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.

PenitentJake wrote:
At launch:

Loyalist marines 6 detachments to choose from.

Want to give Dark Angels a rule called Red Thirst? Easy enough to do- just field a Dark Angels Sons of Sanguinus detachments. Yes, no kidding... It's an actual thing that you can do- you might not be able to bring named characters, and perhaps a few other units may not be able to show up, but other than that, the Dark Angels are more than happy to exhibit the fighting style of their Primarch Sanguinus lol.

There are restrictions, though. You can't use any faction-locked units like DW Command Squads or Black Knights, at which point you're effectively just playing a generic SM army anyway, not DA. This one just happens to be a bit more close combat focused. If you put together a "Dark Angels" army that is just Tactical Marines, Intercessors, Rhinos and other generic SM units is it a problem that you can choose to play like regular SM instead of DA? Is it a problem you get to poorly take advantage of the Sons of Sanguinius detachment? Would it still be a problem if that detachment was called the "Ferocious Assault" detachment instead?

PenitentJake wrote:
At launch:

Loyalist marines 6 detachments to choose from.

Want to give Dark Angels a rule called Red Thirst? Easy enough to do- just field a Dark Angels Sons of Sanguinus detachments. Yes, no kidding... It's an actual thing that you can do- you might not be able to bring named characters, and perhaps a few other units may not be able to show up, but other than that, the Dark Angels are more than happy to exhibit the fighting style of their Primarch Sanguinus lol.

I feel like this is a pretty silly argument. Dark Angels aren't Dark Angels without their units. They're just marines.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
It isn't underwhelming. You guys should really try to get over this mental barrier.

To a Rhino...

...a Blaster does ( 3+ to hit ) - 1
...Haywire Blaster does ( 4+ ) - 1.5 ( 2.25 for the twin )
...MM does ( 4+ ) - 1.75 ( long range )

Just because the window shifted doesn't make it bad.

I figure once we get points and datasheets it will be easier to get a handle on what the "new average" looks like. (I.E. 8th edition Indexes about 25%, late 8th about 40%, 9th edition over 50% before stratagems, in a lot of cases 100% etc).

I think its reasonable to be concerned though about some weapons like the Blaster going from "okay into everything" to "bad into everything".
And the thing is how this interacts in game. Because say a blaster going from wounding on 3s to wounding on 5s doesn't just do "half damage". It just has a significantly greater chance of doing zero. You'll still have games (and this applies to Sisters etc) where you roll a lot of fives and those vehicles melt.
Whether players enjoy there being more luck in the outcomes remains to be seen.

To a degree this whole edition seems to be "can you roll a 6?"

 Lord Clinto wrote:
Wow, most HH stuff will not be allowed in GW Tourneys now.

And stuff that isn't HH. Like multiple daemon engines, and Dreadclaws, which have been available (with models, that existed long before HH) since 3rd edition. No more drop pods for CSM. "Can't balance them". Yeah, right. If they can balance the other daemon engines and Loyalist Scum drop pods, then they can balance these just fine.

PenitentJake wrote:
At launch:

Loyalist marines 6 detachments to choose from.

Want to give Dark Angels a rule called Red Thirst? Easy enough to do- just field a Dark Angels Sons of Sanguinus detachments. Yes, no kidding... It's an actual thing that you can do- you might not be able to bring named characters, and perhaps a few other units may not be able to show up, but other than that, the Dark Angels are more than happy to exhibit the fighting style of their Primarch Sanguinus lol.

That's just the status quo. As long as you don't use any Dark Angels rules, no one* cares if you use your Dark Green Marines as Blood Angels.



* Outside of Warhammer World, so if you live in Nottingham and play there regularly, I guess this could conceivably have some effect.

 vipoid wrote:

Okay.

What about all the DE units that can't take Haywire and are now stuck with piss-poor Blasters (or, God help us, Blast Pistols) as their only anti-tank?

Not every unit can kill tanks, that's like complaining that Intercessors or Termagants don't have access to anti-tank weapons.

Moreover, I don't think there is a single unit that relied on blasters for anti-tank. Maybe blast pistols in the case of Witches and characters, but everyone that has access to blasters also has access to either dark lances or heat lances.

