aren't fixed, they don't work even in a casual setting. Some armies have extremely better "casual" lists than other armies.

That's not true at all, you just aren't playing casual, at least admit it. I used assault marines fairly recently, did quite well actually. Guess what, the other side had casual units too, the door can swing both ways.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The principle is there shouldn't be a NEED for discussion about whether or not your opponent or you should use certain units. That's defending GWs incompetence by saying "do the balancing for them". That's as bad as the "forge the narrative" garbage they were pushing.

Of course there should. There are too many possibilities in this system to have everything infinitely balanced. TO's should start limiting what they allow in tournaments list wise to create a better standard of balance. However, GW does not need to fix this across the board....TOs do.

Oh look, the "too hard to balance" argument. They aren't even trying, dude. Also your dumb anecdotes don't help. I've seen casual games where Assault Marines did bad as they do in more competitive games. What's your point? You don't have one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 bullyboy wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Except for pickup games, which are extremely common, that doesn't work. In a game as expensive as this, you shouldn't have to talk to your opponent because GW is incapable of doing things correctly. If the game can't work as pickup, you can't get new people to play, simple as that.

But it does work just fine. Pickup play and tournaments can keep their strict rules and Matched Play points and survive just fine. The problem is, so many people have no clue that they don't have to play this way, it's kinda sad really.

This game works really well when you look at some of the narrative missions, make slight modifications etc. You just have to find like minded individuals to try it. Of course, doesn't work for a casual pickup game...but that's fine too. I think GW should keep the lists stricter for these occasions (ie stop the bloat) and allow narrative options to play as represented in some of the lore. That's why I get tired of people always saying this unit is garbage, no one ever plays that, etc. No, wrong....everyone does not always play "competitive" and those units work just fine in other games. There is a hybrid between narrative and matched play, where you still use points, but you relax some of the stricter aspects to enhance the narrative aspect of the game. It's just so hard for people to accept that this type of play is possible. It's really strange.

Oh look you're telling us to do GWs job for them. I'm not shocked you're doing this based on the constant white knight stuff you post.

hahaha, such a crock of crap. I bitch about GW as much as anyone, but there are some that make it their full time job.
8th is as good as it's been in a long while for 40k, the bloat has just been a little excessive after SM 2.0 hit.

Not sure why you are against anecdotes, that is the player's experience. We're not trying to balance a system for competitive play, my whole point. people like yourself just can't fathom the concept. You always complain and moan about marines needing to be consolidated, great...do it for competitive play, but there is absolutely zero reason why narrative play needs your crappy idea of what this game should be.

Honestly, I had you on mute for so long, probably time to go back in the box as your contribution is as toxic as ever.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The principle is there shouldn't be a NEED for discussion about whether or not your opponent or you should use certain units. That's defending GWs incompetence by saying "do the balancing for them". That's as bad as the "forge the narrative" garbage they were pushing.

I mean, even in far more balanced games you generally have units available to some factions and not others. I would assume if I wanted to bring a unit from another army in a perfectly balanced wargame to represent mercenaries or some other unit that exists in narrative but not on the table, I'd have to talk to my opponent as well...

the_scotsman wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The principle is there shouldn't be a NEED for discussion about whether or not your opponent or you should use certain units. That's defending GWs incompetence by saying "do the balancing for them". That's as bad as the "forge the narrative" garbage they were pushing.

I mean, even in far more balanced games you generally have units available to some factions and not others. I would assume if I wanted to bring a unit from another army in a perfectly balanced wargame to represent mercenaries or some other unit that exists in narrative but not on the table, I'd have to talk to my opponent as well...

I would actuly really like to see GW Expand under there attempt to to push narrative, there is a fair few lists that i could not see Balanced unless GW was willing to put in the effort (which sadly i do not think they are for a lot of things) That would work under narrative giving power to players discussion, and to do that kind of play.

Apple fox wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The principle is there shouldn't be a NEED for discussion about whether or not your opponent or you should use certain units. That's defending GWs incompetence by saying "do the balancing for them". That's as bad as the "forge the narrative" garbage they were pushing.

I mean, even in far more balanced games you generally have units available to some factions and not others. I would assume if I wanted to bring a unit from another army in a perfectly balanced wargame to represent mercenaries or some other unit that exists in narrative but not on the table, I'd have to talk to my opponent as well...

I would actuly really like to see GW Expand under there attempt to to push narrative, there is a fair few lists that i could not see Balanced unless GW was willing to put in the effort (which sadly i do not think they are for a lot of things) That would work under narrative giving power to players discussion, and to do that kind of play.

Honestly, and I know this always gets me a lot of gak, I have had a far easier time balancing the kind of ridiculous, throw everything in there and play towards a custom goal type lists against each other than I have games where both me and my opponent try to bring the best most synergistic list possible and play a competitive tournament scenario. I think it's just the relative deadliness between a competitively optimized list and a list that's just a mix of everything.

When I play my competitive Drukhari list, absolutely everything in the list attacks at full power turn 1. All my shooting units are within rapid range, all my assault units can advance and charge and get in turn 1 and if not turn 2, all my flyers are just immediately within range, and when I play my goofy eldar storm guardian list I've got much less that's up and murdering immediately. It just tends to result in games that are less decided by who gets first turn, less decided by list matchup, and are more fun for both parties.

Take this OT tangent elsewhere.

Deathwatch Preview Article posted

The Imperium’s Elite

This update brings the Deathwatch in line with the rest of their Adeptus Astartes brothers. They gain the Angels of Death suite of abilities, including Shock Assault, Bolter Discipline and Combat Doctrines.

Gaining Combat Doctrines is a big win for the Deathwatch – especially with the additional AP that each of the doctrines gives to various weapons. Coupled with special issue ammunition, this tactical flexibility makes your Deathwatch fearsome opponents indeed. This is only enhanced by their new Stratagems, which are the same ones gained by other Chapters, putting the Deathwatch on par with the rest of their brethren.

Opps, you beat me to it, Ninja.