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.

 LunarSol wrote:

This is mostly a result of the detachment largely giving abilities that Phobos units already have rather than things than benefit Phobos units.

Then maybe it's just a poorly designed detachment?

Locking stuff out doesn't really fix that.

Sure it does. Locking out or reducing availability would address a lot of my issues with this detachment. It's daft that Incursors and Infiltrators aren't allowed as Battleline, at the very least.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

This is mostly a result of the detachment largely giving abilities that Phobos units already have rather than things than benefit Phobos units.

Then maybe it's just a poorly designed detachment?

Locking stuff out doesn't really fix that.

Sure it does. Locking out or reducing availability would address a lot of my issues with this detachment. It's daft that Incursors and Infiltrators aren't allowed as Battleline, at the very least.

I'd say no to locking stuff out but i would 100% say yes to detachment making specific units Battleline (and double their OC)

Then what's the point of having these themed setups if there's no actual bite to them?

Seriously, this whole book is just wishywashy. Vanguard Spearhead should have drastically reduced, if not locked out, huge chunks of stuff. Same with the other themed detachments.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Then what's the point of having these themed setups if there's no actual bite to them?

Seriously, this whole book is just wishywashy. Vanguard Spearhead should have drastically reduced, if not locked out, huge chunks of stuff. Same with the other themed detachments.

There should be restrictions in the detachment, just not "you litterally cannot bring x unit" restrictions.

For example, make the vanguard detachment affect mostly phobos instead of everything, you can still play the crusader squads, but not infiltrate them for example

(although i think snowflake marines should be treated like the snowflake CSM legions and be their own standalone books but thats another topic)

Again:
What's the point?

There's the Gladius as the "basic" detachment. That's where the "take whatever you want" should be.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Again:
What's the point?

There's the Gladius as the "basic" detachment. That's where the "take whatever you want" should be.

The point is you're not locking a Salamander player out of playing bikes if theyre playing the salamander detachment for example.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Again:
What's the point?

There's the Gladius as the "basic" detachment. That's where the "take whatever you want" should be.

The point is you're not locking a Salamander player out of playing bikes if theyre playing the salamander detachment for example.

No, they absolutely should be. Just like a Raven Guard player should be locked out of big tanks if they're running Vanguard.

I also appreciate that if my detachment style of choice is bad I can adapt while still retaining much of what I like about the army. That won't always be the case, particularly if you are heavily skewed, but its a good direction I think feels a lot more fun than buying a book for "your" portion of it.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Again:
What's the point?

There's the Gladius as the "basic" detachment. That's where the "take whatever you want" should be.

The point is you're not locking a Salamander player out of playing bikes if theyre playing the salamander detachment for example.

No, they absolutely should be. Just like a Raven Guard player should be locked out of big tanks if they're running Vanguard.

From a fluff point of view, absolutely. From a gameplay point of view, rewarding "vanguard-y" units instead of restricting the "non vanguard-y" is a better approach IMO.

I don't think we'll agree on that one tho.

LunarSol wrote:I also appreciate that if my detachment style of choice is bad I can adapt while still retaining much of what I like about the army. That won't always be the case, particularly if you are heavily skewed, but its a good direction I think feels a lot more fun than buying a book for "your" portion of it.

I'm already stuck buying a huge book with just a single Raven Guard character in it these days. I'm 100% in for them doing restrictive themed detachments. It's not like the detachments are locked to specific Chapters though.


We knew what a Vanguard Spearhead is. It's not containing any non-Phobos or Scout elements. We also know that every Codex-Compliant Chapter is supposed to have one. It consists of 100 full Marines(a good chunk of which are individuals who have served in the First Companies), and the recruit elements.

VladimirHerzog wrote:
From a fluff point of view, absolutely. From a gameplay point of view, rewarding "vanguard-y" units instead of restricting the "non vanguard-y" is a better approach IMO.

I don't think we'll agree on that one tho.

Here's the issue. They didn't do either of those.

It's just a lazy framework that they released. After we saw the Tyranids book, I was excited for Marines. That excitement has been pretty heavily dashed.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

This is mostly a result of the detachment largely giving abilities that Phobos units already have rather than things than benefit Phobos units.

Then maybe it's just a poorly designed detachment?

It very well could be if the goal is to get people to play Phobos only, but I've never gotten the impression that Phobos only chapters are actually a thing.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Locking stuff out doesn't really fix that.

Sure it does. Locking out or reducing availability would address a lot of my issues with this detachment. It's daft that Incursors and Infiltrators aren't allowed as Battleline, at the very least.

