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.

reefeco wrote:

LOL, I didn't sit in any queue for anything, nor would I ever. I'm not plugged in enough to pre-order anything. Didn't even know about the new DW assault box until after I have already bought the command squad...

also reefeco wrote:Not that I'm a competitive player at all, but based on tourney take and win rates, DA was not played often and when it was, win rate was 46% ish - meaning it was low-middle of the pack. i think that is what some of the uproar is about from DA players, that they were already underpowered, and this just makes it worse.

You're not 'plugged in' enough to know about the upcoming releases for the army you collect, but you're plugged in enough to know their tournament win percentage, despite not being a competitive player?

Yeah.... enjoy the models that you can assemble as any of the multiple units that can be built from that kit without issue. You're complaints have passed the 'beyond silly' threshold at this point.

Voss wrote:

reefeco wrote:

LOL, I didn't sit in any queue for anything, nor would I ever. I'm not plugged in enough to pre-order anything. Didn't even know about the new DW assault box until after I have already bought the command squad...

also reefeco wrote:Not that I'm a competitive player at all, but based on tourney take and win rates, DA was not played often and when it was, win rate was 46% ish - meaning it was low-middle of the pack. i think that is what some of the uproar is about from DA players, that they were already underpowered, and this just makes it worse.

You're not 'plugged in' enough to know about the upcoming releases for the army you collect, but you're plugged in enough to know their tournament win percentage, despite not being a competitive player?

Yeah.... enjoy the models that you can assemble as any of the multiple units that can be built from that kit without issue. You're complaints have passed the 'beyond silly' threshold at this point.

Yeah, researched the percentages when everyone started complaining about the codex nerfs. Respectfully, you are making a lot of assumptions - like I waited in a queue today and bought the command squad on the same day as the assault box release - that is silly. Bought it two weeks ago - then learned they aren't event the current scale. And I have other terminators I had planned to convert to DW - bought the command box specifically for the datasheets and the box, as labeled. As a new player whose not aware of all all the releases and rumors, I have every right to complain about GW selling me a box that they knew was being removed from the game - period. And I don't "need to stop" as you rudely suggest. Imagine if a phone company sold you a phone they knew could not be used on a cellular network. I have no problem with them selling the models, as long as they are transparent about removing them from the game - so customers can be informed. If you think that is silly because of my newbie status - that's fine. Your understanding and tolerance are noted. I think it demonstrates that you have become jaded with the way things are, rather than the way they should be. At the very least, there should be an impending legends notice on kits or similar a certain amount of time in advance to alert customers. That would be the right thing to do. I'll keep being silly I guess - you know, expecting a kit I buy for a game can actually be used in it - you can continue to be intolerant and abrasive. Happy gaming brother.

ccs wrote:

reefeco wrote:
Still seems underhanded to me - command box it still on sale on the website today, with no notice about not being able to be used in the game. I need to get over it and attribute it to the learning curve, just the principle is very aggravating...

Ok, you really need to stop complaining about this.

1) Because right now, today? That unit is 100% valid game wise. That it's not in the book that's not yet released doesn't change that.
GW is NOT going to stop selling it nor are they going to say anything that'll discourage sales of it.

The book comes in the box. There is some caveat emptor, but there's also something unethical about it. At the very least the same day the book goes on pre-order, units invalidated by the new book should have some sort of notice that it's on borrowed time.

2) As you're new/returning you may have missed the fact that this is the exact same kit that also makes regular DW termies & DW Knights.
They simply list it once for each unit it can make.
I'd expect that once the book launches they'll remove the Command squad listing.

Removed - rule #1 please

Voss wrote:

Dysartes wrote:Question from someone who doesn't have the SM 'dex for this edition - is there a Terminator Command Squad unit in there?

No, but it didn't exist in the index cards or 9th edition either. There is still the terminator ancient (standard bearer) as an individual, however.

So with no generic TCS available, it isn't unreasonable to be annoyed when a unit option (Deathwing Command Squad) you had access to and were building toward is taken away. Even you're not trying to claim there's a generic Terminator Apothecary that could be used, despite that having been an option in the DCS.

