New Dark Angels – Deathwing

We all love the new Ravenwing (yes, all of us *stares*) but there is a distinct lack of discussion around Deathwing. Unfortunately for good reason. With the FAQ changes to the last book, Deathwing Terminators were the only Terminators capable of bringing any mix of weapons they like – this was very advantageous as you could make a unit with a CML and a bunch of TH/SS. This can still happen… but at a premium.

Previous units cost around 235 points – more if you added Chainfists (and one was always a good idea). Now they are 270 for the exact same loadout. The benefit? Splitfire… Oh and squads up to 10! Shame they don’t have combat squads and nor can they be used as an Ally plug-in (and the anti-air Whirlwind we were looking for died with that idea, too :(). We knew Belial was going to get more expensive (and gained a non-scattering Deepstrike move but little else…) but did Deathwing really need to? Sure everyone else is now paying +5 points for TH/SS which is understandable, at 40 points they are a steal but Deathwing was already paying for that bonus in their initial cost really. Is Deathwing Assault, Fearless/Stubborn, Preferred Enemy against Chaos, twin-linked on turn you deepstrike and Split Fire really worth 35 points a unit? It does sound like a long list but not by a long shot, no.

Terminator based units and armies will always have the issue of paying through the nose for durability. In 5th edition, even with the update, running eight squads of Deathwing (so 41 Terminators) was a bad list. Sure it rolled over some people and sometimes, you just made armor saves like a boss but it really struggled overall. When you dropped down to 26-31 Terminators and brought in support such as Land Speeders, Predators and Dreadnoughts, the list became much more well-rounded and capable on the table top as it wasn’t a case of your opponent making you roll dice and if you got insanely lucky or they couldn’t make you roll enough, you won.

So the real question is – is this same concept viable now? Pure Deathwing was always going to be crap unless they became something silly in terms of points and you could flood the table with those larger squads (see above point). Deathwing assault is certainly a lot better and can add some nice flexibility in how these units are used…but in the end we are still paying 70 points more than the Vanilla variant for what is essentially an extra CML + this flexibility and a few cute rules. Worth it? Eh… you could get away with one or two squads with this idea but if you want them to be scoring, you’re still paying an extra 190 points for Belial – who with a 60 point increase, gained diddly squat really (though again, the accurate deepstrike is nice). Azrael is really the better option here as he does provide some nice bonuses but you need to make sure you’re using those correctly… and that doesn’t really involve Deathwing.

So let’s look at this.

Vengeful Strike + Deathwing assault is a nice combination as it allows you to choose however many units with this rule (and Terminator armor) can come in automatically in your first or second turn. That means you’re getting them when and where you want them (as accurate as Deepstriking can be at least) and thus minimising some turns of firepower against them. Always nice and when they do land, their shooting weapons (read: Cyclone) are more accurate. You’re not taking Stormbolters because then your Terminators die to everyone’s new favorite toy – plasma; and if you do take a couple of token Stormbolters, gaining twin-linked on them isn’t something to write home about. Twin-linked CML is nice but it’s no multi-melta and I still don’t see Deathwing with a nice USR like IDK, Tank Hunters? By using this as well, you’re not spreading out. Hope you’re not playing someone with a plasma cannon. Are they common again?

There’s still the extra points you need to pay over normal Terminators (+4 points) which for the added options of is understandable but… as indicated above, they’re cute rather than cut and dry advantages – particularly given the changes to ATSKNF (i.e. being Fearless and…Stubborn isn’t as big a deal). I’d rather have those extra points encompass the option to upgrade to TH/SS for free and have Deathwing Assault. Or you know, be WS5.

Oh wait, there is a WS5 option. Deathwing KNIGHTS. That sounds cool and only two points more than a normal Deathwing. Right on. Wait. They don’t have Thunder Hammers? FLAILS? They must be awesome! What? *cleans out ears* S6 AP4? Oh… And it can be S10 AP2 for a turn? And they are T5 if in base to base? Well…cute? Oh they have precision strike each as well. IF ONLY THEY HAD THUNDER HAMMERS.

Which of course takes us to the Deathwing Command Squad – what you will take if you’re running Terminators. It’s an easy choice to access by taking a cheap Librarian in Termiantor armor and whilst it has all of the same issues of the normal Deathwing squads, it can carry a banner and those banners can be quite nice to add to other unit selections within the Dark Angels book. This is where Deathwing Assault can really come in handy – you can drop in the Deathwing unit without exposing the Banner to unnecessary early firepower. This is probably going to be best utilised with the Banner of Devastation since Fortitude is providing a defensive bonus. And in the end, 2+/3++ models with Thunder Hammers are a nice combat option and they aren’t too expensive that a single unit (particularly if it’s bringing something else to the table) is digging yourself a hole.

And that’s really the crux of the issue here – taking multiple squads is digging yourself a hole. Again, you could probably get away with a couple squads and I’m sure there are uses for Belial we shall uncover later (or combinations with Azrael) but the concept of a Deathwing army, even hybridised, has gotten worse thanks to the general increase across the board in points without any real change in durability or ability to affect the tabletop. Fortitude might be able to make it worth it as even with FNP being a 5+, 2+/3++/FNP is a pain in the arse to deal with across the board – but that’s 85 points + the extra points per squad. Not the best way to start an army list unfortunately. Thank you Games Workshop :(.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

237 responses to New Dark Angels – Deathwing

My DW army looks like it's going to be at best a DW base with an IG/Azrael blob providing support. And that's with always running it with Dread/Speeder support, so at least I'm only losing half my termies.

I think a _contingent_ of Deathwing can add a lot to an army- Deathwing Assault is a really, really good rule and the ability to reliably place a threatening unit essentially anywhere you want, anywhen you want is not something to shrug off.

However, a "pure" (or even semi-pure) Deathwing army isn't really very viable, I feel. They're just too expensive per body and don't have enough tricks to stop a maneuverable enemy from escaping their ring of dudes. Just as importantly, they have no real solution to flyers and are vulnerable to several of big names (Vendetta and both Scythes, Stormraven, Dakkajet) and thus can suffer badly against them.

Do they lose deathwing assault if joined by a character who does not also have it? I'm thinking that utilizing a TDA C:SM libby with Gate of Infinity can make good use of Vengeful strike as they are able to deepstrike every turn rather than just once.

Deathwing is similar to Ravenwing & the CSM cult troops in that building a pure list will fail, but taking one or two units as troops to buffer your already good selections can really help out. 2 or 3 ten man tactical squads plus two of either WING selection gives you 5 troops (2-3 can combat squad) which is plenty for games bellow 2,000 points.

Leave DWK at home…

Question is if an allied C: SM terminator HQ does.
I haven't really followed the rules debate on DW assault, but I doubt it.

The allied characters do not. Any character that can purchase terminator armor from C:DA gets DW assault; your allied SM character purchases his items from C:SM. Logically speaking, how would a White Scar know how to DW assault like a DW terminator?

Given the DW assault is entirely down to the skill of the person doing the teleporting, not the Terminator….

Because he's being teleported by the same guy?

Actually, the rules states that you have to have Terminator armour, and the Deathwing Assault Special rule, to Deathwing Assault.

The only exception is Dark Angel characters who purchase Terminator Armour gain both Deathwing Assault and Vengeful Strike

Under neither circumstance would any model in Terminator Armour from another codex qualify to Deathwing Assault.

