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.
Dudeface wrote: You can happily still field that captain mini entirely game legal. The only difference is it has the tacticus keyword to represent it's supposed to be in mk10 armour.
Dudeface wrote: You can happily still field that captain mini entirely game legal. The only difference is it has the tacticus keyword to represent it's supposed to be in mk10 armour.
With his Storm Bolter or Combi-Weapon?
Thank you for ignoring the section I said some wargear options are gone. However reduction of options is not the same as saying firstborn captains are gone.
Dudeface wrote: You can happily still field that captain mini entirely game legal. The only difference is it has the tacticus keyword to represent it's supposed to be in mk10 armour.
With his Storm Bolter or Combi-Weapon?
Thank you for ignoring the section I said some wargear options are gone. However reduction of options is not the same as saying firstborn captains are gone.
I also don't see why the SB can't be counted as a MC bolt rifle.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/10/04 09:04:57
Another thing to consider for anyone with a character with an illegal loadout: GW needs to keep releasing more models over time, so we might get e.g. combi-weapons back on captains at some point. Might need to get lucky about which melee weapon it can be paired with...
I think most of my firstborn will proxy ok for Primaris, although I'll have to put some effort into swapping a few weapons or building new models here and there to replace illegal loadouts.
Aside from Land Speeders and an Ironclad, my biggest future concern is Devastators - they don't proxy easily for Eradicators, Desolators, etc.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/10/04 07:49:48
It's a "Vanguard Spearhead". The Vanguard Company is a specific organization within the Codex Compliant Chapters, and it happens to be the one that is the most restrictive across all of the Codex Chapters.
What exactly should I be focused on then? The description and the actual name point towards it being stealthy and full of Phobos. It doesn't suggest being full of Gravis, Dreadnoughts, and tanks. I happen to know the lore behind the Phobos stuff, and the 10th Company having specific elements is entirely a thing that you should focus upon.
You can try to pretend this is watering things down or whatever, but the simple fact is these detachments are boring. They're exactly the issue that cropped up with the Build Your Own Successor Chapters and the Codex Supplements we had for the other Founding Chapters:
There's no actual trade-offs. It will always be the same cookie-cutter crap no matter what, based upon some nebulous "meta" that a good chunk of people will never actually have exposure to in a serious manner yet the calls for balance and nerfing will always ruin everyone else's fun in friendly settings.
I think out and out banning minis can be bad for people's collections (see, well, much of the thread) but would tend to agree with you.
GW's justification for moving from subfactions to detachments was that you could run less flanderised stuff. If you want to play Raven Wing Terminators and/or Tanks - that's fine, you can. They exist, they would go into battle. Odds are however that they'd operate very similarly to how Ultramarine or Salamander Terminators and Tanks operate. Take the Terminator or Tank detachment to indicate this.
But if you want to play a Vanguard - "slipping through the shadows, covert specialists encircling the foe" etc - then, as you say, its a bit weird that the optimal choice for this might be Gravis, Dreads, Tanks etc. I'm sure in the fluff Raven Wing put sound suppressors on their armour, and their Centurion Devastators etc are just as adept at sneaking up on people as their Phobos-armoured brothers. But it seems like a reach. Why bother with Phobos at all if that were the case?
Nerfs to non-fluffy choices in detachments could work - but GW's never been very successful at this. You always end up with major power gaps as certain detachments are competitively crippled - while others nerf units you were never going to take anyway so basically don't matter. Arguably this applies even more to unit restrictions.
Admittedly I don't have a better answer. Which perhaps is why GW ended up where we are. But I agree its unsatisfying.
You shouldn't be banning units for these formations. That's a backwards way of doing it (and shows a lack of imagination and flexibility). You should instead reward "correct" choices.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/10/04 08:42:58
I think with something like the Vanguard detachment, the -1 to hit shouldn't apply to the entire army, but rather a subset. Now the units that should get it would need some sort of identifier. Hmm perhaps we could call it a keyword, yes I think that would work. Then we could apply it to 'fluffy' choices, but not to something like a Land Raider, but without wholesale restricting them, or even making them worse, they just aren't made better by the detachment.
But then again I think basing the entirety of space marines around Oath of Moment was silly, combat doctrines should have been the Army Rule, and Oath of Moment the detachment rule for First Compant.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/10/04 08:59:37
Dawnbringer wrote: I think with something like the Vanguard detachment, the -1 to hit shouldn't apply to the entire army, but rather a subset.
Then we're back to the things people complained about in 9th (and even 8th), where certain models were only worth taking in certain sub-factions because those units got specific free boosts in specific factions.
Keeping them army-wide is a far better and simpler solution.