The simple answer I feel is to just not play 10th edition and rather play many of the other completed, finished editions that have a better balance state to boot. That Deathwing change is certainly something that rubs wrong and I feel another good example to just not play 10e. TH/SS with missiles is a staple loadout for longer than some 40k players have been alive by this point, invalidating it is just silly.

ccs wrote:

reefeco wrote:
Still seems underhanded to me - command box it still on sale on the website today, with no notice about not being able to be used in the game. I need to get over it and attribute it to the learning curve, just the principle is very aggravating...

Ok, you really need to stop complaining about this.

1) Because right now, today? That unit is 100% valid game wise. That it's not in the book that's not yet released doesn't change that.
GW is NOT going to stop selling it nor are they going to say anything that'll discourage sales of it.

2) As you're new/returning you may have missed the fact that this is the exact same kit that also makes regular DW termies & DW Knights.
They simply list it once for each unit it can make.
I'd expect that once the book launches they'll remove the Command squad listing.

That's his point. It's scummy anti-customer move. You are proving his point

Alright gents, I think this thread has run its course - didn't mean it to become a slug fest - maybe venting on my frustration as a newbie was not the best idea. I'm gonna finish the DA army minus the command squad and likely just run them as something else in 10e, minus the characters. At least the SM detachments give that flexibility if I'm reading things right. Happy gaming everyone.

 Dysartes wrote:

Voss wrote:

Dysartes wrote:Question from someone who doesn't have the SM 'dex for this edition - is there a Terminator Command Squad unit in there?

No, but it didn't exist in the index cards or 9th edition either. There is still the terminator ancient (standard bearer) as an individual, however.

So with no generic TCS available, it isn't unreasonable to be annoyed when a unit option (Deathwing Command Squad) you had access to and were building toward is taken away. Even you're not trying to claim there's a generic Terminator Apothecary that could be used, despite that having been an option in the DCS.

No, but its a perfectly reasonable terminator with chainfist... assuming it was built that way in the first place, but more and more it sounds like a completely unassembled box that's still entirely usable as any of the multiple units it can actually build.

You're convinced a rug is being pulled on an unaware sucker... but it doesn't really sound like there is one. Just a weird 'think of the children' argument, when there aren't any around.

Breton wrote:
Losing both special Lieutenants and the Deathwing Command Squad are dissapointing for me as I was hoping they would be the wedge we could use to shoehorn that sort of thing in for the other chapters. I'd like to see Cap/Chap/LT and maybe Libby for each major armor/outfit type (Term, Grav, Bike, Jump, Power)

Er, GW doesn't work that way. We had DA primaris LT with plasma weapons (and SW one with power axe/bolter) for three editions, neither acted like a wedge and only when GW got rid of them we got generic LT with all the options. So, if anything, it's the lack of DA snowflake option that will act as a 'wedge' IMO, now that you don't have donutsteel blocking it GW can release LT/apothecary box to fill the TDA niche. So, I am cautiously optimistic here.

Though, gravis and phobos first, these waited for literal ages and the fact that gravis SM still only have one HQ is beyond stupid

 Irbis wrote:

Breton wrote:
Losing both special Lieutenants and the Deathwing Command Squad are dissapointing for me as I was hoping they would be the wedge we could use to shoehorn that sort of thing in for the other chapters. I'd like to see Cap/Chap/LT and maybe Libby for each major armor/outfit type (Term, Grav, Bike, Jump, Power)

Er, GW doesn't work that way. We had DA primaris LT with plasma weapons (and SW one with power axe/bolter) for three editions, neither acted like a wedge and only when GW got rid of them we got generic LT with all the options. So, if anything, it's the lack of DA snowflake option that will act as a 'wedge' IMO, now that you don't have donutsteel blocking it GW can release LT/apothecary box to fill the TDA niche. So, I am cautiously optimistic here.