You might feel better about it in the sense that you feel the detachment is properly gated to your preferences, but it does little to improve the detachment itself. No amount of restrictions is going to make giving Infiltrate to units that largely already have Infiltrate attractive.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

This is mostly a result of the detachment largely giving abilities that Phobos units already have rather than things than benefit Phobos units.

Then maybe it's just a poorly designed detachment?

It very well could be if the goal is to get people to play Phobos only, but I've never gotten the impression that Phobos only chapters are actually a thing.

There's literally an entire Phobos Company for Codex Compliant Chapters. The 10th is literally called "The Vanguard Company" now.

Raven Guard(and their close Successors) have been fielding their First Company and Second Company elements in Phobos as well.

So while "Phobos only Chapters" might not necessarily be a thing, there's still more possibilities for Phobos forces.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Locking stuff out doesn't really fix that.

Sure it does. Locking out or reducing availability would address a lot of my issues with this detachment. It's daft that Incursors and Infiltrators aren't allowed as Battleline, at the very least.

You might feel better about it in the sense that you feel the detachment is properly gated to your preferences, but it does little to improve the detachment itself. No amount of restrictions is going to make giving Infiltrate to units that largely already have Infiltrate attractive.

Incursors, Reivers, and Invictors(which is Phobos keyworded for some reason) have Scout, not Infiltrate.

But like I said anyways, it's a poorly designed detachment. It's clear that the intention was just to make <Not-Chapter> detachments, rather than actual interesting themed forces.

They are variations in playstyle rather than subfactions.

 LunarSol wrote:
They are variations in playstyle rather than subfactions.

Yes, variations in playstyle that really don't change what units do...

You'd have more of a point if there were genuine shifts. But literally all the discussion I've seen is about how to cram the "best" units into the Vanguard Detachment, with leaders to get the most bang for your buck for the times where it lets you pick a non-Phobos thing for a stratagem.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
They are variations in playstyle rather than subfactions.

Yes, variations in playstyle that really don't change what units do...

You'd have more of a point if there were genuine shifts. But literally all the discussion I've seen is about how to cram the "best" units into the Vanguard Detachment, with leaders to get the most bang for your buck for the times where it lets you pick a non-Phobos thing for a stratagem.

And to that, I don't disagree that it's poorly designed to showcase Phobos units.

They're all poorly designed.

 Kanluwen wrote:
They're all poorly designed.

Well, that's just, like, your opinion man.

I personally like the new detachments and look forward to trying them out with my Dark Angels.

Question on Scouts: Is it one Sniper OR Missile Launcher per 5 guys, or is one sniper AND missile per 5 guys?

 ZergSmasher wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
They're all poorly designed.

Well, that's just, like, your opinion man.

I personally like the new detachments and look forward to trying them out with my Dark Angels.

And this is a big part of why I have such an issue with them.

They were made too generic, to the point where the Chapters that are literally going to get their own books with their own detachments, are able to plug and play while the opposite isn't true.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Question on Scouts: Is it one Sniper OR Missile Launcher per 5 guys, or is one sniper AND missile per 5 guys?

Last I saw it was in addition to the heavy.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Then what's the point of having these themed setups if there's no actual bite to them?

I said the exact same thing when Detachments were first talked about, and people screamed at me for even suggesting that something like a 1st Company Detachment only have access to Veteran units.

Battleline is something that should be determined not by units, but by detachment. It should be a rule.

Battleline = can be taken up to 6 times rather than 3, and double OC (naturally things that are currently Battleline and OC2 would go to OC1 and not be Battleline by default).

 Nevelon wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Question on Scouts: Is it one Sniper OR Missile Launcher per 5 guys, or is one sniper AND missile per 5 guys?

Last I saw it was in addition to the heavy.

Well, that's good, I guess. I have a bunch of unpainted sniper scouts. Since they are now free upgrades I may as well get a bunch of missile guys and spread them out amongst my different marine armies, so those sniper scouts aren't wasted.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Again:
What's the point?

There's the Gladius as the "basic" detachment. That's where the "take whatever you want" should be.

The point is you're not locking a Salamander player out of playing bikes if theyre playing the salamander detachment for example.

No, they absolutely should be. Just like a Raven Guard player should be locked out of big tanks if they're running Vanguard.

That's a terrible idea - you're flandering GW's factions for them.

Despite the fact that those chapters have preferences, they STILL USE those units. You're taking 'preference' and trying to apply it as an arbitrary restriction for no reason whatsoever.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 ZergSmasher wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
They're all poorly designed.

