New "Updates" and the Chaplain: Such a waste

[angrom]

Seriously, To not give the Litanies for all chaplains across all codexes makes no sense at all.

It is not like they are planning to give special Litanies depending on the chapters because 2 supplement are out and they all

have the same Litanies so ultimately all chapters (hopefully) will have them in time.

Writing Update notes and Erratas and not including the Litanies changes across all chapters is plain stupid.

 

Now there is the VIP chaplains and the second zone chaplains yet their battle scroll entry , costs and name are the same.

such a waste of bits.

 

[Mr4Minutes]

There were a few things I was hoping we’d get in the PDFs that we didn’t, litanies included.

 

There may still be a place for them and their reroll hits aura with the increased number of attacks primaris have. But they are still a mediocre HQ choice.( to me at least)

[Closet Skeleton]

Just because the supplements don't have litanies in them in no way implies they don't plan on giving special litanies to Dark/Blood Angels, Grey Knights, and Space Wolves and in fact it would make a lot of sense if they did. I leave Deathwatch off that list only because they didn't get their own psychic discipline and I expect there's a fair chance that a second DW codex to has one of those.

[Vel'Cona]

Did GW even necessarily omit DW as a possible supplement book?  I don't recall seeing anything specifically denying this but I've been a bit out of the loop on this one.

[Closet Skeleton]

Did GW even necessarily omit DW as a possible supplement book?  I don't recall seeing anything specifically denying this but I've been a bit out of the loop on this one.

 

The Supplements for the Space Marine Codex aren't replacements for chapters who previously had their own book. Space Wolves, Blood Angels and Dark Angels will keep their own books so Grey Knights and Death Watch are unlikely to go anywhere either.

[Vel'Cona]

That's a shame.  It's definitely a tough time to be a DW fan, especially when it feels like DW get passed up arbitrarily on new stuff.

[Mr4Minutes]

You can say that again. I’m still a little salty that we can’t use the Phobos primaris units.

 

I understand not being able to add them to kill teams until a codex drops. But I figured we’d at least be able to take standard squads of them.

 

I’m optimistic the September faq will readdress the issue.

[MadEdric]

Hey, at least while not having the fancy new Litanies, our chaplain right now doesn't have a 33% chance of failing it, nor does he have to start the turn on the board to have it be active.

[angrom]

Most likely the September faq for DW will be for mentioning that deathwatch cannot use stratagems from regular SM codex. I am also a greyknight player and I can tell that I get the same vibe from GW about DW that with my GK (squatting us in a corner of the lore till everyone loose interest) also I really love the new sisters models but I think I will not buy any of those because as soon as their codex drop you can be sure that the sisters are gone for another 10 year+ without a rebalanced codex or new models. All these side factions are on the same boat

[Mr4Minutes]

Hey, at least while not having the fancy new Litanies, our chaplain right now doesn't have a 33% chance of failing it, nor does he have to start the turn on the board to have it be active.

While that is true, +1 to wound and +1 to hit on shooting attacks is really good. And we actually have the most recen Chaplain Cassius model to boot.

 

But on the topic of updates, I was looking at our 7th edition codex and I’d really like to see the return of the specific kill teams.

 

I always really liked the idea of them, and they brought more bonuses. Reroll 1s to wound is good, but it feels bland at times.

 

I’d like to take things like Malleus Kill teams or Purgatus Kill Teams that reroll all wounds against specific slots.

 

I may be in the minority on this though, as I didn’t really play many games with DeathWatch during 7th. But I like the feel of building squads to hit specific targets and getting buffs when attacking them.

 

That’s far more fluffy to me then the reroll ones to X slot or +1 wound to X slot that we currently have.

[Prot]

For me I really, really wanted Invictus Warsuits with the Deathwatch. I have 2 nearly assembled and I got fooled with the new Repulsor assuming it wouldn’t make it to Deathwatch and painted them both as Ultramarines. Now I of course regret that.

 

So being all the wiser now, I decided to not paint the Warsuit and do them Deathwatch instead! Aha! Out smarted myself again! The update comes out and DW can’t have them! ( remind me to stop buying lotto tickets!)

 

It doesn’t make much sense as there’s direct references now to Guilliman sending buckets of Primaris to Deathwatch (paraphrasing here...) to fill there extremely depleted numbers.

[Aothaine]

It doesn’t make much sense as there’s direct references now to Guilliman sending buckets of Primaris to Deathwatch (paraphrasing here...) to fill there extremely depleted numbers.

 

Even though the lore of Deathwatch says they have access to everything and knowledge from every chapter, they are actually quite limited in gameplay. But hold out for it. There could be a few good surprises in the codex update that Deathwatch will eventually get.

[Azaiel]

 

It doesn’t make much sense as there’s direct references now to Guilliman sending buckets of Primaris to Deathwatch (paraphrasing here...) to fill there extremely depleted numbers.

 

Even though the lore of Deathwatch says they have access to everything and knowledge from every chapter, they are actually quite limited in gameplay. But hold out for it. There could be a few good surprises in the codex update that Deathwatch will eventually get.