Admittedly there are some armies I am worried about when it comes to their lack of anti-tank (mostly sisters). But DE? They have ravagers and they can put dark lances in kabalites, raiders and in a few other units. They are going to be fine.

Also, I love how the "amazing" Pain Token army rule is already proving to be a massive a crutch that is apparently needed for every single DE weapon to be functional. Good job we have an unlimited quantity of them or I might start feeling concerned.

That's usually an issue with army rules, they are either a crutch or they are simply overpowered. Specially when it comes to kill more army rules.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Just because the window shifted doesn't make it bad.

But they really have left the meltagun behind. It's like lots of other traditionally AT weapons got a bump, but the meltagun was forgotten about.

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:
Christ those Deathwatch Rules. You get three doctrines, one per turn once each, and that wargear is disgusting. They combined the: Shotgun, stalker Bolter, all 4 combi-weapons, all 4 special weapons, storm bolter, and all 5 pistols into one statline, they combined all 4 power weapons, lightning claw, chainsword, and either the regular or heavy thunder hammer into one weapon as well. No more heavy weapons besides the frag cannon and Infurnus bolter, no blackshields, and no combat shield. Christ alive.

Don't you know that having weapon options is just bloat?

And because every army had 50 stratagems and so many pre- and during-battle special rules and purity bonuses and sub-factions that we can't possibly have Shotguns and Bolters be two distinct weapons.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Just because the window shifted doesn't make it bad.

But they really have left the meltagun behind. It's like lots of other traditionally AT weapons got a bump, but the meltagun was forgotten about.

Except it was deliberately changed (S9 and melta rule reworked), so forgotten doesn't seem at all accurate.
They made a decision that they didn't want it melting heavier vehicles. Its probably an over-reaction to 9th, but its a very clear design choice.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Lord Clinto wrote:
Wow, most HH stuff will not be allowed in GW Tourneys now.

And stuff that isn't HH. Like multiple daemon engines, and Dreadclaws, which have been available (with models, that existed long before HH) since 3rd edition. No more drop pods for CSM. "Can't balance them". Yeah, right. If they can balance the other daemon engines and Loyalist Scum drop pods, then they can balance these just fine.

Contemptors getting removed is a little bit of an eye-popper for me. There's a fairly significant number of models out there used regularly and so this feels like it goes too far.

I agree with them that it does make it harder to balance, but it still sucks.

To everyone who is quoting me, I'm more upset that every marine player has six detachments to choose from at launch, while every other faction gets one.

I find it funny that Dark Angels can field a Sons of Sanguinus detachment, and so yeah... that was mentioned in my OP. And yes, it would be less comical if the detachment was called Furious Assault and the rule was called Wrathful Charge... But the having six detachment choices at launch when everyone else has one would not go away with name changes.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Lord Clinto wrote:
Wow, most HH stuff will not be allowed in GW Tourneys now.

And stuff that isn't HH. Like multiple daemon engines, and Dreadclaws, which have been available (with models, that existed long before HH) since 3rd edition. No more drop pods for CSM. "Can't balance them". Yeah, right. If they can balance the other daemon engines and Loyalist Scum drop pods, then they can balance these just fine.

Contemptors getting removed is a little bit of an eye-popper for me. There's a fairly significant number of models out there used regularly and so this feels like it goes too far.

I agree with them that it does make it harder to balance, but it still sucks.

Removed for Traitors only, Loyalists will probably still have access to the monopose one

PenitentJake wrote:
To everyone who is quoting me, I'm more upset that every marine player has six detachments to choose from at launch, while every other faction gets one.

No we don't. Most people don't just pretend their army is a different Chapter. I'm not about to say that my Ultramarines are actually Space Wolves or Black Templars. My Deathwatch army isn't going to suddenly decide "On Wednesdays we wear dark green!". That's not how it works.

Why they decided to take the lazy route and make armies into detachments despite the fact that these Chapters are getting full books is anyone's guess, but don't act like Marine players suddenly have any more choice than they've had before or would have had if these had been faction rules rather than detachment rules.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Removed for Traitors only, Loyalists will probably still have access to the monopose one

Yea that one was always pretty boring though. Ah well. I guess GW doesn't like that crossover money.

