9th edition codex supplement

[Rhavien]

Guys, what do you think about our three death visions? I just noticed that you can only activate it when selecting the unit to fight. That means that the 3++ one is rather underwhelming too as you would only choose it if you expect your target to survive. So that only leaves the one with the bonus attacks useful.

[SnorriSnorrison]

Guys, what do you think about our three death visions? I just noticed that you can only activate it when selecting the unit to fight. That means that the 3++ one is rather underwhelming too as you would only choose it if you expect your target to survive. So that only leaves the one with the bonus attacks useful.

I'm not too keen on either of them. They sure bring a lot of flavor and finally there is a little more to the DC theme than "just" being a DC Captain, but it's 1) characters only, which we can't afford to throw away anymore, 2) once per game with a few restrictions as you mentioned and 3) they're a bit janky to pull off. I want to like them, but I don't think they're well implemented. Furthermore, GW focusing down on DC too much isn't healthy in my opinion, as it teaches new players that Blood Angels "are about that" and about that only, in a way.

 

A lot of people ran a Captain with DVoS back in the day because it was one of the few ways BA could have a competitive unit entry in their army roster, and it was a crutch for the army to begin with. Now that there's little incentive to actually "upgrade" a character to a DC one outside of a narrative list, I would dare to make the assumption that that design space is wasted. I'd love to be proven wrong, though. :)

[Vermintide]

 

I wonder if:

Limit one HQ per unit

 

Would make the rule and the meta more fun and less broken

It would neatly take care of the whole character-based death star/moving castle approach to list building, yeah.

 

I had no illusions that BGV would act as a command squad once they showed them in Deathwing for Dark Angels. That gives a pretty good indication I think of how the GW rules team sees them.

Go on? I'm not too familiar with Dark Angels lore/organisation, so I'm not entirely sure what that implies.

 

I was suspecting it'd be an option, with something like the bodyguard rule Lychguard or those Victrix dudes get. They are called blade guard after all.

[WrathOfTheLion]

Bladeguard are in the Deathwing, so GW sees them roughly as a Terminator equivalent.

 

Now DA have access to a Terminator command squad, so perhaps it will show back up for them, but probably not for all factions.

 

I was expecting Veteran intercessors to take the place of company veterans in some manner.

Edited December 23, 2020 by WrathOfTheLion

[Indefragable]

 

Guys, what do you think about our three death visions? I just noticed that you can only activate it when selecting the unit to fight. That means that the 3++ one is rather underwhelming too as you would only choose it if you expect your target to survive. So that only leaves the one with the bonus attacks useful.

I'm not too keen on either of them. They sure bring a lot of flavor and finally there is a little more to the DC theme than "just" being a DC Captain, but it's 1) characters only, which we can't afford to throw away anymore, 2) once per game with a few restrictions as you mentioned and 3) they're a bit janky to pull off. I want to like them, but I don't think they're well implemented. Furthermore, GW focusing down on DC too much isn't healthy in my opinion, as it teaches new players that Blood Angels "are about that" and about that only, in a way.

 

A lot of people ran a Captain with DVoS back in the day because it was one of the few ways BA could have a competitive unit entry in their army roster, and it was a crutch for the army to begin with. Now that there's little incentive to actually "upgrade" a character to a DC one outside of a narrative list, I would dare to make the assumption that that design space is wasted. I'd love to be proven wrong, though.

 

 

Could both of you expand on that? I'm not connecting the dots with why the 3++ "only when the unit fights" thing is bad. What am I missing?

 

 

...though it's once per game, I see it naturally pairing with Gift of Foresight for a healthy dose of "don't touch me!" in a key matchup against someone like Abby. 

Edited December 23, 2020 by Indefragable

[The Unseen]

It means if you charge something, you have to trigger the 3++ before you know whether your target lives.

If you get charged, the enemy gets to swing before it can be activated, therefore its pretty useless.

[Diagramdude]

There are a lot of situations where your captain might be engaged with multiple units, you'd pop the 3++ and put all your attacks into the unit that most needs to die but still face retribution from the other units. 