However, there is nothing stopping a Deathwing squad hooking up with aSpace Marine Terminator Librarian and deepstriking around the board using Vengeful Strike after they arrive on the scene

well, once on the board the C:SM libby doesn't need terminator armor to use gate of infinity. Maybe this is a use (if you don't mind burning an allies slot?)

Very true, i just never field a libby without terminator armour, so i can give him an invul save via the storm shield, so I dont tend to think of them in any other way

I see your reasoning, but I find it unlikely that units from different forces, probably aboard different ships, would be teleported by the same specialist.
I assume DWA is as much down to consistent training with the other DW as it is to the skill of the teleportation crew. Any other Termie hasn´t been part of that.
Do with this fluff as you will 🙂

I've been thinking about this a lot. I feel like a few units backed by a more normal looking marine list could be good, as the ability to box your opponent in for a few turns is awesome when it comes to actually winning games on scenario.

Agreed with most of what you said AP, but you really think DW is vulnerable to basic Night Scythes? It averages out to less then one model per volley? Even less with FNP. Even Dooms/Vendetta have to contend with that SS, making them good, but probably not great, against them.

And of course every Marine's poster child of derision and scorn, the Helldrake, just gets laughed at by DW.

Point for Point, Terminators are more vulnerable to Torrent fire than normal Marines. For Dark Angels, every 6 Wounds is going to be dropping either 28 Points worth of Tactical Marine or 44 Points worth of Terminator on average.

The vulnerability in that particular case is not "oh noes we are killed" but more of "welp, that guy is going to steal an objective from use and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it."

Surprise! A Gimmick list like "all terminators" isn't as good as a balanced list! What Blasphemy!

The codex is only a few weeks old, and your crying that your old gimmick build doesn't work anymore. Boo-hoo. Perhaps you should look at it from the perspective of "What can I gain by adding deathwing units to a 'standard' DA Army?" I'm far happier to see people having to think "Should I bring deathwing?" than "I'll start with Beliel and 2×5 Deathwing squads with TH/SS/CML, and then I'll add…"

Deathwing is (now) a great way to add hammer units and alpha strike potential to a DA list, and they are plenty good even considering the cost increase. Dark Angels have never been a high model count army, I usually expect GK and DA to bring roughly the same number of bodies, so adding utility like split fire it allows you to make the most of those extra points your spending.

Deathwing is a solid choice, maybe not an army concept. but its good

A DA list revolves around DW and/or RW as troops. DA Tacticals may be flexible now, but will forgotten about when the proper Tacticals with Combat Tactics get redone. As in 5th,fluff bunny lists with mixed green/bone/black will be a poor reflection of SM lists.
The best I can see for DW now is as a ‘primary ally’ to IG with Azrael and a couple of squads of Terminators.

Mine dont.

I have a Deathwing army, a Ravenwing army and a Power Armour Army.

And various combined armies.

I did have a really fun, enjoyable 2000pts game last night with my Deathwing army against Space Wolves. Lots killed on both sides. The Deathwing carried the day in the end.

They may not be; personally I don't at all like the direction that the DA tacs are going in, which predicts a points crunch: under-pricing units leading to worse units being valued in points that are not counting numbers. You make units with good stats and multiple special rules cheap, and evaluating the value of individual properties starts to reach less-that-one-point for rules and gear. This causes units to be worse or better simply based on which side of that rounded number they end up on, and worse, makes all earlier books obsolete.

I know that sounds dumb.

I thought the Sword of Silence improvements were very welcome, the only thing I don't like about Belial is The Hunt (if you're against Terminator Armoured Warlords, you got a useless trait).

I dont get why the knights cant just have thunder hammers. They got to be super special snowflakes and have almost-a-thunder-hammer-kinda.

Even though all terminator armies are terrible, you've got to admit they have a certain appeal.

Terminator armies do have a certain appeal; a lot of people, myself included, really like the idea of a themed army. I spent a year playing an all-jumper BAs list, though it was phased out as it became more common in my FLGS and thus wasn't really playing to the surprise value it had before. That and it's just not all that competitive, especially now.

Considering that terminators can't be killed by most power-weapons anymore, the cost increase doesn't seem as bad with that considered along with the additional rules. Admittedly, I'm generally on the receiving end of Belial's boys and their guns, so I may be a bit biased!

I agree the power weapon changes help in CC but the change in mech rules have resulted in plasma gun saturation. I see the power weapon changes as a wash when you take the amount of plasma that tends to appear now.

I think it would help a little to be able take a storm shield and keep a ranged weapon. This would allow you to keep the 3++ up front to soak plasma wounds and not give up firepower. It would be nice if you could mix and match weapon systems and keep the storm-bolter. Lightning claw and storm bolter.

It wasn't like Terminators really died to power weapons before- I mean, seriously, what units brought more than one power weapon to the party? Not very many, other than someone else's Terminators. And since Power Axes are still a thing (and smart people often take them), it's not like they're completely immune.

Terminators are really resilient in melee, but that doesn't matter if they can't get there. Shooting is what matters and against most shooting (anything except AP3 guns), terminators are _less_ resilient, point for point, than Tactical Marines of any stripe.

chaos terminators, characters with large numbers of attacks (chaos lords, wolf lords, archons) and incubi are really the only things I can think of that had generic power-weapons that used to shred through terminators. But still, you didn't want to throw your CC units at terminators before and you still don't now – torrent those guys to death with small arms fire & focus your power-weapon squads (incubi) on shredding marines support elements. Choppa's fer tha dakka 'uns & dakka fer tha choppy 'uns and all that…

Incubi Klaives, Demi-Klaives and the Archon's huskblade have AP2 again, according to the DE FAQ.

It also looks like most books will have ways to kit characters for AP2 like Kharn… people will take those choices.

Tyranid boneswords also shred terminators, but until they have some kind of eternal warrior or invulnerable save the last thing they want to be trading slaps with is thunder hammers or power fists.

didn't see that klaives were AP2 now. That's nice for artificer armor hunting I think but DE don't really struggle with dealing with armorsaves – every DE army is going to have 15+ AP2 lance weapons.

But DW terminators, and particularly DWK, can get there; they drop in, on the turn you want, in the area you want. They get to take their first shot against the enemy, spreading their fire as necessary to try and do as much damage (and against non-Marines, force as many break tests) as possible, then have to survive a single turn of return shooting before you can start lumbering off for the charge.

Also, Axe's are a thing, but at least that means they are striking you at the same time…or forcing them to strike after you if you don't go TH…

But as you said, the real concern is getting pewpewed before they get there.

Terminators are awesome as a force to disrupt your opponent or to take out something particularly troublesome,particularly in the current no man’s land meta. However, having a really nice hammer doesn’t mean you should try to use it to fix your cell phone.

Deathwing Knights are…surprisingly for some…NOT Deathwing Terminator Squads with Thunder Hammmers and Storm Shields.

They dont play the same. Occasionally they can work in similar circumstances. They are normally useful in different situations. If you try to play them the same you will not like them and yes they wont work the same. The Deathwing Knights are a superb Assault unit when jumping out an Assault vehicle.

Combine them with a Vengeful Deepstrike Belial in a squad of shooty Deathwing Terminators…ouch.

Use a flyer or 2 to help soften up high I or WS units. Maybe some Ravenwing.