Well, that's just, like, your opinion man.

I personally like the new detachments and look forward to trying them out with my Dark Angels.

And this is a big part of why I have such an issue with them.

They were made too generic, to the point where the Chapters that are literally going to get their own books with their own detachments, are able to plug and play while the opposite isn't true.

The opposite is ALSO true. Its one of the big marine advantages for list building in 10th. As long as you don't bring any chapter-locked units (from other chapters), any mariens can use DA or BA or SW detachments as their own.

Once DA comes out, ALL marines will have 10-12 detachments to choose from. When BA comes out, all marines will have ~15-18 detachments to choose from.

Voss wrote:

The opposite is ALSO true. Its one of the big marine advantages for list building in 10th. As long as you don't bring any chapter-locked units (from other chapters), any mariens can use DA or BA or SW detachments as their own.

Once DA comes out, ALL marines will have 10-12 detachments to choose from. When BA comes out, all marines will have ~15-18 detachments to choose from.

Its dumb either way. DA/BA/SW/BT should be standalone codexes, not supplements, just like TS/DG/WE are for CSM.

Could someone summarise for me what old marine units have been removed from the codex? Not fussed about wargear options.

Land speeders, basic assault squads have gone, what else?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hellebore wrote:

Despite the fact that those chapters have preferences, they STILL USE those units. You're taking 'preference' and trying to apply it as an arbitrary restriction for no reason whatsoever.

But then you hit a design problem in that the units are all compared to each other and balancing and style becomes harder. How to make a different style army, that isn't more powerful than regular, if all you can do is add things? Balance and theme is easier when you can restrict units to work with the new ones.

The_Real_Chris wrote:

But then you hit a design problem in that the units are all compared to each other and balancing and style becomes harder. How to make a different style army, that isn't more powerful than regular, if all you can do is add things? Balance and theme is easier when you can restrict units to work with the new ones.

Because youre not just adding stuff. you're picking from one thing to add.

It's not :

Base + A + B + C

It's :

Base + A
or
Base + B
or
Base + C


so if you make ABC have a similar impact, you'll achieve relative balance. The real problem is that GW decided to make it
(Base+noncompliant) + A/B/C.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Could someone summarise for me what old marine units have been removed from the codex? Not fussed about wargear options.

Land speeders, basic assault squads have gone, what else?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hellebore wrote:

Despite the fact that those chapters have preferences, they STILL USE those units. You're taking 'preference' and trying to apply it as an arbitrary restriction for no reason whatsoever.

But then you hit a design problem in that the units are all compared to each other and balancing and style becomes harder. How to make a different style army, that isn't more powerful than regular, if all you can do is add things? Balance and theme is easier when you can restrict units to work with the new ones.

That's the point of every army having to take a detachment rule.... those rules are (ostensibly) balanced against one another so hot swapping them should make no difference.

I find the idea of forcing people to play flanderised army lists if they want to use their preferred army much worse than having swappable detachment rules.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Could someone summarise for me what old marine units have been removed from the codex? Not fussed about wargear options.

1. First Born Captain.
2. First Born Captain w/Jump Pack.
3. First Born Captain w/Bike.
4. First Born Lieutenant.
5. First Born Librarian.
6. First Born Chaplain.
7. First Born Techmarine.
8. Astartes Servitors.
9. First Born Librarian w/Jump Pack.
10. Scout Sniper Squad.
11. Primaris Company Champion.
12. First Born Command Squad.
13. Vanguard Vet Squad.
14. Relic Terminator Squad.
15. Contemptor Dreadnought.
16. Ironclad Dreadnought.
17. First Born Assault Squad.
18. First Born Assault Squad w/Jump Packs.
19. Bike Squad.
20. Scout Bike Squad.
21. Attack Bike Squad.
22. Land Speeder.
23. Land Speeder Tornado.
24. Land Speeder Typhoon.
25. Thunderfire Cannon.
26. Hunter.
27. Stalker.
28. Land Speeder Storm.

 Hellebore wrote:


I find the idea of forcing people to play flanderised army lists if they want to use their preferred army much worse than having swappable detachment rules.

Yeah, people get hung out on the names of the detachments too much, sure its called a "vanguard" detachment but its not a "vanguard company", its just a detachment that likes to play outside its deployment.

Locking out options because of fluff is the reason why so many SM legions feel boring.
No, White scars didnt forget their Heavy tanks
No, salamanders don't only use flamers/melta
No, Imperial fists don't only use bolt weapons
No, world eaters don't only use melee
etc.