Though, gravis and phobos first, these waited for literal ages and the fact that gravis SM still only have one HQ is beyond stupid

Gravis have two - the Biologis is an HQ (And really more of a Lieutenant than an Apothecary) But yeah I'd love it if they did a two-kit-make-a-model to fill out all the HQ choices. Use a model from the base kit, add the appropriate arms/accessories to make a Gravis Libby, a Bike Captain, Terminator Lieutenant etc.

I’d also say that Marines are fine with the amount of variety they have.

Compare them to a Daemon faction, or DE, or close to any other faction really.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I’d also say that Marines are fine with the amount of variety they have.

Compare them to a Daemon faction, or DE, or close to any other faction really.

I'd say Marines should have a "full" variety but don't because of piecemeal HQs - especially when armor type tends to limit who joins what - AND the other factions need more variety. Custodes, Votann and World Eaters especially need an infusion of datasheets. Most armies just need a sheet here and there because the S/T paradigm has been turned on its head - Sisters and (Wo)man Portable Anti-Tank., Tau probably need some detachments that facilitate and reward alternate/different/various playstyles.

Breton wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I’d also say that Marines are fine with the amount of variety they have.

Compare them to a Daemon faction, or DE, or close to any other faction really.

I'd say Marines should have a "full" variety but don't because of piecemeal HQs - especially when armor type tends to limit who joins what - AND the other factions need more variety. Custodes, Votann and World Eaters especially need an infusion of datasheets. Most armies just need a sheet here and there because the S/T paradigm has been turned on its head - Sisters and (Wo)man Portable Anti-Tank., Tau probably need some detachments that facilitate and reward alternate/different/various playstyles.

This feels like a problem that would be better solved by taking the designer who placed ridiculous limitations on what HQs could join what units, and giving him a hefty slap.

As opposed to releasing yet more units for what is already the most bloated faction in all of Warhammer.

If kitbashing was still the norm, then there wouldn't even be the need for distinct models. Just add the armor/movement options to the already existing unit entries.

 vipoid wrote:

Breton wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I’d also say that Marines are fine with the amount of variety they have.

Compare them to a Daemon faction, or DE, or close to any other faction really.

I'd say Marines should have a "full" variety but don't because of piecemeal HQs - especially when armor type tends to limit who joins what - AND the other factions need more variety. Custodes, Votann and World Eaters especially need an infusion of datasheets. Most armies just need a sheet here and there because the S/T paradigm has been turned on its head - Sisters and (Wo)man Portable Anti-Tank., Tau probably need some detachments that facilitate and reward alternate/different/various playstyles.

This feels like a problem that would be better solved by taking the designer who placed ridiculous limitations on what HQs could join what units, and giving him a hefty slap.

As opposed to releasing yet more units for what is already the most bloated faction in all of Warhammer.

I mean , that could work, or they could take a look at HH for hq's in general....

Counterpoint:
It feels like a problem that would not exist had some designer not decided that we needed to go back to the ridiculous days of characters needing to be thrown into units.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Counterpoint:
It feels like a problem that would not exist had some designer not decided that we needed to go back to the ridiculous days of characters needing to be thrown into units.

Yeah, it seemed a little odd when 8th first split characters and units but I came to like it an awful lot more. IMO it only really needed a couple of tweaks:

1) Base concealment on toughness, rather than wounds (as the latter is much more arbitrary and often has little relation to a model's size). Basically make it so that units with a lower toughness than a character can be ignored for targeting that character.

2) Replace most/all of the Aura mechanics with something else, possibly the Command mechanic from AoS (this would have both eliminated most of the issues with Death Stars and also allowed for a lot of Stratagems to be removed).


I think going back to having Characters have to join units was already a step back. However, having the mechanics be drastically worse than the Independent Mechanics from 7 editions ago was a step backwards off a cliff.

 vipoid wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Counterpoint:
It feels like a problem that would not exist had some designer not decided that we needed to go back to the ridiculous days of characters needing to be thrown into units.

