New Codex Gripe(s) *Yes, a bit of a rant*

[notmattlythgoe]

I love using Belial and never saw him as a crutch as most people do. And DW still have a tax now its just called Ravenwing.

 

 

 

And using an old codex to play the exact same list as you would playing unbound isn't stupid?

Being able to play LR as dedicated transport

Being able to play ven dread without paying for a drop pod.

Being able to use contemptor dreads from FW.

Being able to T1 DS if you wish

Being able to field a CAD due to counts-as troops

 

To add to that.

Being Able to play any Dread not just Ven Dread.

Being Able to field Heavy support LR

Being Able to field Heavy Support Deredeo from FW.

Being Able to field any unit that fits DW fluff without restrictions.

Being Able to field any variant of Land Raiders.

Being Able to use my nicely painted Banner of Fortitude and use it as one.

 

Again, your answer to 95% of your complains is to go unbound if you want pure DW.

 

Turn 1 DS and the banners are the only things lost with the new Codex.

[Stormxlr]

 

I love using Belial and never saw him as a crutch as most people do. And DW still have a tax now its just called Ravenwing.

 

 

 

And using an old codex to play the exact same list as you would playing unbound isn't stupid?

Being able to play LR as dedicated transport

Being able to play ven dread without paying for a drop pod.

Being able to use contemptor dreads from FW.

Being able to T1 DS if you wish

Being able to field a CAD due to counts-as troops

 

To add to that.

Being Able to play any Dread not just Ven Dread.

Being Able to field Heavy support LR

Being Able to field Heavy Support Deredeo from FW.

Being Able to field any unit that fits DW fluff without restrictions.

Being Able to field any variant of Land Raiders.

Being Able to use my nicely painted Banner of Fortitude and use it as one.

 

Again, your answer to 95% of your complains is to go unbound if you want pure DW.

 

Turn 1 DS and the banners are the only things lost with the new Codex.

 

That’s just like, your opinion, man.

Unbound is just a way GW uses to not bother writing good rules.

In my case I cant use Unbound in most events and is usually looked down upon by other players. But they wont have a problem with me using my old codex, to play my DW, the way that I want, thats still completely legal.

[Elios Harg]

I just want to clear up one misconception that keeps being put forward. You *can* field a Deathwing army without any other "wings" and without unbound. I feel that it is even quite a bit more effective than full DW assault used to be. The only real issue I have with the DW Strike Force is that you can't include land raiders unless they FAQ it.

[notmattlythgoe]

 

That’s just like, your opinion, man.

 

Unbound is just a way GW uses to not bother writing good rules.

In my case I cant use Unbound in most events and is usually looked down upon by other players. But they wont have a problem with me using my old codex, to play my DW, the way that I want, thats still completely legal.

 

 

It's actually not opinion. It's completely legal according to the rules. The way the events you attend are run doesn't change that. 

 

It's stupid to claim that the codex lost the ability to field all of the things that were listed when the only thing limiting it is your choice not to field them.

[WellSpokenMan]

I really wish that at some point players will look at this as a tactical problem to be solved and discuss how to do that instead.  It would be more interesting and less irritating.  Everybody has agreed that DW got screwed.  Other people lost things they liked or had things invalidated by this codex release, as with many codex releases that have come before.  I can promise you that complaining on this forum won't help.  Nobody here is trying to say that GW was right to have handled things the way they did.  We are just trying to move the conversation to something more productive than a good cry.   

 

Being able to play LR as dedicated transport - This is in the codex
Being able to play ven dread without paying for a drop pod. - This is in the codex
Being able to use contemptor dreads from FW. - This is in the IA book and may be FAQ'd in the near future according to reports from Forge World
Being able to T1 DS if you wish - sorry Charlie
Being able to field a CAD due to counts-as troops - Nobody can field Terminators as troops anymore, you can however, still field a CAD  

Being Able to play any Dread not just Ven Dread - This is in the codex
Being Able to field Heavy support LR - This is in the codex
Being Able to field Heavy Support Deredeo from FW - This is in the IA book and may be FAQ'd in the near future according to reports from Forge World.