 

Going by the release of the founding chapter supplements it will probably take a year before we get a new codex. I hope we get something useful in the psychic awakening supplements or whatever.

[Chris521]

So if I'm reading it correctly, today's FAQ gave the Chaplain Dread the Litanies but not the normal chaplains.  While not unique to Deathwatch, that Dread could be a real beast.

 

Angels of Death (+1 attack)

Might of Heroes  (+1 Attack, Strength, Toughness)

Mantra of Strength (+1 Attack, +1 Strength, +1 Damage)

 

That would give it 7 S18 Ap-3, 4D attacks, which can threaten almost anything, while still have character protections, and taking a twin lascannon.

 

He currently can't use the fight twice stratagem, but that could get updated in the future.

[Qui-Gon]

Got to love how GW broke intercessors to not work at all anymore.

[Mobius0288]

Got to love how GW broke intercessors to not work at all anymore.

Looks pretty clear to me.

 

 

So if I'm reading it correctly, today's FAQ gave the Chaplain Dread the Litanies but not the normal chaplains.  While not unique to Deathwatch, that Dread could be a real beast.

 

Angels of Death (+1 attack)

Might of Heroes  (+1 Attack, Strength, Toughness)

Mantra of Strength (+1 Attack, +1 Strength, +1 Damage)

 

That would give it 7 S18 Ap-3, 4D attacks, which can threaten almost anything, while still have character protections, and taking a twin lascannon.

 

He currently can't use the fight twice stratagem, but that could get updated in the future.

 

I honestly look at it as ammo for them needing to include with our own chaplains. "You can include it on ALL applicable forgeworld units but you can't do it on actual chaplains outside the SM codex?"

 

Makes him pretty valuable in smaller games/detachments as well since he can multi-role, buff and hide behind units. Make him a Warlord with Castellan of the Vault potentially.

[Qui-Gon]

 

Got to love how GW broke intercessors to not work at all anymore.

Looks pretty clear to me.

 

Well, until they update the rules, our Aggressors in Intercessor squads cannot use Firestorm and our Reivers in Intercessor squads cannot use Terror Troops. Keywords for the FAIL!

 

So, please explain how the rules work when the keywords are killing us.

[GrinNfool]

 

 

Got to love how GW broke intercessors to not work at all anymore.

Looks pretty clear to me.

 

Well, until they update the rules, our Aggressors in Intercessor squads cannot use Firestorm and our Reivers in Intercessor squads cannot use Terror Troops. Keywords for the FAIL!

 

So, please explain how the rules work when the keywords are killing us.

 

I'm confused by this statement.  The FAQ put out today specifically says aggressors models in intercessors squads CAN doubletap, and Intercessors that include a reiver model has terror troops.  Just read this like 4 times to make sure I am not missing anything... but everything seems to work correctly.  Which I will be honest I didn't expect GW to do I expected a half fix that was worded poorly.

[Qui-Gon]

Let's go back to basics.

If a word is bolded in the particular font, it is a Keyword.

Models only have keywords that are assigned to them.

 

The keywords for models in a Deathwatch Intercessor unit are:
Imperium, Adeptus Astartes, Deathwatch, Infantry, Primaris, Intercessors

 

For the purposes of transportation only, from the Mixed Unit rule:
Aggressor and Inceptor models have the "Mk X Gravis" keyword

Inceptors have the "Jump Pack" keyword

 

Due to the Shadowspear update, Reiver models have the "Phobos" keyword.

 

Now let us look at the new Deathwatch Intercessor Terror Troops and Firestorm rules:

You will notice that the Firestorm rule uses the bolded keyword "Aggressor".
You will notice that the Terror Troops rule uses the bolded keyword "Reiver".

 

There are no Aggressor (keyword) or Reiver (keyword) models in the unit.

There is no errata or change to give those keywords to any models in the unit.

 

Ergo, the unit, and models in that unit, cannot use these rules, because there are no valid models with the appropriate keyword.

 

Congrat-u- -lations games workshop for screwing up the simplest non rules change ever, simply because they bolded a SINGLE word.

[Mobius0288]

The new rule literally says "or unit which contains.... aggressor / reiver". I don't know what to tell you. They've bound themselves by this keyword stuff in the hopes of making it easier to apply rules, but apparently they are having challenges when it comes to mixed units.

 

I hear your point. Pretty sure I could use your point to argue we CAN use the space marine codex stratagems on our Deathwatch dudes. Saw the FAQ though and either decision doesn't bother me.

 

Take it for what they are indicating by the entirety of the rule or just stick with the bold words.

[Qui-Gon]

Well, they've come out and stated in the space marine codex faq that you cannot use the new strats on anything that isn't core codex space marines. So, no we can't.

 

Unfortunately, we cannot live in a rules as intended world when it comes to 40k. We can only play in a rules as written ruleset.

If games workshop decides to clarify how a rule is intended and declare an FAQ ruling, that is one thing.

 

However, until they change it you can only play it as rules as written.

 

As it currently stands, rules as written, we cannot use the Terror Troops or Firestorm rules until either they give the models keywords, or until they get rid of the keywords.

