DA rules disappointment and future Supplements

[Tokugawa]

Just readed the leaked DA codex supplement (if you haven't read it, you can go to their subreddit before the photos removed by copyright reasons). DA is the first marine chapter codex supplement in 10th, and was considered a "template" for future supplement. However, the DA update feel underwhelming because:

 

1. Not every old model kit get updated, even some of them desperately need a new one. Sammael is still in his old resin bulk form? Shame for you GW! 

For us: We don't have this problem. 

 

2. Fewer detachments options than a "full" codex. DA has 3 detachments: green wing(the index one), deathwing, ravenwing. 

For us: We possibly also only have 3. In story, BT don't really have sub-organization strongly tied to different fighting style(other than "chop!"), so designers may lead it to any direction. Good news is that the index detachment usually keep mostly untouched.

 

3. Unit composition follows box content more strictly. Deathwing command squad retired, and standard deathwing terminator can't mix melee and shooting anymore.

For us: We don't have this problem...(?) Oldborn crusader squad would retire when our codex supplement arrived, but we all know that it is inevitable. DA upgrade sprue has a plasma cannon arm, and deathwing terminator has a plasma cannon option. Does it mean "extra multi-melta" still exists in future BT rules?

 

4. The new released unit has weak rules. It can be improved by reducing points cost, though.

For us: Cool new models are always welcomed. Rules can be changed in months, models can't.

 

In summary, if BT codex supplement go similar way, it would be less exciting, but possibly not a downgrade on player experiments. Thoughts?

[Medjugorje]

I havent read the codex supplement yet. My questions are:

 

1. Is it still possible to play the Codex Space Marine Detachments? (I expect yes but I hope NOT)

2. How many rules / datasheets were changed?

 

[WrathOfTheLion]

Item 3 is just the way they're going for 40k in general. I don't particularly like it, but the writing has been on the wall there, coming in at full swing as far back as the CSM codex in 9E.

[redmapa]

I agree on all these points and it's kind of what I expected, 3 detachments per supplement also fits for BA ( Death Company, current one and Sanguinary Guard) so it makes sense that the rest also follow suit. I think we are on a good spot because of how neglected we were, we have no units to lose because we didn't get anything for like 15 years while everyone got several updates so option wise we are only winning. 

 

Our detachment is great, if it's nerfed but we get two more then that's a fair trade and going down to 50%WR is fine imo which is what I expect to happen should the current detachment get nerfed.

 

It's only good times from here on and if it isn't then, you know what? We've endured worse, nothing can beat the horrors of 6th-8th  ed.

[Tokugawa]

2 hours ago, Medjugorje said:

I havent read the codex supplement yet. My questions are:

 

1. Is it still possible to play the Codex Space Marine Detachments? (I expect yes but I hope NOT)

2. How many rules / datasheets were changed?

 

1. Yes. Why not.

2. Didn't check all the pages one-by-one:

Talonmaster, DW command and DW strikemaster confirmed gone;

DWT and DWK unit rewritten, DWT is almost identical to codex shooty terminator;

RW command is a 3 W4 models character unit now, could join outriders and black knights;

Lion lost -1 to wound. Sweep mode dmg2 --> dmg1;

Azreal can't join company heroes.

Edited January 20 by Tokugawa

[Marshal Reinhard]

with the upgrade kit having a MM, we're pretty much set to always have it.

[Sir Clausel]

Havent pretty much all the new dexes overall nerfed the armies ? Or at least not given them a great buff? Marines lost rerool wounds on oath targets and such. Maybe necrons got the most buffs with ctans and such?(and now their immortal thingy is nerfed back)

 

So i will assume we will get some nerfs. But i still believe we will get 4 detachments. One for each vow and then lose the one we have now. 

I think more and more now that we wont get something new sadly as far as models go. 

Edited January 20 by Sir Clausel

[Karhedron]

GW certainly seems determined to avoid codex creep in 10th edition. All the codices so far have been either slight-nerfs or sidegrades.

[Sir Clausel]

9 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

GW certainly seems determined to avoid codex creep in 10th edition. All the codices so far have been either slight-nerfs or sidegrades.