I think people need to drop the Mace hate and work out how to use the Knights effectivly. They are good.

no they aren't. They're an overpriced one-trick pony unless you are facing chaos marines. Loyalist marines laugh at the AP4 every turn except the first. If each DWK was able to choose to activate his Uber-flail individually then they maybe they'd be alright. Their shield wall ability provides them a modicum of protection against the most common torrent guns in the game currently (boltguns & gauss) and really saves the day against lasguns BUT any chaos player can take MoN terminators for about 10 points cheaper per model, sure they don't have storm shields but anything that penetrates your 2+ save doesn't really care that you're T5 now does it? (plasma & demolisher cannons still wound on a 2+)

Loyalist Marines who can't get through Terminator armour are hardly going to be laughing at Terminators who can't get through power armour; S6 will force a lot more saves than S4, and if you can clump the Knights properly on the charge T5 will take a lot fewer wounds than T4. More wounds with worse saves versus fewer wounds with a better save? I know which side I'd want to be on!

Oh, and the DWK Knight Master gets at base 3 attacks with the Flail of the Unforgiven, a S+2 AP3 weapon that strikes at Initiative. How many Loyalist Marines are going to be laughing at that, exactly? Worst case scenario, with nobody to challenge, WS5 means two hits and probably two wounds, which kills two Marines; best case scenario, a challenger soaks both wounds, leaving just enough Marines alive at the end to keep combat going through the Loyalist Marine player's turn. The Knights then finish the squad in the enemy's turn, and are free to charge again once they're done.

Right. So this unit is good if you combine it with an expensive transport, a special character, another expensive unit and 2 flier.

When did the definition of "This unit is good" add in "when I use my entire army to make it do what it's already paying huge amounts of points for".


Terminators Squads in isolation are not always a good unit. Foot slogging combat units tend to suffer.

Deathwing ARMY? you mean squads with transports, expensive units in transports, a Special Character and maybe a flyer? as an ARMY. Yeah, that can be good.

I rerely look at a squad in isolation, always in how it fits in to my army and what it brings or needs to cover. Deathwing Knights in a Deathwing army cover the low initiative Powerfists and give me a better combat unit for most things.

Well, yes, you don't look at units in isolation. But when you have an incredibly expensive unit, and the method of getting it to work is "a transport, a special character, another squad, and a couple of fliers"…that unit starts to seem a bit iffy.

At that point, it's not a mutally supporting army, it's the army entirely supporting that one squad. And the Knights just aren't that good a Deathstar. You wanted them combined with Belial and another terminator unit shooting, jumping out of a transport into assault, onto a unit softened up by a flier to reduce stats.

That's not looking at the army at a whole, that's looking at…what..a thousand points all hitting one single target in one turn?

Fairly sure even Eldar will kill most any unit in the game if they hit it with a thousand points.

I'm not arguing whether they are good or bad – I don't know. I'm arguing that your method of describing how to make them good is flawed.

I kind of agree with this. They are a resilient, anti-horde Term unit that can face bash one good IC or MC per game if they have to. I wouldn't build an entire army around them, but one unit of them could definitely be used effectively.

No, they just take a long time to write and I'm the one doing them, not Kirby. I have thirty Guardsmen, a Manticore, and two Helldrakes to finish converting in the next two weeks and I run two game sessions, help with an escalation league, and work forty hours. Sometimes there are priorities.

I dont quite understand the hate for the Knights. I think they are pretty awesome being WS 5 and I think Power Mauls or in this case, Flails are the best Power Weapon. You get the best of both worlds in my opinion. You become Str 6, which can still pop Rear armor or glance down AV 12 Walkers and with AP 4 you kill anything out side of MEQ and TEQ. Yes I know majority of armies are 3+ AS, but piling on a load of wounds will bring the squad of Marines or Termies. Also, you do have the one time use of being Str 10, AP 2.

I think DW have a place now, but making an entire army now out of them might not be the best. With everyone on the horde troop and foot troop bandwagon, all the squads of troops running around can tie up the 4 squads of DW people will be bringing, thus eliminating any outside shots or what not from the rest of the army.

DA now will most likely be a mix with RW and DW and Azrael leading. Turbo Boosting first turn with the bikes and have the DW drop in 1st or 2nd turn can lead to a headache for your opponents and lead to some very fast games.

The hate for Knights is that maces=/=thunder hammers. Termies really aren't that worried about swinging at I4 and would really rather have S8 AP2 on all the time. They're even more overpriced and don't do what you want them to do.

I honestly agree with a mixed DW/RW/Tac army lead by Azrael is going to end up being the basis for a lot of solid armies. Scout and turbo bikes allow for some good placement of your Termies, and Termies do still provide a hard unit to draw focus off your bikes and other units.

They're really a lot closer then you think though. Rolling a 3+/2+ will net you more wounds then 4+/2+, so they are clearly superior against 4+ and worse saves, and even against MeQ you are striking at the same time, meaning you are getting all of your attacks (TH/SS will still generally come out ahead against MeQ, unless you are facing something like Bezerkers).

The thing is, the units they are really strong against, namely hordes, tend to be a real PITA for TH/SS. That's why you get both, to compliment each other.

Pure DW is a “for theme only” type army, as before. Terminators are just too expensive and have too few weapons to be a full army.

DW hammernators are too expensive, so leave them at home. 250 for a cyclone and TH/SS Sarge is really all you need. A good all around scoring unit.

Combine DWA with some assault pods (5 marines, 2 flamers, “free” Drop Pod for 95 points) or allied pods and you have a strong presence turn 1. Belial’s scatter free DS gives you the Fortitude Banner or Knights right where you need them. It’s an alpha strikey army, win big or lose big.

I love Knights. Swinging at S6 I4 with WS5 is great for breaking things, and you save the smite for a real problem unit. They fill a similar role to hammernators elsewhere, an anti-death star unit.

I find the Knights useful for protecting termie armoured HQ's from Krak Instant Death. There's a lot of ways to use they beyond Knights Smaaash! Although if you're up against a CSM army, you're not going to leave them behind. They also look cool.

Except you're not building a list based on your opponent, right? Because that would be list-tooling, and displays a certain lack of integrity.

I've always had issues with the idea that basing your army off your opponent is bad.

I don't tend to do it, because frankly, I can't magnetise the guns (nowhere near the coordination needed).

But…think about it. You've got advanced sensors, and the theatres of war rarely contain multiple different opponents. Why would a Dark Angels Captain go the surface of a world being attacked by the Black Legion….and bring along his anti-orc equipped Dreadnoughts?

If the system supports it, it can be a lot of fun- Malifaux and some other games allow you to do this, essentially choosing your "army" once you know what the mission (and who your opponent) is.

40K, however, is not really written with this sort of thing in mind. Some armies have very good "solutions" to certain enemies; many others do not. Playing as GK once you find out your opponent is bringing Daemons is really a pretty unfair and unfun thing to do.

It gives an unfair level of additional power to codexes that have flexible loadouts. Armies like marines (but GKs to a smaller degree) and IG, for example, have several units that can be constructed to be very, very good against a given target because they have a wide variety of special and heavy weapons that can be equipped to the same squad, as well as niche units. Armies like Tyranids and Orks that aren't bad books, but have very little customizability to counter specific targets, suffer because having knowledge of your opponent's army doesn't benefit them, or at least doesn't help to a significant degree.

The most variable army in the game is Eldar (theoretically, assuming the units did what they said they did).