Dawnbringer wrote: I think with something like the Vanguard detachment, the -1 to hit shouldn't apply to the entire army, but rather a subset.
Then we're back to the things people complained about in 9th (and even 8th), where certain models were only worth taking in certain sub-factions because those units got specific free boosts in specific factions.
Keeping them army-wide is a far better and simpler solution.
Sorry, but you'll need to explain how that solution goes with what you said here:
H.B.M.C. wrote: You shouldn't be banning units for these formations. That's a backwards way of doing it (and shows a lack of imagination and flexibility). You should instead reward "correct" choices.
Basically you are saying (at the same time) that they shouldn't ban units, they should reward correct choices, but they should apply bonuses across the whole army.
Because Detachments should be about army structure, and how that plays into the overall game.
Detachments shouldn't determine what you can and cannot take. They should be determining what the core of your force is.
Think of it this way:
When you look at a Vanguard force, what is the core of such an army? Phobos units, right? When you think of a 1st Company force, what is the core of such an army? Terminators and Veterans, naturally! When you think of a Stormlance force, what is the core of such an army? Bikes and speeders and maybe even jump packers, it would seem.
But what are the cores of each of these forces?
Intercessors. Assault Intercessors. Heavy Intercessors. Tactical Squads*.
Battleline never changes, and that, I believe, is the core problem. Because no detachment actually changes the structure of your army, you can actually make the same list in any detachment.
(And this isn't a Marine problem; a Tyranid Crusher Stampede still has Gaunts as Battleline)
I've said this before on many occasions in other threads: No unit should have the Battleline keyword. Battleline shouldn't even be a keyword. It should be a USR that grants two things:
1. You can take 6 of that unit rather than 3. 2. You either double or add +1 to your OC value (which of those two is more appropriate is open for debate).
And then your Detachment states what is Battleline and what is not. Now your detachment, which is already geared (but not locked, importantly) towards a certain style of play, is rewarded for simply taking those units. They're not being given extra special rules (ie. only Phobos get Stealth, only Mounted get Advance & Charge, etc.), they're just being made the core of the army. You are rewarded for playing the intended style, not punished for going against it, and not given extra special rules that make only those units viable in that specific detachment (ie. a Phobos unit would always do the same thing regardless of which detachment its in, but in only one is it Battleline).
You can still take a detachment that goes against that (ie. filling a 1st Company detachment with Scouts and Biker Chaplains), by simply taking the units that fit more with that list, but you have the choice.
*Assuming they kept Battleline in the new book.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2023/10/04 10:01:57
That's alot hanging on people caring about +1 OC and being able to take 6 of something. I can't see anyone taking six of any phobos unit just like I doubt people are taking six tac or intercessor squads. Might as well just not bother with detachments at all if that's all they are going to do. Rule of three with there being so many variations of units means very unlikely to hit the max unless something is a poorly balanced 'must take'. Hell, there are three varieties of phobos squads, you could take six jump pack squads (reg + van vets) etc.
That said, I do think battle line should change with detachments, I'm surprised it doesn't.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/10/04 11:02:48
H.B.M.C. wrote: Because Detachments should be about army structure, and how that plays into the overall game.
Detachments shouldn't determine what you can and cannot take. They should be determining what the core of your force is.
Think of it this way:
When you look at a Vanguard force, what is the core of such an army? Phobos units, right?
When you think of a 1st Company force, what is the core of such an army? Terminators and Veterans, naturally!
When you think of a Stormlance force, what is the core of such an army? Bikes and speeders and maybe even jump packers, it would seem.
But what are the cores of each of these forces?
Intercessors.
Assault Intercessors.
Heavy Intercessors.
Tactical Squads*.
Battleline never changes, and that, I believe, is the core problem. Because no detachment actually changes the structure of your army, you can actually make the same list in any detachment.
(And this isn't a Marine problem; a Tyranid Crusher Stampede still has Gaunts as Battleline)
I've said this before on many occasions in other threads: No unit should have the Battleline keyword. Battleline shouldn't even be a keyword. It should be a USR that grants two things:
1. You can take 6 of that unit rather than 3.
2. You either double or add +1 to your OC value (which of those two is more appropriate is open for debate).
And then your Detachment states what is Battleline and what is not. Now your detachment, which is already geared (but not locked, importantly) towards a certain style of play, is rewarded for simply taking those units. They're not being given extra special rules (ie. only Phobos get Stealth, only Mounted get Advance & Charge, etc.), they're just being made the core of the army. You are rewarded for playing the intended style, not punished for going against it, and not given extra special rules that make only those units viable in that specific detachment (ie. a Phobos unit would always do the same thing regardless of which detachment its in, but in only one is it Battleline).