Being Able to field any unit that fits DW fluff without restrictions - Unbound.

Being Able to field any variant of Land Raiders This is in the codex (unless there is something I've never heard of)

Being Able to use my nicely painted Banner of Fortitude and use it as one. sorry Charlie

     

 

[Master Avoghai]

Unbound is part of the rules. It's in the rulebook. Using an old edition codex is actually more like ignoring the rules than playing unbound

No it's just a lazy solution proposed by GW to compensate their "no play test design".

 

If unbound was a good solutions and a fair one, then you would have more people using it and suggestion like using the 6th Ed wouldn't even appear.

[notmattlythgoe]

 

Unbound is part of the rules. It's in the rulebook. Using an old edition codex is actually more like ignoring the rules than playing unbound

No it's just a lazy solution proposed by GW to compensate their "no play test design".

 

If unbound was a good solutions and a fair one, then you would have more people using it and suggestion like using the 6th Ed wouldn't even appear.

 

 

Would you take advantage of unbound to make an unfair over powered list? Or would you use it to make the fluffy list that you want to play?

[Stormxlr]

I really wish that at some point players will look at this as a tactical problem to be solved and discuss how to do that instead.  It would be more interesting and less irritating.  Everybody has agreed that DW got screwed.  Other people lost things they liked or had things invalidated by this codex release, as with many codex releases that have come before.  I can promise you that complaining on this forum won't help.  Nobody here is trying to say that GW was right to have handled things the way they did.  We are just trying to move the conversation to something more productive than a good cry.   

 

Being able to play LR as dedicated transport - This is in the codex- Not For DW Strike Force therefore illigal

Being able to play ven dread without paying for a drop pod. - This is in the codex - Not for DW Strike Force

Being able to use contemptor dreads from FW. - This is in the IA book and may be FAQ'd in the near future according to reports from Forge World - Must have Deathwing Rule, therefore illigal.

Being able to T1 DS if you wish - sorry Charlie

Being able to field a CAD due to counts-as troops - Nobody can field Terminators as troops anymore, you can however, still field a CAD-  Not Relevant for DW

Being Able to play any Dread not just Ven Dread - This is in the codex - Not For DW Strike Force.

Being Able to field Heavy support LR - This is in the codex - Not For DW Strike Force

Being Able to field Heavy Support Deredeo from FW - This is in the IA book and may be FAQ'd in the near future according to reports from Forge World.- Still wont Change Anything Since DWSF has no HS.

Being Able to field any unit that fits DW fluff without restrictions - Unbound.- 6th Edition Codex.

Being Able to field any variant of Land Raiders This is in the codex (unless there is something I've never heard of) - Any FW variant Cant be fielded due to absence of Heavy Support Slots.

Being Able to use my nicely painted Banner of Fortitude and use it as one. sorry Charlie

     

 

Fixed it for you.

I am done complaining, thats why I said i will use my 6th Ed codex to play DW and use 7th Ed to play combined DW/RW/GW/IW.

[notmattlythgoe]

 

I really wish that at some point players will look at this as a tactical problem to be solved and discuss how to do that instead.  It would be more interesting and less irritating.  Everybody has agreed that DW got screwed.  Other people lost things they liked or had things invalidated by this codex release, as with many codex releases that have come before.  I can promise you that complaining on this forum won't help.  Nobody here is trying to say that GW was right to have handled things the way they did.  We are just trying to move the conversation to something more productive than a good cry.   

 

Being able to play LR as dedicated transport - This is in the codex- Not For DW Strike Force therefore illigal

Being able to play ven dread without paying for a drop pod. - This is in the codex - Not for DW Strike Force

Being able to use contemptor dreads from FW. - This is in the IA book and may be FAQ'd in the near future according to reports from Forge World - Must have Deathwing Rule, therefore illigal.