In fact, I'd say marines are one of the least variable, because the majority of their weapon choice is made for them because of how inherantly versatile the missile launcher is.

That's the rub; even though they are specialized, plenty of their units just aren't good enough for their points cost, or have no idea how to do the job they're professed to do (Dark Reapers).

The missile is the hands-down choice many times because it's versatile. However, if you know what you're going to be playing against, you can take a weapon better-suited to that situation. You're not always going to find yourself in a situation where the missile isnt' the best, but when you know you're going to be facing a list where another option would be better, you've got it.

I'm not explaining myself very well. First – it's absolutely clear that the designers made Eldar with the understanding that people would pick and choose their units AFTER they knew what codex they were fighting. Why is this clear? Because they say so in battle reports.

This is also why I'm using Eldar as the example.

Imagine that Howling Banshees and Scorpions both did exactly what they were supposed to – kill MeQ and hordes respectively. Why would you ever take Banshees against Orcs? Or Scorpions against Marines?

On the missile:- There isn't. The Bolter has a lower potential number of kills against hordes, the plasma cannon does essentially the same thing with a better AP and way more costs, and the Lascannon is dedicated anti-tank (so only ever belongs on a dedicated anti-tank unit).

What list, exactly, would you choose a different marine heavy weapon for? There's no entirely tank lists anymore, so we can instantly remove the Lascannon. The Heavy Bolter's a joke and frag missiles provide more potential punch. Remove that as well.

That really only leaves the missile launcher and the plasma cannon. So…if against Deathwing/Draigowing, you'd swap out to the plasma cannon. Eh.

I genuinely cannot think of a situation in which I'd ever want to swap the other weapons. It's a bit more complicated on a predator (and a lot more complicated on special weapons), but even there, not hugely. The basic loadout is just generally capable. It can handle anything.

Again, though, the statement "It's not designed for it" runs heavily into the big problem that we've been told, fairly explictly in the case of Eldar, that it WAS. Tournaments aren't designed for it. But that's not the rule set. That's not how the designers play the game (from what we see of their games and from their discussion about how the game is to be played).

Uh… you seem to be forgetting the Multimelta and dismissing the Lascannon too easily in terms of Marine heavy weapons. While SM (and, to a lesser degree, BA/SW) Lascannons are overcosted, in the new DA book they look much more reasonable as the default anti-tank gun, and S9 makes a big difference against those AV12/13 targets out there.

Marine infantry tend to be extremely generalist, but their vehicles are much less so- against particular targets, Drop Pods, Land Speeders, Land Raiders, Predators, Whirlwinds, etc, all except at least as well as any of the xenos specialists do.

>First – it's absolutely clear that the designers made Eldar with the understanding that people would pick and choose their units AFTER they knew what codex they were fighting. Why is this clear? Because they say so in battle reports.

Since they also talk about every other army in the same terms (but have never run tournaments or games this way in their stores), I think it's fair to assume that their accompanying text is more a fanciful story rather than actual fact. I think it's pretty widely understood that WD batreps are basically just marketing tools, as a lot of the dice rolls and decisions accompanying them are pretty far into left field.

>Again, though, the statement "It's not designed for it" runs heavily into the big problem that we've been told, fairly explictly in the case of Eldar, that it WAS.

By why? Why do you consider their opinion to be reliable in this case? What evidence backs it? "Somebody told me" is a pretty weak kind of support to a major claim like that, since it runs contrary to how pretty much every person I've ever met plays the game. Changing your list depending on what opponent you're fighting is widely derided as "list-tailoring" and if it is the way GW intended us to play the game, they have done an amazingly poor job of conveying that information.

I had a DA player list-tailor against me, first game of the current league. He didn't know my list, but he did know, from other folks talking, that I played Tau. So, understandably, he left his Flakk missiles, quad guns and the like at home.

Boy, was he surprised when my BA allies brought their Stormraven along!

I consider the word of the developers when talking about how they developed it more meaningful than the word of some guy on the internet.. Someone told me is not a weak argument whne the person saying it is the person who DESIGNED THE GAME. You argued the game was not designed around list tailoring. The people who actually made it say it was.

Why should I take your word over their publication?

And "They talk about every other army in the same way" highlight's my point, not yours. They talk about tailoring lists for the opposing army all the damn time. It doesn't matter that the battle report is a marketting tool. There's no marketting in saying "I'm taking this unit because it's good against blah", if that unit hasn't just been released/is selling poorly. And they talk about units that way all the damn time.

So – again – why should I be taking your word over the printed statement by the people who actually make the game?

This isn't "People should list tailor". This isn't "Armies are better balanced with list tailoring". You stated "They don't design it around list tailoring". They state they do. So….why are you a better source, exactly?

Because there is good evidence that the text accompanying WD battle reports is a lie, and because no one actually plays that way. I guess if you wanna believe them, that;s your own deal, but if you're trying to convince everyone else here about The Way GW Designed the Game to Be Played and that version is a major deviation from the way every person on the planet plays the game, it seems like you need some pretty good proof of your position. Marketing fluff- that we KNOW is wrong in many cases and is implicitly wrong in many more- is not really that proof.

If GW posts in a batrep "Legion of the Damned are a really dangerous unit!" we consider it bullshit because we know they have an ulterior motive. Why would we consider "this game is designed with list-tailoring in mind" to be any different?

Because "This game is designed so you take this unit against this opponent" isn't marketting relevant. Especially when it comes up in design statements (and it does, although there the 'it's a marketting ploy to get people to buy the new stuff' is perhaps more relevant).

Incidentally, none of what you just said states you are a better source than White Dwarf.

Major deviation from how 'every person on the planet plays the game'. Is it? Proof, please. Major deviation from how every person in your little tournament scene plays the game, yes. Certainly.

Eveyr person on the planet? I doubt it. I'd actually doubt it's the majority that DON'T list tailor, even to a small degree.

Incidentally? "Marketting ploy" doens't invalidate "Game designed around list tailoring". List tailoring is something that makes you buy more models, so, yeah, they are going to want you to do it.

What you are doing is you are taking the logic from a set of tournaments, that are not supported by the game designers, and declaring that the over-arching mindset from those tournaments somehow governs how the game was made.

It doesn't. Anymore than my local group's MTG tournaments not allowing sideboards doesn't mean MTG wasn't designed with sideboarding in mind.

The only differences is that 'sideboarding' in 40k is..well..complicated. That just means it wasn't designed with list tailoring in mind very well.

"Major deviation from how 'every person on the planet plays the game'. Is it? Proof, please. Major deviation from how every person in your little…even to a small degree."

He actually provided that. In no tournament rules that I have ever seen, nor in any of the tournaments or scenarios that GW runs in-store, are you allowed to list-tool. At least in the case of GW in-store, your lists -must- be written-out before hand and handed in to the manager, -must- be approved by him(or very rarely her), and -must- not be changed without notifying the manager and receiving permission.

This is only in regards to tournaments obviously, but that's the baseline we have to work off of. If people play with titans in 2000 point casual games (and some do) that shouldn't influence what we consider the norn.

Tournaments are not the majority of play.

Seriously, you people think TOURNAMENTS are the majority of play? And no, he didn't provide a shred of proof, even for tournaments. (Doesn't really need to for tournaments, mind, but he didn't provide any).

Not only are tournaments not the majority of play, tournaments are explictly not the reason they design 40k.

