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.

It is a problem when the codex you base your sub faction counts as army doesn't support a valid army of your type.

When DA lists are all about RW/DW, blade guards with some characters and primaris units sprinkled on. Playing an army of DA without them, but with Cypher, feels like playing DA minus.

Karol wrote:
It is a problem when the codex you base your sub faction counts as army doesn't support a valid army of your type.

When DA lists are all about RW/DW, blade guards with some characters and primaris units sprinkled on. Playing an army of DA without them, but with Cypher, feels like playing DA minus.

But it probably feels a hell of a lot better than using the current Fallen rules. This may shock you, but not everyone wants to use the most powerful rules all the time. Often they just want something that adequately represents the vision they have of their army on the tabletop, ideally with balanced rules too. IME, the people who go out of their way to model and paint their custom armies using some inventive take on existing rules usually don't care too much about being super-competitive.

Karol wrote:
It is a problem when the codex you base your sub faction counts as army doesn't support a valid army of your type.

When DA lists are all about RW/DW, blade guards with some characters and primaris units sprinkled on. Playing an army of DA without them, but with Cypher, feels like playing DA minus.

Yeah, but it feels like Fallen +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++.

Current fallen rules are spectacularly pathetic. Like, you could run 3000 points of current Fallen using the RAW against 2000 points of current DA and the DA would probably win.

The only good thing I can think of, with no 'New Rules' for the Fallen, is that it make it more likely Fallen might get an actual book of their own in the future.

Wrath of Magnus, and the latest Dark Angels codex both make mention of the fact that Luthor has escaped the Rock, and is gathering a legion-sized force of Fallen (for whatever means). That would be a fantastic basis for Fallen getting their own book (or suppliment), in the future. If they had made new rules in White Dwarf, it would solidify the fact that they wouldn't be getting any other attention.

Although, I've been sure a Fallen book would be coming out since Wrath of Magnus came out in 7th, so who knows.

Dai wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
Homebrew is indeed the only way to go.

It's incredibly easy to do in practice isn't it? Unfortunately it seems a large amount of folk in the modern community are sticklers for 100% official rules which is very much in opposition to how the games has always been sold and played that I simply don't understand it.

That said, this is half bottomed. If you're going to put a WD index for incredibly niche factions do it properly or leave it to the players.

If your in a position where homebrewing rules can work WD copy-pasting something lame is no big deal.
You just talk to the group you'd be talking to anyways & you all come up with something suitable. Maybe the WD stuff can serve as a starting point, maybe not.
I mean, good/bad/otherwise GW doesn't have the monopoly on making gak up.... the advantage WE have is that whatever the quality what we come up with fits OUR groups.

If your sticklers for 100% official?
Congrats, now you have official 9e rules for _______.
Your not happy with that effort? Wait patiantly for the next revamp. Good luck.

Agreed that the official rules for sub-factions do end up being more limiting often; the fact that every first founding space marine chapter now has it's own codex supplement is mind blowing to me.

And hey, GW lets you take parts of codex space marines with the Fallen! Of course, only with crusade games if your opponent is Dark Angels and has enough Unforgiven Points to call up the "Capture the Fallen" agenda; but if they do, you can take a free Fallen Captain or Librarian! (Who doesn't know any powers beside smite of course, despite having 10,000 years to learn the mysteries of the warp.)

Has anyone read the new fluff for fallen in the WD? Does it suggest any future development of the faction?

I think Fallen have been fluffed out. It feels like this is the kiss of death by GW, being relegated to a WD article.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I think Fallen have been fluffed out. It feels like this is the kiss of death by GW, being relegated to a WD article.

Why? It's not the 1st time WD has been the rulrs source for units, armies, etc. Won't be the last either.

So I picked up a copy of the WD from my FLGS. While I have a 30K themed Dark Angels force with the Cypher model as a Master I have never played the Fallen and do not own any CSM Codexes (no such heresy allowed in my house).

Pros: There are some handy modeling and painting guides. The modeling guide is a refreshing example of kit-bashing. The two Stratagems are on a card-stock insert so they could be useful gaming aids if you could actually use them in a game of 40K.

