DW formation / detachment creation ...

[Quixus]

I doubt that by Land Raiders they meant Land Raiders of any pattern, when they explicitly call out the Crusader and Redeemer patterns. Also note that the  Land Raider Phobos is not named thusly but simply Land Raider in the codex. IA2 2nd ed. does not mention anything about the other patterns being part of the Deathwing AFAICT.

 

Including the patterns that cannot transport Deathwing squads before they have taken casualties, makes about as much sense as adding other artillery pieces like vindicators or predators.

 

Not sure if the Land Raiders in the armoury are separate from the Deathwing land raiders, but it seems weird that if the whole legion chapter only has 21, that the Deathwing would have enough to use them as mobile lascannons

[SvenONE]

Yeah the Land Raiders would be specific DW assets.  Despite my lack of clarification, I personally consider the patterns of DW LRs to be the Crusader and Redeemer.  I honestly don't know enough about the FW patterns but if it's part of the Support Assets.

 

As far as a CS is concerned, I thought it was company vets who were formed and dissolved on an engagement-to-engagement basis.  From a rules point of view I wouldn't turn that CS into a CS or DWK option because then that special rule would allow for basically 10 extra wounds for that rule I wrote.  Now I totally get DWK being attached to an HQ.  An Int Chap with Knights is something you'd probably see on the battlefield a lot in the 41st millennium.  Similar to Venerable Dreads though, Knights still feel like a unit that is deployed when the circumstances truly fit.  They are honestly the reason the Sweeping Advance rule is written to encourage their use.

[Quixus]

Yeah the Land Raiders would be specific DW assets.  Despite my lack of clarification, I personally consider the patterns of DW LRs to be the Crusader and Redeemer.

What about the Phobos i.e. the pattern that the codex simply calls Land Raider?

 

As far as a CS is concerned, I thought it was company vets who were formed and dissolved on an engagement-to-engagement basis.  From a rules point of view I wouldn't turn that CS into a CS or DWK option because then that special rule would allow for basically 10 extra wounds for that rule I wrote.

Well if 5 additional wounds aren't enough, 10 probably won't help much either. You could just make the command squad and the joining of the warlord optional, but the rule dependent on the warlord actually joining.