We have two relevant sets of statements here.
1:- The Games Designers state, again and again, in the company offical magazine, that certain units are designed against certain opponents, and you should swap units out against some opponents.
2:- The Games Designers state, in White Dwarf and imply in the basic rules, that 40k is not a tournament game.

Against that, we have the counter arguments of:-

1:- "White Dwarf sucks and you shouldn't listen to a random person telling you something" – said by some random person who has nothing to do with the design of the game.
2:- 40k has tournaments, therefore the intent of the rules is obviously designed around our tournaments.

Sorry guys, but tournament play? It's not the majority of games. Practicing for tournaments isn't the majority of games. The majority of games? They are done by random people, with armies they picked because they like them. They are done around a kitchen table, done by kids who don't have a clue about the minutae of the rules.

They aren't the minority. The people who think it's all about the tournaments are.

But this _is_ a tournament play focused blog. The staff and a majority of the readership defaults to the tourney mindset.

That's nice and all, but it doesn't mean the statements Abuse is making any less wrong.

And frankly, I think being reminded that the tournament mindset is NOT the majority is useful sometimes. I said the same things in the "stop whinging about overwatch because it doesn't hurt marines and orcs" thing awhile back.

Since I never said "tournaments are the majority of play" or anything like it, I'll thank you not to shove words in my mouth.

Tournaments are not the majority of play, nor are tournament players the majority of players; they are, however, the most _visible_ example of play (and of players, on the internet) and they often are a good example of what the local 40K culture is like. If the store's tournaments are 1500 or 2000pts, pickup games in that area are more likely to be the same value, since it's what many folks will fall into the habit of using.

The person I was responding to did.

I asked you to back up yoru statement about the majority of play. He said you had by citing tournaments.

I stated that tournaments were not the majority of play.

So shovelling words into your mouth? Unless you are Tim as well, I wasn't responding to you.

Then maybe I'm totally misunderstanding your "but it doesn't mean the statements Abuse is making any less wrong." line, but to me that came off as saying that I was making the same (or equivalent) statements as him.

The majority of games played by random people constitute a mish-mash of styles that you can't use to draw any real conclusion. Some people list-tool. Some people just put models on the board and have a battle with no points values. Some people play lists with no restrictions on the amount of HQ choices. As I mentioned earlier, some people allow Apocalypse units in regular games. Some people play with no fliers or no fortifications. Some people play with no named characters allowed. But the single largest of these minority groups, that use the same common general set of regulations, are people that play in tournaments. If you could standardize the rules preciseely to satisfy the largest amount of people, it would be for tournament players, because the disparity between how the other 75% of people play is pretty large.

AbusePuppy claimed that anything other than TAC, tournament-style set lists with no tweaking in regards to player or army constitutes "a major deviation from the way every person on the planet plays the game." You cannot support this argument by simply dismissing, by your own admission, the way three-quarters of the players out there play the game because you don't like it. Indeed, the fact that three-quarters of the people out there don't play tournament-style TAC set-lists quite neatly undermines the very claim you are attempting to support.

Elitist is defined as either being A) a person who belives that society should be governed or donimated by an elite group or B) favoring, advocating, or resticting to the elite. As am neither in favor of an oligarchy or being preferential towards any group of people, I fail to see how I am being elitist. Unless of course your saying that by speaking about a specific minority group in regards to the whole I am being elitist, in which case you might consider the NAACP to be elitist.

You imply a strong bias towards the belief that your little tournament scene is superior than everyone else.


Incidentally, your definition is wrong. That's the term as applied to politics. If you believe this is a political area, I think you've got bigger problems.

I didn't imply anything of the nature; you merely infered that. I never said anything negative about non-tournament players, or anything positive about tournament players. Incidentally I rarely go to tournaments.

My mistake, the dictionary I referenced had only two definitions. In either case, the definition does not apply to my commentary.

>Because "This game is designed so you take this unit against this opponent" isn't marketting relevant

Yes it is- if you can change your list to reflect different opponents, that inherently means you need more models than if you have a fixed list, and that means you need to buy those models from GW. It's incredibly marketing-relevant.

>"Marketting ploy" doens't invalidate "Game designed around list tailoring".

Nope, but since you have provided no evidence other than some text that can be easily dismissed as marketing, hyperbole, or a story made up to be amusing, I don't think you have a lot to go on.

Which is inherantly a better source than "i'm some guy on the internet".

Seriously, abuse, that's the point you are at. You are the Random guy, and you are arguing that their own words are wrong.

You need a hell of a lot more proof than you've got. I'm not the one with burden of proof here, you are.

>I'm not the one with burden of proof here, you are.

Why don't you have any burden of proof? You're making a claim, also.

I can cite essentially every tournament ever as evidence for my side as well as a dozen or so stores in my area where I know list-tailoring isn't approved of. What evidence can you call on your side? So far it's just some examples from White Dwarf- examples that we KNOW are artificial because they essentially exist to showcase whatever models GW wants to sell that month. Those aren't real battles played out by people, they are marketing tools. Can you show me ANY other examples of people who play the way you describe? Because you haven't so far.

My "credibility" doesn't even enter into things here- I'm not claiming that my opinion is right because it's my opinion, I'm saying that all examples of play and of players I have seen fit with this view of things. Likewise, I'm not measuring my statement against The Official Word of the Developers, I'm measuring it against some fluff that they spit out for an article. If you're taking that seriously, then my Raveners with Synapse and Fleet Tyranid Warriors thank you immensely.

I don't have burden of proof because I'm referencing the actual developer statements.

Your arguement relies on your tournament scene being more relevant to HOW THE GAME IS DESIGNED than the developer statements in White Dwarf.

The argument that "White Dwarf exists to showcase the models" doesn't work. You know what else exists to showcase the models? The rules.

GW's a miniature company, remember.

And yeah, you are still trying to rate your word -and the validity of your tournaments – above the actual words they write down. I'm sorry, but your statement doesn't work. When it's a statement of ability – "GW says in White Dwarf that Howling Banshees are good", then yes, you'd have a point.

But a statement of intent? Doesn't work. "I chose this unit because I was playing orcs, otherwise I'd take a different one".

Actually, one from the Eldar/DE vs daemons battle report is a good example, in which in was stated that Eldar have the best specialist troops as long as you picked the right ones for the task.

The first bit is a quality statement. That's marketting speak.
The second bit is not. "As long as you pick the right ones" is stating fairly directly that the intent was you find out who you are playing, and then pick after that.

You've been tournamenting for too long, you make the assumption that's how the game is designed.

(Oh, and worse? Your entire argument against White Dwarf is "It's designed to try and make you buy stuff!". You think the SAME COMPANY is above writing the rules to make you buy more stuff? Seriously? )

"a major deviation from the way every person on the planet plays the game"

Yeah, I think you're going to have to back that statement up somehow. It's a major deviation from how tournaments are run, but since not every single person on the planet who plays 40K plays exclusively in tournaments the two are not synonymous. Far more games of 40K are some form of pick-up games, either against familiar opponents or friendly strangers at the FLGS, and in either case there's going to be some subtle list tailoring going on. Or less than subtle; who, after having a friend smash their army flat a time or two, isn't going to go out and get their army's best counter to whatever's killing them so badly?