PenitentJake wrote:
To everyone who is quoting me, I'm more upset that every marine player has six detachments to choose from at launch, while every other faction gets one.

I find it funny that Dark Angels can field a Sons of Sanguinus detachment, and so yeah... that was mentioned in my OP. And yes, it would be less comical if the detachment was called Furious Assault and the rule was called Wrathful Charge... But the having six detachment choices at launch when everyone else has one would not go away with name changes.

I got your point. This has been my concern from the start and it was predictable. Maybe its imperiums turn to shine Idk.. but this imbalance is still going to make other armies miserable waiting around for a year to get up to speed.

PenitentJake wrote:
To everyone who is quoting me, I'm more upset that every marine player has six detachments to choose from at launch, while every other faction gets one.

I find it funny that Dark Angels can field a Sons of Sanguinus detachment, and so yeah... that was mentioned in my OP. And yes, it would be less comical if the detachment was called Furious Assault and the rule was called Wrathful Charge... But the having six detachment choices at launch when everyone else has one would not go away with name changes.

Could be worse, could have 40k Units supposedly be counted torwards 30k.. f.e. the Decimator which has on it's introduction paragraph written M 35.
Or the Greater brass scorpions: "First encountered during the later black crusades."
Or the Greater Blight drone which has been first encountered at the late stages of the siege of Vraks. M41...
Or the blood slaughterer which is tied to the legend of the killing star ...

But he. Those are clearly darkmech creations. That said there may be a prototype Brass scorpion around in HH because one of the Dark mech heads is supposedly the creator of it. but still

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Lord Clinto wrote:
Wow, most HH stuff will not be allowed in GW Tourneys now.

And stuff that isn't HH. Like multiple daemon engines, and Dreadclaws, which have been available (with models, that existed long before HH) since 3rd edition. No more drop pods for CSM. "Can't balance them". Yeah, right. If they can balance the other daemon engines and Loyalist Scum drop pods, then they can balance these just fine.

Contemptors getting removed is a little bit of an eye-popper for me. There's a fairly significant number of models out there used regularly and so this feels like it goes too far.

I agree with them that it does make it harder to balance, but it still sucks.

Removed for Traitors only, Loyalists will probably still have access to the monopose one

Nothing even suggests that. Contemptor (and Kratos which got singled out for having a loyalist only sheet) are both exiled regardless of faction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Why they decided to take the lazy route and make armies into detachments despite the fact that these Chapters are getting full books is anyone's guess, but don't act like Marine players suddenly have any more choice than they've had before or would have had if these had been faction rules rather than detachment rules.

This isn't the lazy route. This is GW actually sticking to the system they described in the first place.

It has some balance flaws between detachments, but its a lot better than needing to balance faction and detachment rules for them all.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Lord Clinto wrote:
Wow, most HH stuff will not be allowed in GW Tourneys now.

And stuff that isn't HH. Like multiple daemon engines, and Dreadclaws, which have been available (with models, that existed long before HH) since 3rd edition. No more drop pods for CSM. "Can't balance them". Yeah, right. If they can balance the other daemon engines and Loyalist Scum drop pods, then they can balance these just fine.

Contemptors getting removed is a little bit of an eye-popper for me. There's a fairly significant number of models out there used regularly and so this feels like it goes too far.

I agree with them that it does make it harder to balance, but it still sucks.

But they do actually have the "Well, this was originally a HH unit" excuse for Contemptors. All of those daemon engines? They've always been 40k. And the Dreadclaw? Originally introduced in Imperial Armour: Update, published 2002. That's a looonngggg time before HH was a thing.

This is just another slap in the face for CSM players. And another reason for them to move to the greener pastures of HH (daemon engine and cultists rules for HH coming "this summer", according to gw, my fellow Heretics.)

Concerning Legends use.... Is there some amount of being screwed over that will encourage people to embrace non-tourney play as your standard mode?

Voss wrote:
This isn't the lazy route. This is GW actually sticking to the system they described in the first place.

Then why aren't DG/WE/TS just detachment rules linked to CSMs?