Cons: The WD Fallen Index, on its own, isn't much use. Rules-wise there is just the Specialist Detachment and associated Stratagems with no Datasheets. As everyone outside the WD team know, the GT 2020 pack does not allow Specialist Detachments. Yes I could ask my opponent if he is cool with my playing a sub-par Specialist Detachment, but its a problem that could have easily been avoided by not calling it a Specialist Detachment. Either the guy was given the brief to make the Index before the GT2020 pack was written and the Index sat in the ready rack for a year or they just didn't think it through. Oh, and no name generator. Further salt in the wounds of any of us hoping for a playable Index are the pages of beautifully modeled and painted Fallen models that are not playable as 40K Fallen. Its basically a nice-looking 30K Dark Angels army that could not be a Fallen army. At the risk of getting hopes up, maybe the 9th Ed CSM Codex will have expanded Fallen? Unlikely. Hope is the first step to disappointment.

The lore section, while potentially interesting to a new player who has no idea about Dark Angels and the Fallen, doesn't really shed much new light.

I have two questions for CSM players out there: Can Cypher be a Warlord with a Warlord Trait? Can you just take a Vanguard Detachment of Fallen, not give it the Specialist Detachment "upgrade" and play it alongside Astra Militarum Detachments in an Army?

TangoTwoBravo wrote:


I have two questions for CSM players out there: Can Cypher be a Warlord with a Warlord Trait? Can you just take a Vanguard Detachment of Fallen, not give it the Specialist Detachment "upgrade" and play it alongside Astra Militarum Detachments in an Army?

Don't know about the first, but for the second, yes: or, if you just want one squad, you can run them as an auxillary detachment. (Still half considering this.)

Yes. The fallen have IMPERIUM, so a detachment of them is legal in a mixed IMPERIAL army.

The specialist detachment gives you access to Rhinos (useful) and an HQ character who's not Cypher - the sorcerer - although since the latter loses HERETIC ASTARTES and most good dark hereticus powers affect friendly HERETIC ASTARTES it's questionable if there's much point.

At this point, sadly the best way to play Fallen is to just use DA rules with Cypher being Captain with bolt/plasma pistols and relic blade. There, done, you have better 'Fallen' rules than anything GW produced in last 20 years or so

 Irbis wrote:
At this point, sadly the best way to play Fallen is to just use DA rules with Cypher being Captain with bolt/plasma pistols and relic blade. There, done, you have better 'Fallen' rules than anything GW produced in last 20 years or so

I ran a 30K/Fallen themed Dark Angels force for part of 8th - I had painted up Cypher on a whim and them compulsively built an army of Tartaros and Cataphractii Terminators with some MkIII armour Tacticals.

Anyone know about Cypher and Warlord traits? My group's next tourney must have a force led by a named character. Toying with a Fallen force.

Per Codex Chaos Marines, Cypher never gets warlord traits and nothing in this detachment changes that.

Note that his Agent of Discord ability explicitly ISN'T a warlord trait, so 1) he can have it and 2) he gets it whether he's the warlord or not.

Annoyingly tempted by fallen myself: playing Defenders of Caliban in Legions isn't helping.

locarno24 wrote:
Per Codex Chaos Marines, Cypher never gets warlord traits and nothing in this detachment changes that.

Note that his Agent of Discord ability explicitly ISN'T a warlord trait, so 1) he can have it and 2) he gets it whether he's the warlord or not.

Annoyingly tempted by fallen myself: playing Defenders of Caliban in Legions isn't helping.

Thanks! Cypher only gets the Agent of Discord, though, when part of a Fallen Angels Specialist Detachment. Same with the two Strats. Might shelve my Fallen idea for the tourney and just go Dark Angels. Spoiled for choice for Named Characters with them!

Ultimately, yes, pick-a-chapter space marines are always going to be better than actually as-per-rules FALLEN.

Which is a shame. It'd have been very, very easy to have at least made them useable, and previous white dwarf rule sets like Silent Kill (the assassin index that was later rolled up into a psychic awakening book) were far more impressive.

I'd have been less annoyed if they hadn't done a big preview and put Cypher on the cover....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, if you want really a really character force, maybe counts as Deathwatch?

Let's you do wierd and wonderful stuff like breacher squads with bolder and storm shield.

Has/does anyone email GW to complain about this kind of thing?

I'm sure people do.

In fact, I'm sure this "New plugged-in GW" is very much aware. In fact, some employee may be reading this very thread, who gets up to report to his boss, who reports to his boss, who looks at the balance sheet and says "all is well" with the current state of affairs.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I'm sure people do.

In fact, I'm sure this "New plugged-in GW" is very much aware. In fact, some employee may be reading this very thread, who gets up to report to his boss, who reports to his boss, who looks at the balance sheet and says "all is well" with the current state of affairs.