40K has explicitly rejected the tournament scene; the designers don't care about, don't support it, and don't write their codexes with it in mind. Time and again we've heard 'beer and pretzels game', and for all that it would be nice if GW put in the minimal amount of effort to make the system work for both, the simple fact is that 40K is designed for friends having a singular game with no particular stakes. Why do you think the terrain set-up and fortification deployment rules are the way they are; for tournament play they're beyond annoying, but for making sure the board is randomized every time you fight your buddy's army again, they're perfect.

40K is designed to have a certain amount of list tailoring involved, because the idea is that you're fighting someone you know, whose army you have at least some vague idea about before you sit down and punch out an army sheet. Tournaments may do away with that for their own arbitrary reasons, though it wouldn't be hard to allow a primary and back-up list for each player, but GW is designing from the standpoint of minor list tailoring, which does rather hamper some codexes more than others.

GW has rejected the tournament scene; that does not mean 40K has.

With regards to backing up the "major deviation" statement: if that wasn't the case, why would a phrase like "list tailoring" even exist? Seriously, maybe I am in some kind of weird, isolated minority here, but literally EVERY PERSON I HAVE EVER TALKED TO plays the game that way. You write a list, then you play against the other guy using that list, regardless of what army they brought. Changing your list to reflect what the other player is using is regarded as against the spirit of the game.

Is this not the case for people somewhere? Is the community of players I have encountered in person and online some kind of bizarre exception? That is not impossible, but I find it somewhat unlikely. I can't really offer any actual proof, bar collecting a bunch of signatures or something else absurd like that, but I would question the other end of things as well- can you offer me examples of people who actually DO play that way? Where are they? As I said, I literally have never met a single person anywhere who does that.

>but GW is designing from the standpoint of minor list tailoring, which does rather hamper some codexes more than others.

I still don't see anything but the scantest evidence of this, and I really don't think "one of the guys in WD said during a battle report" counts for much in terms of design philosophy.

Uh- in regards to the people that design it? Yeah, it pretty much does. 40k is NOT DESIGNED FOR TOURNAMENT PLAY. This is explict.

List tailoring as a term? Exists among the tiny, tiny subset of players that play in tournaments.

Again, though, you are placing your opinion above the WORDS THE DESIGNERS THEMSELVES PUT INTO PRINT.

It's not 'one of the guys in WD'. It's the designers.

You are the random guy here. Not them. They are the authority figure. You want to disprove their statement that it's designed to alter lists ?Go right ahead, but you are inherently the weaker source.

Especially since your argument so far boils down to a logical fallacy ("Everyone I know plays it this way, so it must be designed this way!")

"can you offer me examples of people who actually DO play that way?"

I just did, in an earlier comment in this very topic group; two games ago, in my FLGS' league, a DA player built a list to go against my Tau on the assumption that I wouldn't have flyers, because Tau. I've had plenty of pick-up games where me and the other guy will work up a list right there, already aware of what army each other is playing, and I've seen it happen regularly, too.

And frankly, AbusePuppy, your argument is a little absurd. We all know that GW does not design for tournament players; that they have no interest in tournaments; that the game designers have repeatedly expressed that 40K is a 'beer and pretzels game'. Are you trying to tell us that in fact, GW does design 40K with tournament play in mind? Because brother, you're -definitely- going to need to back that statement up with some quotes!

Jervis Johnson has said that GW is designed for non-tournament play, and everyone else just does what he says. He is the single reason that GW keeps making stupid quotes like that, and it's the reason that Standard Bearer was removed from White Dward; we're sick of his crap. In fact, I've never read a quote using the phrase "Beer-and-pretzel gaming from anyone -but- Jervis or someone playing a game with him in that issue of WD.

The things "we all know" require you to back your claim with some quotes as well.

Hardmode: you can't use Gav or Jervis. Those guys are not the entirety of the dev team.

Where and when? I can't say I've ever heard it from any of them, but I don't place it as impossible.

White Dwarf.

Often in the blurbs for new armies, and it's fairly consistent in the selecting armies for the "battle" reports.

"White Dwarf" is the most generic possible response there- which issue? Which column? That's about as helpful as my saying "well I talked to someone and he agreed with me." It's so bland as to be meaningless.

I think all competitive players tailor to some degree, but it's more tailoring to tendencies rather then specific lists. Like when GK were all the rage, you had to have contingencies in your list to the things you knew they would bring.

I would wager most friendly metas include a degree of tailoring as well. If 95% of my games are against my brother and our 2 best friends, I'm more focused on what they regularly bring then what the internet regularly brings.

That being said, trying to argue that list tailoring is some kind of iron clad rule that the game was designed for is stupid.

I do, however, think it would be fun to play a tournament with say, 2500 points worth of stuff that you could hot slot 500 points as soon as you knew your opponent. I'm not familiar with any tournaments that have done that, but I could see having a little fun with the flexibility it would bring, not too mention and added degree of gamesmanship. It might also bring upon a headache though as you have to constantly re-verify the list before each game to make sure people fairly and legally made their swaps.

Ditto arguing that it's not.

The game isn't designed around having an X point sideboard, no.

But the game IS designed around "Hey, I'm fighting orcs this week, I'll bring my Striking Scorpions rather than my Banshees".

The orc player you are fighting should list tailor against that and bring another army or allies to punish that list tailoring. The Eldar player should know that the orc player could do something different and not really list tailor for that specifically since the other player could change.

Seems like list tailoring really only works if only 1 player is doing it. If both are constantly changing their list based on what the other player is going to play, then the game would never even start, they would just theory hammer it all day picking different units to counter the current list.

No. The idea is that the list tailoring is part of the game. My opponent's bringing orcs. But he COULD bring some Marine allies….Is part of that.

Theory hammer…I honestly doubt (and this one isn't supported) that really any theory hammering at all is outside of the design intent. I mean look at Cruddace's Grey Knights army (that apparently he took to a tournament. Um). So many Psilencers.

Oh, and you also make your list based on your opponent and then you play.

Are you trying to make a slippery slope that you'd both turn up and sit around changing units? That's just silly. You make your list before the game, fairly self evidently.

And that's a real danger, because all players have an infinite variation in miniatures on them at all times, and certainly never turn up for a pick-up game with only some small portion of their overall collection…

And Eldar was balanced around picking the right tool for the job – it's the entire point of the aspect system.

Look at dev comments when playing Eldar, even recently – it's fairly obvious the intention was "You pick the squads with a rough idea of what you are facing".

(Yes, I know Eldar suck).

Your example doesn't hold up, though. There's a difference between "I know you are playing Daemons, so I'll bring lots of units that can deal with flamers" and "I know you are playing daemons, so I'll bring a the Grey Knights, a completely different army"

I’m responding to this post becase it will not let respond to others down stream, but I think the base argument here is that you belive WD to be a reputable magazine. Many, MANY people do not.

No. I believe it to be more reputable when discussing design points than Some Random Guy On The Internet.

Because while the purpose of the magazine may be to sell models, the people writing the words ARE the designers. And the designers purpose? To sell models.

White Dwarves disrepute is not in conflict with the designer statement.

Should we presume those many, MANY people disallow Stormtalons and Fighta-Bommas, since the rules for them appeared only in such a disreputable and untrustworthy magazine?

"Untrustworthy" doesn't mean the same thing when applied to the rules of a game as it does when applied to a statement an individual/group makes.


There's no reason to presume their statement is untrustworthy save only when telling us how awesome a unit is.