You can still take a detachment that goes against that (ie. filling a 1st Company detachment with Scouts and Biker Chaplains), by simply taking the units that fit more with that list, but you have the choice.
*Assuming they kept Battleline in the new book.
That's alot hanging on people caring about +1 OC and being able to take 6 of something. I can't see anyone taking six of any phobos unit just like I doubt people are taking six tac or intercessor squads Might as well just not bother.
That said, I do think battle line should change with detachments, I'm surprised it doesn't.
That only becomes relevant if battleline becomes relevant, which it isn't largely.
Dawnbringer wrote: That's alot hanging on people caring about +1 OC and being able to take 6 of something. I can't see anyone taking six of any phobos unit just like I doubt people are taking six tac or intercessor squads.
Hi, I'm that anyone! Unless I've missed something, Combat Squads are gone. That makes a huge difference when going from 10s splitting into 5s and straight taking 5s.
It means you're going from the wildly excessive 90 models made up of Reivers, Infiltrators and Incursors for Ro3(3*10 three times) to 45 models. For someone wanting to recreate the Vanguard Company, this is a huge change.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/10/04 12:38:46
Last I checked you can still take them in squads of 10.
That said I'm confused a bit, as you say 90 models is wildly excessive, but then say you are trying to recreate the whole company which would be ~ 100 models by my count.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/10/04 12:13:13
Dawnbringer wrote: Last I checked you can still take them in squads of 10.
That said I'm confused a bit, as you say 90 models is wildly excessive, but then say you are trying to recreate the whole company which would be ~ 100 models by my count.
You know how Infiltrators and Incursors were Troops before?
And how Reivers were Elites?
And how you completely ignored my comment about Combat Squads?
You can absolutely, 100% take them in units of 10...but that doesn't really help what I was talking about? I cannot be the only person out there who organized their stuff based upon the idea of Combat Squads rather than just min-maxing.
I ran 3 units of 10 Infiltrators, 2 of 10 Incursors--all of which combat squadded out to make that 50 models feel more hefty.
Add in 3 units of 10 Reivers to bump those numbers up to 80 Phobos Marines, making it into 16 5 model squads.
The remaining 20 bodies consisted of Suppressors, Eliminators, and Invictors in no real order. Swapping one squad out for an Invictor(or a trio of them) wasn't hard to puzzle out, numerically, and since the Suppressors and Eliminators were both fluffed as the "fire support" guys of the Vanguard Company? it stays fluffy!
I can't do that set up now without running huge blobs of supposed independently operating specialist infiltration/terror troops.
Dawnbringer wrote: Last I checked you can still take them in squads of 10.
That said I'm confused a bit, as you say 90 models is wildly excessive, but then say you are trying to recreate the whole company which would be ~ 100 models by my count.
You know how Infiltrators and Incursors were Troops before?
And how Reivers were Elites?
And how you completely ignored my comment about Combat Squads?
You can absolutely, 100% take them in units of 10...but that doesn't really help what I was talking about? I cannot be the only person out there who organized their stuff based upon the idea of Combat Squads rather than just min-maxing.
I ran 3 units of 10 Infiltrators, 2 of 10 Incursors--all of which combat squadded out to make that 50 models feel more hefty.
Add in 3 units of 10 Reivers to bump those numbers up to 80 Phobos Marines, making it into 16 5 model squads.
The remaining 20 bodies consisted of Suppressors, Eliminators, and Invictors in no real order. Swapping one squad out for an Invictor(or a trio of them) wasn't hard to puzzle out, numerically, and since the Suppressors and Eliminators were both fluffed as the "fire support" guys of the Vanguard Company? it stays fluffy!
I can't do that set up now without running huge blobs of supposed independently operating specialist infiltration/terror troops.
I'm not going to lie it wasn't clear what you were talking about at first reading, you didn't specify you only ever field them in 5's and nobody mentioned troops at any point. If you want to recreate the vanguard company, they're organised in squads of 10.....
H.B.M.C. wrote: You shouldn't be banning units for these formations. That's a backwards way of doing it (and shows a lack of imagination and flexibility). You should instead reward "correct" choices.
Exactly, the vanguard detachment being ideal for non-Phobos doesn't mean the whole detachment system is bad, just that this specific one was poorly designed.
Dawnbringer wrote: I think with something like the Vanguard detachment, the -1 to hit shouldn't apply to the entire army, but rather a subset.
Then we're back to the things people complained about in 9th (and even 8th), where certain models were only worth taking in certain sub-factions because those units got specific free boosts in specific factions.
Keeping them army-wide is a far better and simpler solution.