Yeah, it seemed a little odd when 8th first split characters and units but I came to like it an awful lot more. IMO it only really needed a couple of tweaks:

1) Base concealment on toughness, rather than wounds (as the latter is much more arbitrary and often has little relation to a model's size). Basically make it so that units with a lower toughness than a character can be ignored for targeting that character.

2) Replace most/all of the Aura mechanics with something else, possibly the Command mechanic from AoS (this would have both eliminated most of the issues with Death Stars and also allowed for a lot of Stratagems to be removed).

Or just quit trying to please everyone, keep it like it was flesh everything out. Its still going to be a game of 40K not the Campaign For North Africa. A little complexity is good, its why we're not playing checkers.

I think going back to having Characters have to join units was already a step back. However, having the mechanics be drastically worse than the Independent Mechanics from 7 editions ago was a step backwards off a cliff.

Yeah 10th's character system arguably only really works for LSM. The moment you step out of that army it really falls apart as a system to a catastrophic degree.

i cancelled my pre-orders and i will be sitting this edition out, and i pray games workshop comes to her senses or i may just start parting out my army and selling it, its my only army and near and dear to my heart so when you functionally tell me to stop playing it in an even remotely interesting way and just spam bikes like its 6th edition i feel we are destined for the trash bin long term, we will be an f-tier codex the second the next guy gets released, and definitely once xenos dexes start arriving in force as was the case in 6th and 7th editions.

games workshop have decided to shoot poor dark angels who have rarely every gotten a fair shake in our lives because "we needed a space marine army to suck so we can stat pad some other army release down the road". or "we need an army to fight exclusively chaos space marines in a starter set soon"

nobody will truly care long run though because dark angels are the "forest green marines" and little more cause games workshop has utterly failed at letting us shine as a faction in any meaningful way and we have no player base.

had this happened to the orks or the eldar there would have been more blood for the blood god at WHW then people one day. but as it stands this will be an awful deal for the 1st legion that will largely be seen as "meh" by anyone who doesn't main the army

I would not be so quick about selling your collection. Rules come and go with GW.

In the meantime, you could look into fan rulesets that are compatible with GW miniatures. All you need is a like minded individual.

nobody will truly care long run though because dark angels are the "forest green marines" and little more cause games workshop has utterly failed at letting us shine as a faction in any meaningful way and we have no player base.

As a subfaction Dark Angels have a truly vast dedicated model range in not just one but two games and sadly there has become an increasing expectation that they receive super special rules to make them Marines +10000 rather than being differnt to the other 990 odd chapters who don't get any of this.

a_typical_hero wrote:
I would not be so quick about selling your collection. Rules come and go with GW.

In the meantime, you could look into fan rulesets that are compatible with GW miniatures. All you need is a like minded individual.

Rules come and go, but so do models. Right now my store lost 3 players since marine codex came out. One WS player and two DA, which also happens to be all players of those faction at the store. All I hope is that all books in 10th are going to be bigger or smaller nerfs, with sprinkle of inconsequential side grades and GW, mid in to the edition, doesn't decide to go ham with the rules. The way they did in 8th and 9th. Because then all those "lore/casual" friendly codex are not going to be very fun to play with. As member the "index was better" gang, I feel for all the DW players, and it pains me to see so many YT creators, flount they GW send DW limited codex saying stuff like "in ain't that bad" , "you can always run your DW without actual DW units in them, just take 3 units of hellblasters, scouts, interceptors and tanks +DW characters" or "just play them as other marines". But I guess if they said what the books really are for a DW or RW player, they would no longer be sent those boxes by GW.

 vipoid wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Counterpoint:
It feels like a problem that would not exist had some designer not decided that we needed to go back to the ridiculous days of characters needing to be thrown into units.

Yeah, it seemed a little odd when 8th first split characters and units but I came to like it an awful lot more. IMO it only really needed a couple of tweaks:

1) Base concealment on toughness, rather than wounds (as the latter is much more arbitrary and often has little relation to a model's size). Basically make it so that units with a lower toughness than a character can be ignored for targeting that character.