If the designer is telling us that they want us to change out units for different games in White Dwarf, then it is a safe bet that they have developed the rules with that intention.

Yes, the White Dwarf statement may well be specifically to try and get us to buy more models.
But that's all the rules are for as far as GW is concerned as well.

There is no conflict. There is not reason for the White Dwarf to not be a reliable source in this case (Yeah, I only have a masters in history, but my source analysis skills aren't THAT bad). The bias in White Dwarf coheres with the bias in GW's design direction.

Yep I do enjoy the Knights I agree that a command squad is a good option. Discussing pure deathwing options here is really just ticking the box before moving onto the real strengths of the codex which is double wing with Azrael (termies and bikers as troops for one model?) Or pure bikers. This seems to be a themed codex with themed strengths. Combined bikers termies or even green wing seems far stronger than an all termie force. Virtually any decent unit combined with bikers using stasis and rad grenades or a stasis bomb flyer is anti death star. If you take a libby biker with either halucination or invisibility its even better. Black Knights, grenades, beacons, termies and hit and run. I guess thats a discussion topic for another thread.

The problem is that you HAVE to make these guys that expensive to make the book fair. The book basically took what a lot of BAs and Bluebook lists do (speed and assault/bikes) and do it better, so you MUST make them more expensive to compensate, or you just end up with a book that makes those two books obsolete.

Their armour is slow they get scoring bikes which BA never had but their troops are still slow unless you have Sammael. They are nothing like BA, DA are a great ally to BA though. One DA libby running divination on a bike with a biker squad either command or black knight and a 70 pt troop with a plasma cannon or ML with flak sitting around somewhere is 275-290 pts use them with your BA regular assault marines and you either drop toughness or initiative/WS. Scout away you can now deepstrike your termies on the teleport homer. The squad can survive one round of combat its pretty decent once I and WS have been dropped. This is a fallen finder holder killer unit but would work well with BA RAS.

Ravenwing: fast, durable troops that bring multiple special weapons.
Ravenwing knights: fast, durable melee units.
DW anything: very durable melee units that can pop in with no scatter when they elect to, due to the presence of Ravenwing and Deathwing Assault.

Summarily, they beat BAs at bringing pain in melee, and their fast troops with multiple special weapons are faster and tougher. In your example the BAs are essentially there out of pity; what are they doing that DAs can't do?

The only thing BAs have going for them is Fast tanks, and it's way over-priced on Rhinos and Vindicators, and Razors took a HUGE hit to use now that you can't assault out of them with your MSU assault marine squads, so you're taking them basically as fire support for Tacticals, which aren't as good as DA tacticals.

Oh, and BAs have Stormravens and Mephi. But that's not enough to make my happy with my BAs dex. 6th edition has made the codex much less competitive.

>In your example the BAs are essentially there out of pity; what are they doing that DAs can't do?

Ignore terrain. Deep strike fast-moving troops. Have access to mechanized builds. Get a set of codex powers. Have a flyer that doesn't suck balls.

BA may not be a shining beacon in the new edition, but they're hardly worthless. Comparing ASM to RW is silly because they don't work even close to the same- they're utterly dissimilar in terms of cost, equipment, role, and potential.

Bikers can move 24" in a single turn; that seems pretty analagous to DSing on turn 2; it sets you up for whatever you need to do in turn 3 and you can still shoot on turn 2, and perhaps assault. That and you don't accidentally scatter and die, and you get a 5++ while you're moving.

Why are BAs mechanized builds any good? Hybrid builds are okay, but the rhinos and razors for your troops just don't work well; they're either too expensive or support MSU units that can't really threaten anything now.

I like the codex powers, but I don't like that BAs librarians are so much more expensive for it. Divination is a fine discipline, and you don't pay 100 pts. to use it with DAs.

The Stormraven is great, and Mephi is great. The rest of the army just doesn't thrill me anymore.

RW and BA ASMs aren't identical, no. But they are both fast, slightly elite Troops units that bring multiple special weapons that enable face beating, either through FC/FNP and CCWs, or allowing termies to DS without scattering.

Moving around and deep striking aren't the same thing- it's the reason that a Rhino is different from a Drop Pod. They both let you engage the enemy where you want to, but they don't function the same, the enemy won't fight them the same, and they don't use the same tactics.

>Why are BAs mechanized builds any good?

I didn't mean a pure mech build, although that may be hiding in there somewhere- I admit, I haven't messed with BA as much as some of my other armies. Dismissing Rhinos and Razors because they "only" work in hybrid builds seem silly, though, especially when you sing the praises of moving 24" with a bike and then dismiss being in a fast transport (…that can move 24") in the next instant.

>Divination is a fine discipline, and you don't pay 100 pts. to use it with DAs.

*shrug* New edition, new pricing structure. The fact that BA has a bunch of good "fixed" powers is still pretty relevant, though- Shield of Sanguinous, Fear the Darkness, Unleash Rage, and Sanguine Sword are all good enough to matter. Not having to roll randomly for your powers is worth something.

>The rest of the army just doesn't thrill me anymore.

Fair enough, but "I'm not excited about BA" isn't the same thing as "BA isn't a good army."

>But they are both fast, slightly elite Troops units that bring multiple special weapons that enable face beating

Yes and yes, but then no; "bringing Terminators to the party" isn't really a feature of Ravenwing any more than having TH/SS in the same army is a feature of Riflemen; it's simply an option that is available in the same codex. Now, that's wholly worth thinking about when writing a list and the Teleport Homers are definitely something you can look to take advantage of, but when you're trying to compare the units, counting Terminators as RW's melee prowess isn't really fair. ASM's _main job_ is to threaten things in melee- it's why they pay the premium to be faster and have short-range weapon loadouts.

>They both let you engage the enemy where you want to…

They're essentially separate but equal. Which is why I don't see why jumping and DSing a a particular advantagive in the BAs favor, is essentially what i'm saying.

>Dismissing Rhinos and Razors because they "only" work in hybrid builds seem silly…

I don't dislike Fast vehicles, I dislike them because they're too expensive for it. Being Fast is awesome; being Fast for 50 points a Rhino is ridiculous.

>*shrug* New edition, new pricing structure.

Yes, but the problem is that GW just seems content to let that problem beat us about the face for a few years and pretend that it's out of their hands. Um, no, maybe they should have thought about releasing some FAQs for armies to adjust points values if wargear and rules have changed in relative value, or not have changed them quite so much is it's going to cause such a major upset between books.

>Yes and yes, but then no; "bringing Terminators to the party" isn't really a feature of Ravenwing any more than having TH/SS in the same army is a feature of Riflemen; it's simply an option that is available in the same codex.

This is true, but if you'll look back I really started trying to say that DAs were making my BAs obsolete, not that RW were making my ASMs obsolete. RW on their own have something to do with it, but that's not the crux of the issue; particularly with DAs, it's more than the sum of its parts.

Dark Angels aren't the army for you. Just play vanilla marines and get your THSS termies. You can get ten of them and combat squad them, just like you want.

Sorry? What's that? You want to be able to take termies as troop choices? Well, you have several choices; Grey Knights or the shiny new Dark Angels. However, as you've just pointed out, you have to pay quite a bit more for taking termies as troops, and quite right too.

As for termies with metlaguns? That would be fair; making Psycannon (+psybolt ammo) equipped Paladins underpowered and overcosted.

