Master Sheol Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Wouldn't that be solved by having Ravenwing and Deathwing formations? Choose which ever FOC you want for your core and then add formations for flavor. yes... but if the RW formation is the entire company??? 2000+ points of models??? Formations are cool but limiting cause they force you to have a particolare bonus to take models you would never use cause they don't fit your strategy or they are crap (yes LSV and DA flyers i am looking at you)... A FOC is flexible... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varizel Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 I should have been more specific in my previous post. The codex would have to have to give you the ability to take a primary detachment of Greenwing, Ravenwing, or Deathwing. Beyond that one or two Ravenwing/Deathwing/Doublewing formations could be very useful. The more I think about it the more I can see Deathwing Assault being turned into a Formation Special Rule. Also to comment on the conversation above, watchers as 'Dark Angels Servo Skulls' would be awesome. considering how a battleforged army works now it's not unlikely to think about 3 different FoC in the codex (mixed wing, ravenwing only, Deathwing only) that can be used as various Combined Arms detachements... The problem is when you will use DA as allies cause you will not be able to use any of the special FOC cause you MUST use the allied detachment only... And you cannot build a force like the RW helping CF on Rtnn to defeat the orks... Wait.. hold on. I thought it is ok to have 2 different detachments from 2 different armies? I just checked my rulebook and didn't see anything that prohibits it. The only limitation of the Combined Armed Detachment or any other detachments i have for my army was that all the units from that detachment has to come from the same faction. So i can basically take 2 detachments ... one from my orkz and one from Dark Angels ... Super heretical, but it can be done. You just have to choose a primary detachment out of the 2 detachments or more for warlording purpose. So if there is a RW detachment, then it can ally just fine with CF to defeat the orkz. Unless, of course, i am mistaken. Edit: the bolded and underlined part was not referring to allies detachment, for clarity sake.... but you can take them both RW and CF detachments is what i meant. Just have to take whatever minimum requirements are for both detachments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Sheol Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 I should have been more specific in my previous post. The codex would have to have to give you the ability to take a primary detachment of Greenwing, Ravenwing, or Deathwing. Beyond that one or two Ravenwing/Deathwing/Doublewing formations could be very useful. The more I think about it the more I can see Deathwing Assault being turned into a Formation Special Rule. Also to comment on the conversation above, watchers as 'Dark Angels Servo Skulls' would be awesome. considering how a battleforged army works now it's not unlikely to think about 3 different FoC in the codex (mixed wing, ravenwing only, Deathwing only) that can be used as various Combined Arms detachements... The problem is when you will use DA as allies cause you will not be able to use any of the special FOC cause you MUST use the allied detachment only... And you cannot build a force like the RW helping CF on Rtnn to defeat the orks... Wait.. hold on. I thought it is ok to have 2 different detachments from 2 different armies? I just checked my rulebook and didn't see anything that prohibits it. The only limitation of the Combined Armed Detachment or any other detachments i have for my army was that all the units from that detachment has to come from the same faction. So i can basically take 2 detachments ... one from my orkz and one from Dark Angels ... Super heretical, but it can be done. You just have to choose a primary detachment out of the 2 detachments or more for warlording purpose. So if there is a RW detachment, then it can ally just fine with CF to defeat the orkz. Unless, of course, i am mistaken. Edit: the bolded and underlined part was not referring to allies detachment, for clarity sake.... but you can take them both RW and CF detachments is what i meant. Just have to take whatever minimum requirements are for both detachments. The CAD for the main army is 1-2 HQ 2-6 troops 0-3 elite 0-3 FA 0-3 HS and then you can have a allied detachment that is 1 HQ 1-4 troops 0-1 elite 0-1 FA 0-1 HS now i know that you can swap any or all the CAD for a different FOC if all of them come from the same faction (in this case RW, DW, greenwin detachments are all from the DA faction) but there is still the problem of the allied detachment cause it's strictly according the BRB There is something i am missing about that??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varizel Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Ahh.. that's not how it works though brother, You can think of your army as a collection of detachments nowadays. Formations is detachment too... a special version of it. It can have multiple Detachments including 2 Combined Armed Detachments and a formation if you so wish... as a matter fact, there is no reason to take Allies Detachment unless you want to take less troops for the allies but the benefit is minimum when you can take another CAD. Anyhow, as i said, you can have 2 CAD in one army and it works just fine. There are restrictions though but that restriction only works for that detachment. So for you to use one Combined Armed Detachment, it has to be from one faction. BUT... if you have 2 CAD.... then you can essentially take 2 Factions . For another example... let's say i'll take the greenskin horde detachment (Orkz Codex) and a CAD Detachment (Dark Angels). That would be fine and won't be counted as Unbound because it conforms to 2 CAD and their restrictions. I hope it clears it out. Edit: I just have to choose from those 2 Detachments, which one is primary... since warlord comes from primary detachment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Sheol Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Ahh.. that's not how it works though brother, You can think of your army as a collection of detachments nowadays. Formations is detachment too... a special version of it. It can have multiple Detachments including 2 Combined Armed Detachments and a formation if you so wish... as a matter fact, there is no reason to take Allies Detachment unless you want to take less troops for the allies but the benefit is minimum when you can take another CAD. Anyhow, as i said, you can have 2 CAD in one army and it works just fine. There are restrictions though but that restriction only works for that detachment. So for you to use one Combined Armed Detachment, it has to be from one faction. BUT... if you have 2 CAD.... then you can essentially take 2 Factions . For another example... let's say i'll take the greenskin horde detachment (Orkz Codex) and a CAD Detachment (Dark Angels). That would be fine and won't be counted as Unbound because it conforms to 2 CAD and their restrictions. I hope it clears it