2) Replace most/all of the Aura mechanics with something else, possibly the Command mechanic from AoS (this would have both eliminated most of the issues with Death Stars and also allowed for a lot of Stratagems to be removed).


I think going back to having Characters have to join units was already a step back. However, having the mechanics be drastically worse than the Independent Mechanics from 7 editions ago was a step backwards off a cliff.

Why does it need to be one or the other? Creating a rules system where you have the option of attaching characters or having them operate as solo warriors isn't that difficult, that GW can't seem to figure out how to do that is mind-boggling.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Counterpoint:
It feels like a problem that would not exist had some designer not decided that we needed to go back to the ridiculous days of characters needing to be thrown into units.

Yeah, it seemed a little odd when 8th first split characters and units but I came to like it an awful lot more. IMO it only really needed a couple of tweaks:

1) Base concealment on toughness, rather than wounds (as the latter is much more arbitrary and often has little relation to a model's size). Basically make it so that units with a lower toughness than a character can be ignored for targeting that character.

2) Replace most/all of the Aura mechanics with something else, possibly the Command mechanic from AoS (this would have both eliminated most of the issues with Death Stars and also allowed for a lot of Stratagems to be removed).


I think going back to having Characters have to join units was already a step back. However, having the mechanics be drastically worse than the Independent Mechanics from 7 editions ago was a step backwards off a cliff.

Why does it need to be one or the other? Creating a rules system where you have the option of attaching characters or having them operate as solo warriors isn't that difficult, that GW can't seem to figure out how to do that is mind-boggling.

I would have thought characters acting independently would eliminate the need for them to join units. But you're right, you could also try for a hybrid system.

I believe HBMC proposed simply giving Lone Operative to all characters not attached to units, which seems like a good start.

Might also help if abilities weren't completely geared towards being attached to units, to the point where basic wargear ceases to function unless a character has buddies.

Lone Operative is along side indirect fire and Dev wounds, one of the stupidest rules in w40k. As bad as character being locked to units is, lone operative on all characters is way worse. And I say it as someone who has to run 2-3 librarians solo without lone operative, just because GW designed the rules that way.

Karol wrote:
Lone Operative is along side indirect fire and Dev wounds, one of the stupidest rules in w40k. As bad as character being locked to units is, lone operative on all characters is way worse. And I say it as someone who has to run 2-3 librarians solo without lone operative, just because GW designed the rules that way.

Care to elaborate?

 vipoid wrote:

Karol wrote:
Lone Operative is along side indirect fire and Dev wounds, one of the stupidest rules in w40k. As bad as character being locked to units is, lone operative on all characters is way worse. And I say it as someone who has to run 2-3 librarians solo without lone operative, just because GW designed the rules that way.

Care to elaborate?

Likely they want GK librarians who wear terminator armour and act as MW batteries, but don't want terminator units to put them in, so they get 0 protection hanging their ass in the breeze, hence lone operative is "unfair" I assume.

There are no GK librarians that don't wear terminator armour. I every codex that has lone operatives, because of how broken the rule is, it is an auto take. Giving more options to have stuff like that, especialy the cheaper/horde armies would be just insane.

The GK character stuff is unfair, because some bozo that copy pasted/wrote the GK index rule "forgot" that A GK version of Lt is called a cpt, so there is exactly 0 apothecary/Lt style models in the GK index. At the same time with the 0 offensive ability the GK codex has, not running Librarians just doesn't work. Also mechanicaly the GK terminator/paladin units are designed to be joined by characters to use stratagems, in the more limited (once per game) way GK are allowed to do that. But again the state of the GK index is not the argument here. It is lone operative being a bad rule. Do people really want every character to turn in to a nurgle rhino+ ? And again I say this as someone whose army would greatly benefit from it. Especialy if the rule spread to all characters. Because while not personaly good for me, there are a LOT of GK players who own 4-6 NDKs and they would love to start using at least 1-2 of them. They maybe even okey with the bad damage and stats they have, if they just could be lone operatives.