Like I said, these armies are getting full Codices, and thus should be treated as such. They're not listed as supplements anymore.

Dark Angels would be a faction, and within that would be their detachments (DW, RW, etc.).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Voss wrote:
This isn't the lazy route. This is GW actually sticking to the system they described in the first place.

Then why aren't DG/WE/TS just detachment rules linked to CSMs?

Because they've been turned into distinct model lines, like it or not.

Like I said, these armies are getting full Codices, and thus should be treated as such. They're not listed as supplements anymore.

I don't think this is a distinction that matters. The 'full codex' is a matter of organization, background and snowflake datacards, it doesn't hinge on having a completely faction rule on maybe 1/4 of one page.

Dark Angels would be a faction, and within that would be their detachments (DW, RW, etc.).

That would be the real lazy way to do detachments, just lean into the flanderization. Is that really what you want?

Voss wrote:
Because they've been turned into distinct model lines, like it or not.

So... the Loyalist Chapters have tons of their own models. What???

Voss wrote:
I don't think this is a distinction that matters. The 'full codex' is a matter of organization, background and snowflake datacards, it doesn't hinge on having a completely faction rule on maybe 1/4 of one page.

Yet that's what they're doing. They're making the Loyalist Chapters into separate Codices like the Legions.

Voss wrote:
That would be the real lazy way to do detachments, just lean into the flanderization. Is that really what you want?

How is the Dark Angels having their own Codex "flanderisation"? What the hell are you talking about?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Voss wrote:
That would be the real lazy way to do detachments, just lean into the flanderization. Is that really what you want?

How is the Dark Angels having their own Codex "flanderisation"? What the hell are you talking about?

Pay some attention to the context.
You listed DW & RW as detachments (and then ran out of ideas). That would be flanderization.
Looking at the examples of actual detachments in the article, that isn't the direction they're going. Nor should they.

Just to check, did the article actually say they'd be full Codexes cos I can't see that anywhere.

 Tyran wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Okay.

What about all the DE units that can't take Haywire and are now stuck with piss-poor Blasters (or, God help us, Blast Pistols) as their only anti-tank?

Not every unit can kill tanks, that's like complaining that Intercessors or Termagants don't have access to anti-tank weapons.

Moreover, I don't think there is a single unit that relied on blasters for anti-tank. Maybe blast pistols in the case of Witches and characters, but everyone that has access to blasters also has access to either dark lances or heat lances.

Admittedly there are some armies I am worried about when it comes to their lack of anti-tank (mostly sisters). But DE? They have ravagers and they can put dark lances in kabalites, raiders and in a few other units. They are going to be fine.

Also, I love how the "amazing" Pain Token army rule is already proving to be a massive a crutch that is apparently needed for every single DE weapon to be functional. Good job we have an unlimited quantity of them or I might start feeling concerned.

That's usually an issue with army rules, they are either a crutch or they are simply overpowered. Specially when it comes to kill more army rules.

DE do have issues with AT and blasters has always been a primary AT weapon due to access and concentration.
Before this latest assault version of DE, dark light spam from ravagers and 4 man squads of trueborn covered it well, but at the expense of almost all assault (bar hwg wyches). That was when S8 profiles were king plus always wound on 4+ . Even then dark light was not ideal on fragile platforms so redundancy was a must.
Part of why is that there isn't much middle ground unlike say marines where every weapon has at least s4 profile.

Flash forward to 8-9th those trueborn and grenades are gone replaced by assault as a primary anti tank. Not just because it works as the current 'strength' of DE in those editions, but because of reduction of ranged AT access. Now move forward to 10th.

The most common tank profile is now t9, 3+, 10+ wounds (meq, IG etc).
Against that DE AT is 1 single shot weapon wounding on 3+, and 1 weapon wounding on 4+ but with ap 1. heat lance is still unknown.

Using the highest possible concentration of dark lances 4 scourges standing still vs t9 3+ is 4*4*4*5/216 = 1.48 wounds or average 7.18 wounds on a rhino without invuln/fnp. 5.88 if moving. And this is trading down in points.
Ravager assuming BS 3+ is 5.88 or identical to mobile scourges.