 

Thank goodness I have another deathwatch list already built and painted so I can wait until they fix this, but it seriously is a blow to the new list I wrote which uses 8 aggressors. I want them to change it, until they do, we're screwed.

[Lemondish]

Oof that's tough.

 

I don't think I'd ever see that upheld outside of a tournament looking to spoil someone's fun.

 

But I think we can live in rules as intended. Having rules on a data sheet is the clearest intent of those rules being valid for that unit.

 

I'd gladly avoid playing anybody that suggests otherwise - there's wanting to win and then there's being TG with this WAAC argument. No fun in that.

[Qui-Gon]

Oof that's tough.

 

I don't think I'd ever see that upheld outside of a tournament looking to spoil someone's fun.

 

But I think we can live in rules as intended. Having rules on a data sheet is the clearest intent of those rules being valid for that unit.

 

I'd gladly avoid playing anybody that suggests otherwise - there's wanting to win and then there's being TG with this WAAC argument. No fun in that.

 

I acknowledge your position and I don't disagree with the notion of it.

 

However, I prefer to play by the rules wherever and whenever I can. Individuals in my local club call me a really tough guy to play because I know the rules, but they acknowledge that I even play by the rules that don't benefit me, even when they hurt me.

 

I want them to change it. I've sent emails, commented on posts, etc. I just hope that they fix it FAST!

[angrom]

I'm posting the same here as in greyknight section as I play both and I'm pissed because my two main imperial armies are unplayable.

 

This is getting beyond ridiculous, I was hoping that perhaps they would put the chaplains litanies the same for all codexes but no instead they made the other chaplains even less appealing because now on top of being useless they are unreliable.

And yes no being able to use codex space marines stratagems hurts deathwatch and greyknights tremendously.

Honestly being able to use the codex space marines stratagem was nowhere broken or even strong and was the only thing that was making me swallow the pill about this ridiculous power creep unbalance between space marine codexes.

At that point they should just remove ADEPTUS ASTARTES for any non founding chapter and replace by "LOW LIFE FORM THAT SOMEHOW MANAGED  TO PUT THEIR DIRTY HANDS ON HOLLY POWER ARMOR" just to show how much they care and acknowledge the lore about space marines chapters

[GrinNfool]

Let's go back to basics.

 

If a word is bolded in the particular font, it is a Keyword.

 

Models only have keywords that are assigned to them.

 

The keywords for models in a Deathwatch Intercessor unit are:

Imperium, Adeptus Astartes, Deathwatch, Infantry, Primaris, Intercessors

 

For the purposes of transportation only, from the Mixed Unit rule:

Aggressor and Inceptor models have the "Mk X Gravis" keyword

Inceptors have the "Jump Pack" keyword

 

Due to the Shadowspear update, Reiver models have the "Phobos" keyword.

 

Now let us look at the new Deathwatch Intercessor Terror Troops and Firestorm rules:

You will notice that the Firestorm rule uses the bolded keyword "Aggressor".

You will notice that the Terror Troops rule uses the bolded keyword "Reiver".

 

There are no Aggressor (keyword) or Reiver (keyword) models in the unit.

There is no errata or change to give those keywords to any models in the unit.

 

Ergo, the unit, and models in that unit, cannot use these rules, because there are no valid models with the appropriate keyword.

 

Congrat-u- -lations games workshop for screwing up the simplest non rules change ever, simply because they bolded a SINGLE word.

So.... I understand keywords, and see what you are driving at, but no where in the FAQ does it say "Aggressor keyword" or "Reiver Keyword" it just says "Aggressor Model" or "Reiver Model"  I also can find no where it says a word bolded makes it a keyword.... the only place it identifies something as a keyword is on the bottom of a datasheet, or an individual rule calling something out as such by saying "uses/has *blank* keyword" 

 

If the FAQ read "models with the Aggressor keyword" or "models with the Reiver keyword" i would see your point... but it doesn't.  A word being bold doesn't make it a keyword.... at least I can't find anywhere that it says that.  If you can please do give me the page # or FAQ its in, because then it certainly needs everyone to send in an FAQ e-mail.  The only place I see them ever define a keyword is when they specifically say *blank* keyword or as whats on the bottom of a datasheet, while they are generally bolded when being called out, I don't see anything that says anything bolded is a keyword.

While I can say it would be nice if GW could manage to clear up keywords... this isn't a place where it is causing an issue.

 

It seems you have a logical fallacy here... You are interpreting this as All keywords are bolded therefore all bolded words are keywords.  However... as stated thats a logical fallacy, it would in truth be:   All keywords are bolded but not all bolded words are keywords.

 

Honestly their whole keyword system for everyone is a complete and utter mess that doesn't work at all because they didn't support it properly, or create appropriate rules that identify them correctly.  I understand what I am saying is a rules lawyer-ing argument... but so is the argument I can't shoot twice with my aggressors or get terror tactics for a squad with a Reiver.  If i gotta deal with people who want to play like that I can.... doesn't mean there is any need to if people just play the game as is obviously intended.