Or admech for current edition
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dawnbringer wrote: That's alot hanging on people caring about +1 OC and being able to take 6 of something. I can't see anyone taking six of any phobos unit just like I doubt people are taking six tac or intercessor squads. Might as well just not bother with detachments at all if that's all they are going to do. Rule of three with there being so many variations of units means very unlikely to hit the max unless something is a poorly balanced 'must take'. Hell, there are three varieties of phobos squads, you could take six jump pack squads (reg + van vets) etc.
That said, I do think battle line should change with detachments, I'm surprised it doesn't.
Its still a way to reward fluffy lists (or flanderised ones)
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/10/04 13:46:09
H.B.M.C. wrote: What are my Flamer and Eviscerator Assault Mariners going to proxy as then?
We got flamers in 4th and eviscerators in 6th? So just hold on until 14th and 16th edition for assault intercessors to get them. Will be here before you know it.
I cut plasma pistol arms off of AMs to give them flamers. Full circle I guess.
Yes it sucks.
We had Flamers (and the other Special Weapons) in 2nd. Then we briefly had the Meltas and Plasmas again in the 10th Index.
H.B.M.C. wrote: What are my Flamer and Eviscerator Assault Mariners going to proxy as then?
We got flamers in 4th and eviscerators in 6th? So just hold on until 14th and 16th edition for assault intercessors to get them. Will be here before you know it.
I cut plasma pistol arms off of AMs to give them flamers. Full circle I guess.
Yes it sucks.
We had Flamers (and the other Special Weapons) in 2nd. Then we briefly had the Meltas and Plasmas again in the 10th Index.
Now we just have ugly Assault Intercessors.
2nd was a wild frontier of options. I tend not to think about it when thinking about what we could do. When 3rd purged most of the options, what we had left set the baseline for the next couple of decades.
2nd was a wild frontier of options. I tend not to think about it when thinking about what we could do. When 3rd purged most of the options, what we had left set the baseline for the next couple of decades.
I disagree, I once painted up a space marine with a virus grenade over 25 years ago and I'm never going to forgive GW until it's a non-legend option again.
H.B.M.C. wrote: What are my Flamer and Eviscerator Assault Mariners going to proxy as then?
We got flamers in 4th and eviscerators in 6th? So just hold on until 14th and 16th edition for assault intercessors to get them. Will be here before you know it.
I cut plasma pistol arms off of AMs to give them flamers. Full circle I guess.
Yes it sucks.
We had Flamers (and the other Special Weapons) in 2nd. Then we briefly had the Meltas and Plasmas again in the 10th Index.
Now we just have ugly Assault Intercessors.
2nd was a wild frontier of options. I tend not to think about it when thinking about what we could do. When 3rd purged most of the options, what we had left set the baseline for the next couple of decades.
I'm going to push back and say that 3rd ed was the outlier, especially in the case for the Assault Marines. It's the only past edition where they couldn't get Flamers. Also, 3rd ed opened up quite a bit as it went on, in terms of options. 3rd ed saw an army of Kroot, Speed Freaks, Chaos 3.5, Imperial Guard Doctrines and the glorious Vehicle Design Rules.
Dawnbringer wrote: That's alot hanging on people caring about +1 OC and being able to take 6 of something. I can't see anyone taking six of any phobos unit just like I doubt people are taking six tac or intercessor squads.
Hi, I'm that anyone! Unless I've missed something, Combat Squads are gone. That makes a huge difference when going from 10s splitting into 5s and straight taking 5s.
It means you're going from the wildly excessive 90 models made up of Reivers, Infiltrators and Incursors for Ro3(3*10 three times) to 45 models. For someone wanting to recreate the Vanguard Company, this is a huge change.
Dawnbringer wrote: That's alot hanging on people caring about +1 OC and being able to take 6 of something. I can't see anyone taking six of any phobos unit just like I doubt people are taking six tac or intercessor squads.
Hi, I'm that anyone! Unless I've missed something, Combat Squads are gone. That makes a huge difference when going from 10s splitting into 5s and straight taking 5s.
It means you're going from the wildly excessive 90 models made up of Reivers, Infiltrators and Incursors for Ro3(3*10 three times) to 45 models. For someone wanting to recreate the Vanguard Company, this is a huge change.
Good news, Combat Squads is back.
For one unit. And it replaced another useful ability, which was Fall Back And Shoot. Why not gice Combat Squads as just a general rule? Who knows.
H.B.M.C. wrote: The loss of combat squads was an unnecessary change.
I'd argue the whole of 10th is an unnecessary change.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
Ultramarines, 3rd Co. and friends, 16k+ 
4k 
4k Points
Competition Index