4 old blasters is 6.22 wounds. 4 new blasters is 3.59 wounds. so maxed out 3x5 scourge can't kill 1 transport. This is not considering access to 5++/fnp.

6 current HWBs average 5 wounds + 2 mortals (highest concentration is 3 taloi). 6 new HWB (IF they get BS 3+) average 9 mortal wounds, 6.75 if BS 4+. Thats the best concentration of AT available we know of atm.

Ironically if the disi cannon remains unchanged its damage output is now exactly triple that of a blaster per weapon against a rhino.

As mentioned earlier the entire book seems to be based on the premise of unlimited pain tokens. However with these numbers its pretty easy to see how tokens will run dry by T2. Thats going to be a bad wake up call to those who are bullish on DE rules. With the changes to toughness and weapon profiles it would be better if pain tokens allowed reroll wounds instead of hits.

All that said its not really peachy for many other factions either. Those with full reroll wounds (sm) or broader access to quality weaponry will obviously be better off.

Tldr; it may take awhile for metas to adapt as players try sticking to what they know, own or just like, but from what we know now mechanized is the way in 10th. If lighter mech (<t8) is not incredibly cheap they won't be able to trade profitably. IMO of course. >

They weren't listed as supplements.

Voss wrote:
You listed DW & RW as detachments (and then ran out of ideas).

I didn't run out of ideas. FFS... I was giving examples.

Dark Angels are getting their own Codex. In this book will be detachments, I'd bet all the money I have that some of these detachments will be Deathwing and Ravenwing, with their own 6 unit Strats, 4 bloat-killing "Enhancements", and hopefully some level of restrictions and reorganisation for what is battleline and what can/cannot be taken.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They weren't listed as supplements.

Voss wrote:
You listed DW & RW as detachments (and then ran out of ideas).

I didn't run out of ideas. FFS... I was giving examples.

Dark Angels are getting their own Codex. In this book will be detachments, I'd bet all the money I have that some of these detachments will be Deathwing and Ravenwing, with their own 6 unit Strats, 4 bloat-killing "Enhancements", and hopefully some level of restrictions and reorganisation for what is battleline and what can/cannot be taken.

That'd be terrible. There's no reason to do it that way. If you want a deathwing army, just take deathwing units. The end. You don't need special rules to allow you to do so, and none of the detachments we've been shown lean that way.

If they do go that way with the actual codex, it'd be a disappointing waste of space, because you can self restrict a deathwing or ravenwing army with zero issues.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They weren't listed as supplements.

You can just say "No, the article did not say they were full Codexes".

Voss wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Voss wrote:
This isn't the lazy route. This is GW actually sticking to the system they described in the first place.

Then why aren't DG/WE/TS just detachment rules linked to CSMs?

Because they've been turned into distinct model lines, like it or not.

I don't think this is a distinction that matters. The 'full codex' is a matter of organization, background and snowflake datacards, it doesn't hinge on having a completely faction rule on maybe 1/4 of one page.

I'm fairly sure the DA/BA/SW/(BT) distinct model lines and codex content are much more extensive than the DG/TS/WE stuff.

And it is getting confusing in other ways too: the official army building rules very clearly specify that I should choose ONE Army Faction Keyword... but then these chapters have two! And to pick a unit into my army, I must only fit one Faction Keyword (the one I've chosen), not two. This means that if I take the Dark Angels Faction Keyword to unlock their Detachment then I can't take any non-DA-specific unit (the normal ones in the SM 'dex) because they don't have the Dark Angels Keyword! But if I take Adeptus Astartes as my Faction Keyword then I can include any of the chapter-specific units in any combination (as they all have that keyword) for no loss whatsoever! Is this supposed to be intentional? I'm so confused...

 Gert wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They weren't listed as supplements.

You can just say "No, the article did not say they were full Codexes".

Isn't that exactly what I just did?

Voss wrote:
If you want a deathwing army, just take deathwing units. The end. You don't need special rules to allow you to do so, and none of the detachments we've been shown lean that way.

You don't think that a Deathwing army would have its own strats and relics?

Hahaha the Deathwing Apothecary comes with a chainfist.

The narthecium is now an anti-tank weapon.

Clown edition.