Being able to T1 DS if you wish - sorry Charlie

Being able to field a CAD due to counts-as troops - Nobody can field Terminators as troops anymore, you can however, still field a CAD-  Not Relevant for DW

Being Able to play any Dread not just Ven Dread - This is in the codex - Not For DW Strike Force.

Being Able to field Heavy support LR - This is in the codex - Not For DW Strike Force

Being Able to field Heavy Support Deredeo from FW - This is in the IA book and may be FAQ'd in the near future according to reports from Forge World.- Still wont Change Anything Since DWSF has no HS.

Being Able to field any unit that fits DW fluff without restrictions - Unbound.- 6th Edition Codex.

Being Able to field any variant of Land Raiders This is in the codex (unless there is something I've never heard of) - Any FW variant Cant be fielded due to absence of Heavy Support Slots.

Being Able to use my nicely painted Banner of Fortitude and use it as one. sorry Charlie

     

 

Fixed it for you.

I am done complaining, thats why I said i will use my 6th Ed codex to play DW and use 7th Ed to play combined DW/RW/GW/IW.

 

 

So your complaint is with one single formation/detachment in the book? You are choosing to ignore the fact that all of those units are usable outside of that formation/detachment? Yeah, lets just choose to ignore the rest of the codex and complain that the codex is terrible!

 

I can't take RW in the DW Strike Force! This codex is terrible!

[twopounder]

Because unbound is just as stupid as AoS system without points system. And it's even more stupid when you re obliged to play like that when you want to play iconic DW units and you can't despite havin two formations to play Deathwing and none of them allow you to play land raiders or squads of venerable dread.

 

We play a game with rules and limitations. That's what makes the salt of the game : playing with the same set of rules and try to deal with it.

 

If I don't want rules I go playing playmobil and Lego...

 

What makes the success of an army/game system is the balance between restrictions and freedom.

 

2007 DA code was a flaw because it contained too many restrictions.

Unbound is not played because there are not enough enough restriction.

 

The new codex is an excellent one and maybe the best since angels of death. However forcing to deep strike the termis in both formation is plain stupid.

 

So don't use the formations. problem solved. The funny thing is, the people complaining about unbound could use it to make the exact same structure as the 6th edition codex, thereby doing the same exact thing. I understand the hesitation to use unbound to run 10 demon princes or 20 fire raptors or something rediculous, but a standard deathwing formation seems to be exactly what unbound can accomplish without being over the top. The only thing you lose is objective secured, which means you're effectively cheating by using a 6th edition codex. 

 

Yes, it means you're using an older codex to get an advantage in a new edition you aren't supposed to have. It's no different than playing with models that are half the size because you "prefer their asthetics". These are the 7th edition rules that Dark Angels are supposed to have that are inline with rules for this version of the rule book. Deathwing are not supposed to get objective secured in 7th edition without being attached to the lion's blade. You're also getting enhanced smite and bane of the traitor when you aren't supposed to.

It's also poor form to say "I'll only use the codex when the rules suit me", don't you think? When 4th came around, I didn't use the 3rd ed codex to keep my attack bikes and generic grand master with sword of secrets on a bike. I don't use older codices that say power weapons ignore saves. If you're playing a 6th edition (or older) game, that's one thing. But obliging your opponent to play against a phased out codex is poor form.

 

I go to my local tournaments about once a month, but I've never seen anyone at all run a double demi company for free transports.

 

Personally I'm a Ravenwing player and I have been since I got the models, so I'm not too hurt by the new codex but I understand some of the complaints through out the thread. Deathwing is unable as a single formation, our standard tacticals mirror other chapters, and there are some rules I think they forgot to finish writing before publishing(or at least clarify with a FAQ). Being honest however, we now have access to grav which is a big bonus in my opinion, gave us a great chapter tactic(grim resolve), and took some units and made them worth while like the dark talon. I'm just happy they didn't take a nerf hammer to the entire codex rather than one formation.