Yeah I’m sure people do. But are we all sure that someone ELSE is doing it.....

mrFickle wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I'm sure people do.

In fact, I'm sure this "New plugged-in GW" is very much aware. In fact, some employee may be reading this very thread, who gets up to report to his boss, who reports to his boss, who looks at the balance sheet and says "all is well" with the current state of affairs.

Yeah I’m sure people do. But are we all sure that someone ELSE is doing it.....

I mean, the only customer whose input GW actually acts on with any sense of urgency (or at all) is good ol' Mr./Ms. Balance Sheet (no middle name).

VonGerrow wrote:
Agreed that the official rules for sub-factions do end up being more limiting often; the fact that every first founding space marine chapter now has it's own codex supplement is mind blowing to me.

And hey, GW lets you take parts of codex space marines with the Fallen! Of course, only with crusade games if your opponent is Dark Angels and has enough Unforgiven Points to call up the "Capture the Fallen" agenda; but if they do, you can take a free Fallen Captain or Librarian! (Who doesn't know any powers beside smite of course, despite having 10,000 years to learn the mysteries of the warp.)

Ahhh, but since it's Crusade you can learn additional powers as battle honours; I do the same for Cult of the Abyss Rogue Psykers (BSF).

I haven't read how the rules are written for Fallen; for the Rogue Psyker it still requires a bit of work-around, as the discipline isn't even listed. I imagine it's the same for the Fallen.

Crusade in general though is a good way to get around underwhelming- even a mediocre unit becomes tableworthy at 4 battle honours... though units that start better obviously finish better too.

What /do/ you use for the Rogue Psyker, discipline wise?

PenitentJake wrote:

VonGerrow wrote:
Agreed that the official rules for sub-factions do end up being more limiting often; the fact that every first founding space marine chapter now has it's own codex supplement is mind blowing to me.

And hey, GW lets you take parts of codex space marines with the Fallen! Of course, only with crusade games if your opponent is Dark Angels and has enough Unforgiven Points to call up the "Capture the Fallen" agenda; but if they do, you can take a free Fallen Captain or Librarian! (Who doesn't know any powers beside smite of course, despite having 10,000 years to learn the mysteries of the warp.)

Ahhh, but since it's Crusade you can learn additional powers as battle honours; I do the same for Cult of the Abyss Rogue Psykers (BSF).

I haven't read how the rules are written for Fallen; for the Rogue Psyker it still requires a bit of work-around, as the discipline isn't even listed. I imagine it's the same for the Fallen.

Crusade in general though is a good way to get around underwhelming- even a mediocre unit becomes tableworthy at 4 battle honours... though units that start better obviously finish better too.

Would you even be able to/want to gain battle honours for a model you only get for a single mission against a Dark Angels opponent who has enough Unforgiven Points and has selected the "Capture the Fallen" agenda?

A. What Rhigu points out, you only get to play him when the DA player builds up enough points.
B. "This model... cannot gain experience points"

So I think teaching him powers is out.

And you know what the saddest part is? Fallen update, terrible as it is, is still nowhere near as bad as Blood Raven one

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
In fact, I'm sure this "New plugged-in GW" is very much aware. In fact, some employee may be reading this very thread, who gets up to report to his boss, who reports to his boss, who looks at the balance sheet and says "all is well" with the current state of affairs.

Ok, and how you do propose sending them a message then? Not buying this particular WD? Not buying black and red paint? Any models that can be used as Fallen? Because being sarcastic is all well and good, but the only way of communicating this particular issue is well, sending mail...

@Unit126PLL- I used Malefic, because the Cult to which the Psyker belongs (The Cult of Carnal Light) has to grow from virtually nothing, and they will need daemonic summoning and ritual work in order to grow large enough to topple the local Imperial forces. Malefic seemed like a better story hook for what's coming....

Although I have put the campaign on hold because a) Covid and b) I would like to wait for bespoke content with other factions. Particularly Chaos. I think there will be rules for achieving Daemonhood, possession and a whole host of others.

@Rihgu and VonGerrow- I don't actually own the Dark Angels supplement, so I wasn't sure how it worked. I thought perhaps the Fallen Captain could return with the same army if he wasn't captured in his first appearance. Even if he could, I guess it plainly states that he can't gain XP... Even if you wanted to.

I'm getting the Dwarf anyway- I just don't have it in my hands yet. I'm interested in the other content, but it is too bad they couldn't have done a better job with this- I actually almost like Dark Angels enough to play them; good rules here could have pushed me further in that direction.