And i honestly want that more than what else we have seen. Awful to play an army that just got super op. And if its your army you just feel bad when you use it

[Tokugawa]

1 hour ago, Sir Clausel said:

Havent pretty much all the new dexes overall nerfed the armies ? Or at least not given them a great buff? Marines lost rerool wounds on oath targets and such. Maybe necrons got the most buffs with ctans and such?(and now their immortal thingy is nerfed back)

 

So i will assume we will get some nerfs. But i still believe we will get 4 detachments. One for each vow and then lose the one we have now. 

I think more and more now that we wont get something new sadly as far as models go. 

A dedicated psyker hunting detachment doesn't make sense in matched/tournament play.

 

The problem of "one army for one vow" design is always where to place "Abhor". Other 3 names could include different abilities, and won't make players feel too weird(traditionally, Uphold is more defensive related though). Abhor is different; it was always linked to psykers, then easily became a weakest vow choice. If "against psyker and daemon units" go too far beyond the story settings, "against psychic attacks and mortal wounds" may be the bottomline for an universal choice.

 

IMO current design of Abhor is good: in 90-95% cases you don't remember it, but when you really need to activate it, it is very useful.

Edited January 20 by Tokugawa

[redmapa]

Even if we don't have company formations in lore we do have an order of battle from which the devs can make a detachment, off the top of my head:

 

First stage of an Assault, Drop Pods and fast elements so maybe a detachment for deep striking units and speeders

Second stage, landing of heavier elements, a new take on Mechanized detachment that's a mix of transport and tank focus

Full on Assault I think is covered by the RC detachment as is the idea of a Crusade 

 

And then there's the idea that they could take different crusade formations as detachments, Righteous Crusaders is your core of the crusade, Marshall's Household for your Veterans and a Fighting Company detachment for a more specialized take.

 

There's plenty of inspiration to go around imo so I doubt they will split the RC detachment to make 4 different ones.

[Medjugorje]

16 hours ago, Karhedron said:

GW certainly seems determined to avoid codex creep in 10th edition. All the codices so far have been either slight-nerfs or sidegrades.

for Dark Angels a NERF. I already read the leaks. OMG they are terrible

[Gederas]

  

On 1/20/2024 at 4:35 AM, Sir Clausel said:

Havent pretty much all the new dexes overall nerfed the armies ? Or at least not given them a great buff? Marines lost rerool wounds on oath targets and such. Maybe necrons got the most buffs with ctans and such?(and now their immortal thingy is nerfed back)

 

So i will assume we will get some nerfs. But i still believe we will get 4 detachments. One for each vow and then lose the one we have now. 

I think more and more now that we wont get something new sadly as far as models go. 

Not really, no. Everyone cried about Oath of Moment, but the rest of the Marine codex was an upgrade imo. Tyranids and Necrons got better, the only faction to get outright worse was AdMech.

 

Since this is the edition of nerfs, based on the nonsense of the DA supplement this is what I expect:

1. Helbrecht loses his Mortal Wound ability, his weapon goes down by 1 damage on both profiles (to minimum 1)
2. Grimaldus' abilities get worse
3. Sword Brethren's weapon upgrades become "Sword Brethren Heirloom weapons", with 5A S5 AP-1 D2; also they go up to 300 for 5, and get locked to 5-man
4. The Emperor's Champion becomes a slapfighter, loses Precision
5. 20% points tax on every unique unit in the BT army

 

 

On 1/20/2024 at 4:56 AM, Sir Clausel said:

And i honestly want that more than what else we have seen. Awful to play an army that just got super op. And if its your army you just feel bad when you use it

The opposite end is "why should I play this army?" when a BAD force gets worse. Dark Angels weren't super powerful and oppressive, and they got a visit from Vinny with the bat because.... Reasons?

 

Right now, the only reason why I'm getting the Deathwing Assault box is because my FLGS did a special order on the GW site because his rep screwed him out of the pre-order sheet. Not because I myself want to play DA in 10e, but because I don't want to be a jerk

 

I mean, I guess I finally have Assault Terminators?

Edited January 22 by Gederas

[Helias_Tancred]

What they did to Dark Angels was so shockingly unnecessary, absurd, and illogical that I have 0 faith in them to do the rest of us any different.  I expect a similar round of absurd decisions and nerfs to be made to us when our 10th edition codex releases.  

 

I hope the Black Templar codex releases in the very last month of 10th edition. I'd be fine with that.