 

I'm painting up the full company and 7 razorbacks right now. The other 7 will come in time. I've already run full companies that look similar (usually 10 man vet squad, 4 - 6 full tactical squads, 3 devastator squads, and a command squad backed up by some deathwing). So really, I'm playing almost the same exact army with 770 points of free razorbacks.

 

And yes, I've played against other full companies. One guy in particular had the entire Ultramarines 3rd company.

[SvenONE]

That’s just like, your opinion, man.

Unbound is just a way GW uses to not bother writing good rules.

In my case I cant use Unbound in most events and is usually looked down upon by other players. But they wont have a problem with me using my old codex, to play my DW, the way that I want, thats still completely legal.

You wouldn't play an unbound list because people look down on it? People look down on Unbound because they immediately jump to the thought of 10 Dreadknights or Tzeench Daemon Princes summoning hordes of monsters.

 

Talk to an organizer about approving your list. Plus you honestly think that a 6th edition Dark Angels codex that was written for an older generation is going to fare better than the new one with cheaper DWT, better DWK and more special rules?

 

If you are that gung ho about competitive events why are you even playing DA, a perennial loser in the competitive circles?

 

Why not show us your old 6th edition list and ask for input on making it work for this edition. This board is full of people who want to see DA rise up again rather than throwing the new book out to use a dated, and quite honestly, gimped codex just for a turn 1 deep strike and the extremeley overrated objective secured rule.

[Cactus]

I wish you the best of luck Stormxlr but please remember that just as the unbound option is not suitable for you, using the 6th edition codex is not suitable for everyone else. We're looking for other solutions.

 

In my opinion unbound is GW's response to the impossibility of writing rules that satisfy everyone and I don't fault them for that. Likewise, if event organisers or your gaming circle want to put additional restrictions on army selection the blame for that can not be laid at GW's door.

 

Master Avoghai, I'm surprised you feel that an unbound Deathwing army is not limited by rules. Pure Deathwing is one of the most restrictive army selections. It's a self imposed restriction, but 40k has always been a toolbox of rules and ideas for us to create the gameplay we want. Not all the rules we play by are imposed by GW - the issues around choosing tournament armies from 2 sources, or limiting super-heavies are proof of that.

[WellSpokenMan]

 

Furthermore I have been here as a Frater and Mod for so many years//Codexes that I realized that if I leave negativity unchecked it only adds up, so I try to instill optimism even if that makes me the bad guy because I prefer to be the bad guy that tries to fight negativity/despair than let it grow and turn the DA forum a bitter place to be to those that enjoy the hobby.

 

This is back on page 2 of this rant thread, and nobody is goin to be able to say it better than he did.  If you'd rather have the problem then solutions than there is nothing anyboy can do for you. The Deathwing Strike Force sucks as written right now (so does the Ravenwing one I might add). I've already said this, so I don't know what more you want someone to say. This is the kind of internet slap fight that I'd expect from BoLS. I'm sorry that the codex isn't good enough for you and that all of the suggestions to help you be happier with it only appear to have made you angry at the wrong people. I give up. I will leave you all to your misery. Good luck to you.

[Master Avoghai]

So don't use the formations. problem solved. The funny thing is, the people complaining about unbound could use it to make the exact same structure as the 6th edition codex, thereby doing the same exact thing. I understand the hesitation to use unbound to run 10 demon princes or 20 fire raptors or something rediculous, but a standard deathwing formation seems to be exactly what unbound can accomplish without being over the top. The only thing you lose is objective secured, which means you're effectively cheating by using a 6th edition codex.

I think you miss the point : the point is to get a STRUCTURED source of army building that would keep balance.

I don't know how to compose a DW like force including LR and venerable without using the formation.

 

Why is it not cheating? Because the previous codex was used in this game system (v7). I would totally agree that, if the v8 is released it would better totally unfair to use a codex that never was played in this version. Here it's not the case.

 

On the opposite, claiming that unbound is the solution is like cheating to me. Why? Because you don't follow the same army building system than your opponent without any disadvantages. You don't have objective secured? But if you choose to use the v7codex you don't have any objective secured termi anyway.