out. Edit: I just have to choose from those 2 Detachments, which one is primary... since warlord comes from primary detachment. Thanks! So making my imperial alliances will be easier... :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interrogator Stobz Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 The 'latest' rumour list doesn't have DA on it (until after June anyway). Keep breathing :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Sheol Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 I report here the latest rmors about CSM In the last week of March, GW will release a Codex for Khorne Warbands/Hordes.It combines Khorne-themed CSM and daemon units. Formations, etc..It is a one-week release with no new miniatures released for this new codex as such (but Zerkers, in all their old miniatures-glory, are actually in the Codex, no WD spin-offs).The main purpose of this khorne codex is to ride in the slipstream of End Times 5, which will be released earlier in march, with the "headline"-release of the new Bloodthirster (builds 3 variants).There is no "main" Codex CSM in 2015. There are no nurgle, tzeentch, etc. equivalents to this khorne one planned (yet), as it's mostly an End Times add-on to make the new Bloodthirster with all its variants work in 40K. According to this rumors tthere will be NO CSM codex in 2015 so not CSM vs DA campaing and so probably NO codex DA, no supplements for DA, no dataslates for DA, no formations for DA... First GW kills Bretonnia in WHFB then i have to live another year or two with the second worst DA codex in hystory... thanks GW for tempting me to play only Flames of War... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corrupted Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 It's going to be hilarious when the codex drops with the exact same structure as the current one plus a wacky detachment Azzy as a LoW and straightforward simplifications to some units and wargear. As we all sit back and give a collective, "Huh...Ok then." Our codex really only needs some small tweaks, I keep reading through the new Grey Knight Codex and trying to relate it to what could happen to our book and I think I would be very happy if we got the same treatment. They gave some real objective though to the point costs of units like Grey Knight Terminators and Dread Knights, if Black Knights got the Dread Knight treatment I'd be over the goddamn moon. The nemesis force weapons are less powerful but at least their points were adjusted accordingly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interrogator Stobz Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Thanks for adding the extra info for us Master S; never mind the doom and gloom though ;) Our Dex alongside IA2 and Aeronautica is fine, not auto-win awesome but fine. B+ fine with errors as usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frater Cornelius Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Well, after plenty of doom and gloom, I have actually become more cautiously optimistic :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Blaire Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Formations always specify squads or specific units. They must be taken as described, and cannot satisfy components of other detachments, as formations are all detachments and units can not be part of multiple detachments. However, all detachments are not all formations. A Formation will not be listed like an FOC and doesn't have optional additions. I don't see them limiting the DW or RW detachments being limited to Formations, they will more likely be full Detachments in their own right, with a unique FOC, allowing choices and options. Formations will likely come in the form of specific groups used in past campaigns, such as the "Hunters of Kathandrax IV" - based on the force used to hunt down a specific Fallen in the catacombs of Kathandrax IV (obviously made up). As far as the slap in the face... No, it isn't. The game changes, and the changes aren't directly personally. Will they likely change things to try and influence you to spend additional money? Sure, because they are a company. That doesn't mean they are targeting you personally for this though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twopounder Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 I report here the latest rmors about CSM In the last week of March, GW will release a Codex for Khorne Warbands/Hordes. It combines Khorne-themed CSM and daemon units. Formations, etc.. It is a one-week release with no new miniatures released for this new codex as such (but Zerkers, in all their old miniatures-glory, are actually in the Codex, no WD spin-offs). The main purpose of this khorne codex is to ride in the slipstream of End Times 5, which will be released earlier in march, with the "headline"-release of the new Bloodthirster (builds 3 variants). There is no "main" Codex CSM in 2015. There are no nurgle, tzeentch, etc. equivalents to this khorne one planned (yet), as it's mostly an End Times add-on to make the new Bloodthirster with all its variants work in 40K. According to this rumors tthere will be NO CSM codex in 2015 so not CSM vs DA campaing and so probably NO codex DA, no supplements for DA, no dataslates for DA, no formations for DA... First GW kills Bretonnia in WHFB then i have to live another year or two with the second worst DA codex in hystory... thanks GW for tempting me to play only Flames of War... Whoa, hold the phone there. This is most certainly not the 2nd worst codex in DA history. This is by far the best. Maybe not everything is great, or usable, but it has flavor and plenty of very nice units. The book may need some fixes, I but I don't want to see anything actually change. I'm quite happy with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frater Cornelius Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 I would love if it would just be a Campaign Supplement like BA got with Shield of Baal. Supplementary rules for our very decent current codex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isiah Posted January 12, 2015 Author Share Posted January 12, 2015 Yes who can tell. That new info has put the cat amongst the pigeons. If there were any pigeons in the first place - or even a cat :huh:. I guess it could be campaign book first with codex later in the year. Who knows. So many different rumours flying around <_<. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frater Cornelius Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 I am still hoping for Luther to be a playable character :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Sheol Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 I am still hoping for Luther to be a playable character You will have it in FW HH series with model too... somewhere in the future... However considering that the half-year report is still shrinking i guess GW will need more money this year too so we can hope in a new DA codex this year too... The problem will be if the rushed money grab will be better than the one we have now (that is not ugly like the previous one but still subpar considering the other codices) or worst... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.