[Shaezus]

exactly this ^

 

the re roll hits DV is great. With captains losing the benefit of theor own reroll 1s, having full rerolls when you really want them, for free too, is all good. More than makes up for the -1 to hit from hammer or fist

 

As for "To slay the warlord". The wording seems to imply that the opposing character doesn't get to make any attacks. So there's only the roll off, and basically your character is guaranteed to survive this turn. Otherwise there is absolutely no point in using it.

[highwind]

Really they should have worded it "the Assault Doctrine is considered to be active for that combat phase" or similar instead. I'm 99% certain that was the intent of the rule, and I'm basing that on pure intuitive common sense, because interpreting it in any other way requires massive, massive pedantry.

 

It's also because I've become quite invested in the idea of a squad of Bladeguard with a Chapter Master and Master Apothecary getting 5 attacks each, at AP-4, re-rolling hits, recovering all their lost wounds and getting back up for free... But shhh.

 

The whole "active for your army" bit is just the rulesy way of saying "No, you don't suddenly get this buff on your soup list."

 

I think the reason why they went with the "active for your army" wording is because of Marines vs Marines battles...

They probably want you to read "active for YOUR (and not the opponents) army" rather than "active for your (whole) ARMY"

 

But I totally agree with you: The wording could have done much better in first place

Edited December 24, 2020 by highwind

[Diagramdude]

exactly this ^

 

the re roll hits DV is great. With captains losing the benefit of theor own reroll 1s, having full rerolls when you really want them, for free too, is all good. More than makes up for the -1 to hit from hammer or fist

 

As for "To slay the warlord". The wording seems to imply that the opposing character doesn't get to make any attacks. So there's only the roll off, and basically your character is guaranteed to survive this turn. Otherwise there is absolutely no point in using it.

 

To Slay The Warlord wording only affects your activation not the enemy's. The opponent will still swing if not slain. It's mostly garbage but there are a few cases where you might use it.

 

It's rare that a 50% chance to do d3+3 mortal wounds would be better than just swinging. Off the top of my head I could see using it on an Archon with Shadowfield, Guilliman or other characters with a 3++ and 4 or less wounds remaining, or on something with 4 or less wounds remaining and a Duty Eternal effect if you went for a budget loadout with master crafted lightning claws or teeth of terra.

 

Even a lightning claw hitting on 2's and wounding on rerollable 4's is only a 62.5% conversion rate, so with 7 or 8 attacks on the charge you're only looking at 4 or 5 forced saves. If you're only doing 1 damage because of a half damage ability or no Artisan of War, you're very likely to inflict less than 4 wounds, especially because the opponent can CP reroll a save.

 

So there are some edge cases for To Slay The Warlord but it's going to usually be better to just swing. 

[The Unseen]

In Crusade, characters that fall to the black rage become Lost lieutenants (other than captains of course) so I can see it being more useful there.

As a lieutenant swinging a regular powersword or something is much more likely to do less damage than the mortal wound chance of just blowing something up.

[Dolchiate Remembrancer]

Im curious, has anyone tried fielding less HQs for more bodies? Are the rerolls truly worth it?

[Karhedron]

Im curious, has anyone tried fielding less HQs for more bodies? Are the rerolls truly worth it?

I have tried running just 2 HQs at 1500 points and no Elite Characters. Having more guns and warm bodies does work to some extent but it is not just ab out reroll buffs. Plasma benefits from a Captain's aura and SG want to be near a Warlord for sure but there is more to it than that.

 

Heroic Intervention allows you to spread the threat of a Character's melee capabilities further than their immediate charge range. Given the generally smaller tables in 9th edition, having a couple of extra Characters in the midfield who can throw their weight into taking and protecting Objectives is actually more valuable than it looks on paper. There will always be a debate on quality vs quantity but Characters do provide some capabilities that more conventional units do not.

[Vermintide]

Im curious, has anyone tried fielding less HQs for more bodies? Are the rerolls truly worth it?

I'm toying with a couple of variations on my current fave list, and I'm not sure which way I prefer it.

 

Captain and Sanguinary Priest look like the most essential ones for us to take. But I can't decide if it's worth dropping an Intercessor squad to afford a Chaplain; or alternatively, trimming the points elsewhere by leaving out upgrades like Chapter Master and a couple less SanGuard, 1 x 5 Eliminators instead of 2 x 3...

 

Difficult choices to be sure, but I have a feeling that the characters are generally worth it given their function as a force multiplier for the units you take them with.