 

I prefer using a imperfect set of rules rather than using no rules at all. To me, it's better.

 

But actually I have another solution :

 

What about using the DWSF formation BUT ignore the "summoned to war" special rules?

 

It means you follow the normal rules for reserve but you are not obliged to deploy via DS.

[notmattlythgoe]

 

So don't use the formations. problem solved. The funny thing is, the people complaining about unbound could use it to make the exact same structure as the 6th edition codex, thereby doing the same exact thing. I understand the hesitation to use unbound to run 10 demon princes or 20 fire raptors or something rediculous, but a standard deathwing formation seems to be exactly what unbound can accomplish without being over the top. The only thing you lose is objective secured, which means you're effectively cheating by using a 6th edition codex.

I think you miss the point : the point is to get a STRUCTURED source of army building that would keep balance.

I don't know how to compose a DW like force including LR and venerable without using the formation.

 

Why is it not cheating? Because the previous codex was used in this game system (v7). I would totally agree that, if the v8 is released it would better totally unfair to use a codex that never was played in this version. Here it's not the case.

 

On the opposite, claiming that unbound is the solution is like cheating to me. Why? Because you don't follow the same army building system than your opponent without any disadvantages. You don't have objective secured? But if you choose to use the v7codex you don't have any objective secured termi anyway.

 

I prefer using a imperfect set of rules rather than using no rules at all. To me, it's better.

 

But actually I have another solution :

 

What about using the DWSF formation BUT ignore the "summoned to war" special rules?

 

It means you follow the normal rules for reserve but you are not obliged to deploy via DS.

 

 

Except you lose more disadvantages by going unbound than just objective secured. You lose any of the bonuses that you get from any of the formations that you want to take.

 

Here is an idea, use the DW Strike Force in the way you described but drop all of the formation bonuses. Boom unbound list and problem solved. Also perfectly legal by the rules.

[Stormxlr]

 

That’s just like, your opinion, man.

Unbound is just a way GW uses to not bother writing good rules.

In my case I cant use Unbound in most events and is usually looked down upon by other players. But they wont have a problem with me using my old codex, to play my DW, the way that I want, thats still completely legal.

You wouldn't play an unbound list because people look down on it? People look down on Unbound because they immediately jump to the thought of 10 Dreadknights or Tzeench Daemon Princes summoning hordes of monsters.

 

Talk to an organizer about approving your list. Plus you honestly think that a 6th edition Dark Angels codex that was written for an older generation is going to fare better than the new one with cheaper DWT, better DWK and more special rules?

 

If you are that gung ho about competitive events why are you even playing DA, a perennial loser in the competitive circles?

 

Why not show us your old 6th edition list and ask for input on making it work for this edition. This board is full of people who want to see DA rise up again rather than throwing the new book out to use a dated, and quite honestly, gimped codex just for a turn 1 deep strike and the extremeley overrated objective secured rule.

 

I can be competitive with my DW. Maybe some perennially loose but last time I got second place in local tournament. And usually am in top 3 or near.

Price of DWT is offset by Ravenwing tax. So they are basically back to what they used to cost.

Here is my winning list.

Belial- Sword of Secrets

DW Command Sqaud - 2x TH/SS, Sacred Standard of Fortitude, Assault Cannon

DWT- 1x TH/SS Assault Cannon

DWT- 1x TH/SS Plasma Cannon

DWT- 1x TH/SS Plasma Cannon

DWT- 1x TH/SS Cyclone Missile Launcher

DWT- 1x TH/SS Cyclone Missile Launcher

 

1850 points, CAD. Not unbound.

I DS turn 1 on every objective. Use Belial in DWCS to get precise DS and DS all other units within 12" of FNP banner. Hold the line and amass VPs. I can effectively hold 4 out of 6 objectives for the whole game while 2 free units are free to engage any target.

Find a way to take this list in 7th edition without auto loosing turn one.Without forcing me into buying models I dont want to have.Without using unbound.