 

Start looking for a Black Templar Librarian miniature you want to add to your crusade when our 10th edition codex goes live brothers. 

 

 

Edited January 24 by Helias_Tancred

[Medjugorje]

11 hours ago, Helias_Tancred said:

What they did to Dark Angels was so shockingly unnecessary, absurd, and illogical that I have 0 faith in them to do the rest of us any different.  I expect a similar round of absurd decisions and nerfs to be made to us when our 10th edition codex releases.  

 

I hope the Black Templar codex releases in the very last month of 10th edition. I'd be fine with that.

 

Start looking for a Black Templar Librarian miniature you want to add to your crusade when our 10th edition codex goes live brothers. 

 

 

I dont think that negative - but all in all i dont need our codex supplement next time.

[Sir Clausel]

I dont buy codexes anymore. Im simply fed up with their greedy strategy by pumping them out so fast. You can find the rules online anyway. I rather wanna buy some plastic to paint and play with. 

[Sword Brother Adelard]

Gotta admit, I think that's the first time I've seen someone complain that the codex release schedule is too fast...

[Blindhamster]

Between editions, yes. Editions really need to go back to ~5 year cycles or there about. 3 years is too rapid 

[redmapa]

And being compatible so later codices can still be used in the new edition and not just last 6 months.

[Sword Brother Adelard]

Edition churn is different, I agree that's a problem.

But it was only one edition ago that the previous codexes were compatible, 8th to 9th. And I think GW have only binned all codexes what twice? Maybe three times?

Definitely 8th and 10th, maybe 3rd as well? I know they didn't for fourth, and nobody ever talks about 5th or 6th to be honest, and I missed those.

 

But the consistent complaint in the last three editions has been the cursed release schedule has been too slow, because you have armies waiting sometimes years for a new book. (In which case a burn and turn edition change is incredibly frustrating.)

 

[Tokugawa]

On 1/24/2024 at 1:24 PM, Helias_Tancred said:

What they did to Dark Angels was so shockingly unnecessary, absurd, and illogical that I have 0 faith in them to do the rest of us any different.  I expect a similar round of absurd decisions and nerfs to be made to us when our 10th edition codex releases.  

 

I hope the Black Templar codex releases in the very last month of 10th edition. I'd be fine with that.

 

Start looking for a Black Templar Librarian miniature you want to add to your crusade when our 10th edition codex goes live brothers. 

 

 

You can even do that right now.

The "no librarian" limit is only printed under righteous crusader detachment section; if you play codex detachment like gladius, there is actually no rules to forbid you putting BT unique units and librarian in the same list. 

Personally I would never try to assemble and paint a BT librarian, no matter whether it is legal/competitive or not. I have a Leviathan librarian model and it had already become this:

 

Edited January 25 by Tokugawa

[Blindhamster]

4 hours ago, Sword Brother Adelard said:

Maybe three times?

believe this.

2nd -> 3rd

7th -> 8th

9th -> 10th

 

[Sir Clausel]

Its not the thing that all the codexes are coming to fast but its the relentless "new edition every 3 years" which is tiresome. And even if they dont invalidate every codex for each edition there are still lots of codexes that dont get a long life in the current edition. And they dont always fit that well in a new edition. 

Make the rules digital and free and use the game as a marketing tool to sell minis!(not by giving them OP rules btw)

 

But im way off topic here.

 

I honestly hope the BT dex aint written yet so they can learn from DAs release and not make the same mistake with us. Hopefully we get a cool new unit but i dont think that will happen.

[Marshal Reinhard]

4 hours ago, Tokugawa said:

You can even do that right now.

The "no librarian" limit is only printed under righteous crusader detachment section; if you play codex detachment like gladius, there is actually no rules to forbid you putting BT unique units and librarian in the same list. 

Personally I would never try to assemble and paint a BT librarian, no matter whether it is legal/competitive or not. I have a Leviathan librarian model and it had already become this:

 

I will turn mine into a GK one.

[Helias_Tancred]

On 1/25/2024 at 5:52 AM, Tokugawa said:

You can even do that right now.

The "no librarian" limit is only printed under righteous crusader detachment section; if you play codex detachment like gladius, there is actually no rules to forbid you putting BT unique units and librarian in the same list. 

 

 

That comment was made in jest ;)

 

I would never make a BT Librarian either. Utter heresy!