Darth Ghandi Posted September 29, 2015 Share Posted September 29, 2015 I'm guessing this has been done to death but I would like to hear how you guys play regarding DWSF and dedicated transports? Edited for clarification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SvenONE Posted September 29, 2015 Share Posted September 29, 2015 I think you'll need to elaborate, is this choice of landraider? wargear? strategy when you bring them? or the rules regarding the DW Detachment/Formation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fulminata Posted September 29, 2015 Share Posted September 29, 2015 I kind of have the same question. I have several terminator squads that have dedicated land raiders with them. If I play pure Deathwing, the rules read all squads must deepstrike including the Dreadnought in a drop pod. So you can still reserve the transports, but you can't put anything in them. So I think the question is: If I wanted to deploy a terminator squad in its dedicated land raider and play pure Deathwing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aura_enchanted Posted September 29, 2015 Share Posted September 29, 2015 · Hidden by Chaplain Lucifer, September 30, 2015 - wrong and not constructive Hidden by Chaplain Lucifer, September 30, 2015 - wrong and not constructive they dont start in their raiders, in fact the raiders dont even arrive on table, the ruling is as such: if you buy a land raider for the DWRF or DWSF they remain indefinetely as a deepstrike reserve model, they dont get to come on to the table, and then are counted as a casualty of war at the conclusion of the game. Link to comment
Steve86 Posted September 29, 2015 Share Posted September 29, 2015 To my understanding you cant. DWSF only has elite slots and HQ slots so the only AV you get are dreads if you choose to bring them. Unbound or CAD are your only options for land raider dedicated transports :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malakithe Posted September 29, 2015 Share Posted September 29, 2015 My transport is luck and the swirly randomness that is the warp during a good teleport! Or if you have bikes for precision teleport who needs expensive metal boxes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aura_enchanted Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 · Hidden by Chaplain Lucifer, September 30, 2015 - OT Hidden by Chaplain Lucifer, September 30, 2015 - OT My transport is luck and the swirly randomness that is the warp during a good teleport! Or if you have bikes for precision teleport who needs expensive metal boxes? people who want to ya know punch things with powerfists which is about the only thing a terminator does reliably well (hammers are also a thing he can hit things with alternatively). i mean i thought it wasnt up for debate that CC is the terminators strong suit. like he has a 2+ armor save and the worst gun marines can wield that isnt a pistol of some kind. i thought the room for discussion here was over? perhaps youd like to make the case for bringing a single twin linked assault cannon (for one turn only) for 215p with some staggering new evidence? cause i mean if you wanted that you can always field a land speeder and get a single linked one with deepstrike for like south of 75points, heck you can statistically get about the same thing for 125 points without wasting your time on a unit thats ment for punching instead of shooting Link to comment
sneakybamsen Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 I think the question is fair enough, although the first post is a little lacking in the specifics department. Yeah, the only way to get LR's as dedicated transports for your termies is a CAD or unbound. No doubt about that. Unless your gaming group have house rules that say otherwise. Regards Sneaky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaplain Lucifer Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 IMHO, you cannot include LR's in a DWSF because one of the rules is that all units must start in Deep Strike Reserve. Since the Land Raider is not capable of Deepstriking, it is automatically excluded from the valid units to build this Formation. If your gaming group/opponent/TO agrees to having LR's as valid Dedicated Transports for this formation, they will need to either grant DS Reserve to LandRaider (unlikely) or let LR's start in normal reserve. Neither of these is 100% according to the letter of the rules, so the best is play it safe and use it without Land Raiders, or try another kind of army/CAD/formation that without a doubt r discussion allows Terminators in their Dedicated Land Raider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shabbadoo Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 I think Chaplain Lucifer is expressing fact in all of the above, not opinion. When the rules mention Dedicated Transports, they do not mean ALL Dedicated Transports, just those than can enter play from reserves via Deepstrike. There is only one Dedicated Transport capable of entering play from reserves via Deepstrike in Codex: Dark Angels - the Drop Pod. All other Dedicated Transports are S.o.L. I'm afraid, so no Land Raiders (or Rhinos or Razorbacks) in either Deathwing Formation. If you do want to include Land Raiders, you have to include them in some other way, such as in another Detachment/Formation of some kind or as Unbound units (which it is perfectly fine to do!!!). But....it is rather strange that neither Deathwing Formation caters to taking units mounted in...oh....the permanent compliment of Land Raiders that the 1st Company has. They could have just added this to both Formation's rules: "The only exception are units which have purchased a Land Raider (of any type) as a Dedicated Transport. Such units are not placed in Reserves, and are deployed as normal." Then we would at least have full accees to Deathwing Formations with everything "Deathwing" in them. A slight oversight of minor annoyance, and it is sort of perplexing that GW wouldn't want to give people a reason to buy even more $74.25 US Land Raiders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Avoghai Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 A slight oversight of minor annoyance, and it is sort of perplexing that GW wouldn't want to give people a reason to buy even more $74.25 US Land Raiders. Yup that's really a stange point that annoys me too.. The only reason I see is the general mojos of GW : 1- we don't sell models thanks to rules but because our models looks cool... 2- our rules are just guidelines, you can ignore or tweak them as you wish... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
march10k Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 A slight oversight of minor annoyance, and it is sort of perplexing that GW wouldn't want to give people a reason to buy even more $74.25 US Land Raiders. Yup that's really a stange point that annoys me too.. The only reason I see is the general mojos of GW : 1- we don't sell models thanks to rules but because our models looks cool... 2- our rules are just guidelines, you can ignore or tweak them as you wish... 3- When you get down to it, isn't everything "with your opponent's permission?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roland Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 I play DWRF with an Unbound Hamernator sqd and a DWK squad each in a Raider. I have no issues with either the DWRF or the DWSF being all DS.... I have an issue with both being all. I'd prefer if the SF did away with all the DS stuff and simply gave DW Termies Ob Sec, but that's neither here nor there. I do believe if you want to play "pure" DW, the DWRF has to be in there in some form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Avoghai Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 A slight oversight of minor annoyance, and it is sort of perplexing that GW wouldn't want to give people a reason to buy even more $74.25 US Land Raiders. :P Yup that's really a stange point that annoys me too..The only reason I see is the general mojos of GW : 1- we don't sell models thanks to rules but because our models looks cool... 2- our rules are just guidelines, you can ignore or tweak them as you wish... 3- When you get down to it, isn't everything "with your opponent's permission?" Actually they seem to consider that no... Because our opponent is every time a nice guy that we know for 10 years and wouldn't do things naughty that would necessitate a possibe veto from me... After all, you go in stores to buy models and paint them, not at all to meet new people you know nothing about ... :rolleyes: :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormxlr Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 I ask my opponent if I can start my army on the tabel they say yes 9.9 out of 10 times, simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Sheol Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 The problem about DW in the last DA codex is that both formation (DWRF) and detachment (DWSF) are all in deep strike (so no LR dedicated transport for DW) and both cannot come down on turn one... They are the same thing written two times... just a copy and paste work... And the only way to play a mono DW now is the DWSF with 1 or more DWdreads in DP... yes... easy... tell the tau with all that interceptor things that you are gonna DS 1/2 DWdreads on turn one and he will tell you... OK man i just won... I like the work GW did on the single entries but about the CAD, the detachments and some of the fgormations they did a ugly work that make useless all the good things they gave us... So yes... the last DA codex is a wasted opportunity... again... I return to paint HH black DA hoping that these will be better and i will not be forced to play only infinity and hordes... ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.