[Cactus]

Except you lose more disadvantages by going unbound than just objective secured. You lose any of the bonuses that you get from any of the formations that you want to take.

Not true, and I see this misconception a lot. An unbound army does not receive the command benefits (of which Objective Secured is one of many) for any detachments but formation special rules remain in effect.

[notmattlythgoe]

 

Except you lose more disadvantages by going unbound than just objective secured. You lose any of the bonuses that you get from any of the formations that you want to take.

Not true, and I see this misconception a lot. An unbound army does not receive the command benefits (of which Objective Secured is one of many) for any detachments but formation special rules remain in effect.

 

 

Correct. I'm going off of the assumption that they aren't taking formations by going unbound therefor not getting formation bonuses. However, I worded it very poorly. Thank you for correcting it.

[plasmaspam]

 

Furthermore I have been here as a Frater and Mod for so many years//Codexes that I realized that if I leave negativity unchecked it only adds up, so I try to instill optimism even if that makes me the bad guy because I prefer to be the bad guy that tries to fight negativity/despair than let it grow and turn the DA forum a bitter place to be to those that enjoy the hobby.

 

This is back on page 2 of this rant thread, and nobody is goin to be able to say it better than he did.  If you'd rather have the problem then solutions than there is nothing anyboy can do for you. The Deathwing Strike Force sucks as written right now (so does the Ravenwing one I might add). I've already said this, so I don't know what more you want someone to say. This is the kind of internet slap fight that I'd expect from BoLS. I'm sorry that the codex isn't good enough for you and that all of the suggestions to help you be happier with it only appear to have made you angry at the wrong people. I give up. I will leave you all to your misery. Good luck to you.

The contempt you have for anyone who won't submit to your opinion and assertions is very disturbing.

[notmattlythgoe]

 

The contempt you have for anyone who won't submit to your opinion and assertions is very disturbing.

 

 

Sigh.

[Frater Cornelius]

I did a game with a DA buddy, who was practicing for an upcoming tournament next Sunday. He used Green + Black. Here is the battle report. This game was important, because it basically confirmed my suspicions about just taking naked RWBK + DS. Anyway, have a look ;)

[Stormxlr]

 

 

Except you lose more disadvantages by going unbound than just objective secured. You lose any of the bonuses that you get from any of the formations that you want to take.

Not true, and I see this misconception a lot. An unbound army does not receive the command benefits (of which Objective Secured is one of many) for any detachments but formation special rules remain in effect.

 

 

Correct. I'm going off of the assumption that they aren't taking formations by going unbound therefor not getting formation bonuses. However, I worded it very poorly. Thank you for correcting it.

 

so you can say you are taking a formation lets say DWRF and you get all the benefits of the formation except you can ignore rules you dont like?

[notmattlythgoe]

 

so you can say you are taking a formation lets say DWRF and you get all the benefits of the formation except you can ignore rules you dont like?

 

Would you mind rewording that? I'm not understanding the question and want to provide a good answer.

[Stormxlr]

 

 

so you can say you are taking a formation lets say DWRF and you get all the benefits of the formation except you can ignore rules you dont like?

 

Would you mind rewording that? I'm not understanding the question and want to provide a good answer.

 

Well from what I understood that you and Cactus said is that you can take an unbound formation? How can that be. Or do you mean you can take a Formation and Unbound something else? Like take Demi-Battle Company Formation and take 3 Unbound Vindicators?

[notmattlythgoe]

 

 

 

so you can say you are taking a formation lets say DWRF and you get all the benefits of the formation except you can ignore rules you dont like?

 

Would you mind rewording that? I'm not understanding the question and want to provide a good answer.

 

Well from what I understood that you and Cactus said is that you can take an unbound formation? How can that be. Or do you mean you can take a Formation and Unbound something else? Like take Demi-Battle Company Formation and take 3 Unbound Vindicators?

 

 

The later. You can take an unbound army as your core, and take a formation along with it.

 

The unbound part of your army would count as the main detachment.