I may be coming across as a bit harsh… apologies, but I've seen one too many artices over the past few months that basically damn the two new 6th Ed Codexes for having no 'I Win' option.

My impresssion from the new DA Codex is that it's fairly balanced. The more powerful you make the units, the more the points costs increase exponentially. Once a unit starts to get into OP territory, it's far too expensive to be viable… and don't get me started on the fallacy of comparing similar units from different codexes. A units worth can only be measures in the content of its codex. You only have to look at Deathwing Knights for that to be plainly obvious.

So far I've enjoyed the challenge of the 6th Ed Codexes; there are no 'I WIn' combinations of units, just a massive amount of variety to suit all sorts of play styles.

Can't see what the fuss is about over Heldrakes. My Razorwings never had a problem with them, and the TL Tesla Destructors on a Night Scythe can ruin their day really quickly.

refer to my discussion with AP on Heldrakes in the random allocation thread. Heldraks < Vendetta for several reasons basically boiling down to price & versatility (vendetta do more for you and cost less) How do you mitigate a heldrake? Mech up – heldrake wont do shit against transports (oh no's I lost 2 hullpoints per turn *cry*); spread out – thats right, afraid of a flamer template? spraed the fuck out so he can only hit 3 guys per turn; horde up (oh no's I lost 5 out of 80 dudes! If he keeps that up for another 5 game turns I'll have lost slightly more than 25% of my army….); dig into assault (the get stuck the fuck in, pull punches with disordered assaults, spread out so that you minimise the guys who get to swing, stick to the 5th ed combats should last 2 rounds philosophy).
If you can't manage to do one of those things it isn't the heldrake that is beating you – it's your inability to play the game.

Heldrakes are terrifying to the players who just want to cram their guys in the Maginot Line, I mean, Aegis Defence Line and stay nice and safe. It negates their pwecious cover save. You know, the people who give up the initiative before the game starts and then bitch about how unfair it is.

That is a significant chunk of players, so it does make the Heldrake useful. Similarly, when your marines get knocked out of their transports, you run them into cover so all those plasma weapons don't wipe them off the board, and the Heldrake stops that from working as well. It's a very useful tool that isn't just limited to scaring people that don't have a lot of experience. That being said, the Hades autocannon does have uses, and the Vendetta is just plain better. That thing is absolutely broken.

thanks you seem to get it! I'm not saying the HD isn't a good selection – take them! they're fantastic. But they're hardly broken or a must have to win. Mine regularly fail to perform more than taking 4-6 models off per turn (or one or two hullpoints). And anyone who finds they are able to remove entire squads every turn is either a super-star OR is playing folks who are unable to mitigate the effects.

>Mech up – heldrake wont do shit against transports

Good thing Heldrakes have no way to kill tanks and there are no shooting units available in or out of codex to kill light tanks.

Oh wait.

Perhaps he forgot the D3+1 automatic S:7 hits on side armor? I like to pretend my Heldrake has a bunch of under-slung Autocannons.

unless you're daemonforging you're lucky to net 2 hullpoints on AV11 with D3+1 S7 hits, and nobody is taking the hades cannon are they? Sure HD's work well in conjunction with other selections in your list like AC Havocs, meltaguns, etc but so do obliterators, noise marines, standard CSM with plasma, terminators, spawn, bikes…. (see where I'm going here…). Heldrake == good selection. Heldrake != "auto win"

As a note, a Heldrake with a Hades AC is a good choice in a list that already has enough Marine-killing potential.

With 3 NM squads with Sonic Blasters/Blastmasters and the Burning Brand, I felt I needed more anti-tank and anti-air than to be even more overwhelming at killing infantry on foot. 3 HS choices plus the ADL Quad-Cannon just isn't enough AT when you face a Mech list, and adding the Heldrakes with ACs makes the list quite capable of breaking lots of vehicles. And you still remove bucketloads of infantry off the table when you shoot.

(You can't actually use Daemonforge with Vector Strike- Daemonforge only works during the Shooting or Assault phases.)

This smells of… Theory Hammer.
Forcing your opponent to spread out is often good for the rest of your army. It also makes it easier to take out key targets in a unit.
You seriously think that you can spread out so that it only hits 3 models? Try it. Even with 5 models, you will hard pressed to adopt a formation the heldrake can't hit 4 models in.

It can be done. Use a V formation but off set the second and forth guys so that if they aim the template trying to get that 4th dude they lose out on the second dude, if that makes sense…

Something like:

(Not drawn to scale 🙂 )

A "v" formation is your best bet for a small squad like that, but it's still quite possible to catch four guys with it, depending on how big of bases they have/how much room there is.

That's still an absolute worst-case scenario where you "only" get three models, though.

my opponents are regularly able to spread out enough that I"m only able to tag 3-4 members of a 10 man squad with a flame template. Usually T1 they are bunched together, run forward & spread out for T2 when the 'drake hits the table; turn 3 they bunch together aiming for a charge (or stay spread for shooting).

If you can't always get a minimum of three guys- and usually four- against a unit that is entirely on a single level, I really don't know what to tell you. Coherency distance is 2"; the flamer template is 8.5" long. With the ability to throw it to whatever position it pleases (rather than being limited by its base), it's all but impossible to hit less than three and unlikely to hit less than four. I seriously don't know what you're doing wrong.

1" base + 2" gap + 1" base + 2" gap + 1" base + 2" gap. 9" & 3 models. Build an "L" or "U" shape and you are only able to hit 3 models. This is not new, you've been doing this for ages to minimise the effects of blast markers & templates so I don't see why this is a difficult concept to understand. YES you will be able to hit 3. Due to terrain constraints, failed charges, forced disembarkations, low consolidate moves, etc you will be able to hit more than the minimum number of models BUT a player who is concerned about the "auto-win" heldrake raping them with balefire and DOESN'T spread out when they can…. is a bad player.

U is a better way to describe it then V, but its definitely possible to minimize it to 3. At least with 5 guys, with 6 or more, I'm not sure. With an M like shape maybe, if you can spread the two humps enough.

But it doesn't need to cover 4 bases, only clip a part of them.
Put four bases (not models, bases) in a line with maximum distance between them and you will be able to hit all four with a template.
Shadar Logoth suggestion works, but put one more model in there and only a bad positioning of the Heldrake itself will prevent 4 hits.

Actually try your L and U shape.There will be 4 hits most of the time, the only thing preventing it being the heldrakes own positioning, which is much easier with its 360 turret.

really? I have never in my history as a player tried this for myself….
Make a box, make a V, make an L, make a U, make whatever damned shape you want (I'm partial to dodecahedrons). You can space out in such a way that you are safe. Its not always easy & its not always going to work, but if you are really realyl really really scared of that heldrake to the point that its being on the table means you'll lose (which is what people are saying….) you find a way.

When you think that 4 models in a line can't all be hit, yeah, you haven't tried it.
dodecahedrons are 3d, so I guess placing all my infantry on different levels of ruins would work.

I guess you mean a pentagon. Put 6 models in it, turn it into a David Star. The special weapon guy or the sergeant is probably dead, but at least only half the squad dies.
7-8-9, there will be a line where you can hit 4 and you starts getting big, unwieldy and out of range.

I meant dodecahedron. Its a big fancy word that got you thinking. Oh yeah & I was being facetious….

now one more time… this line we're building – imaginary as it is – doesn't have to be a straight line (BUT it could be); it doesn't have to stay in one geometric plane (BUT it could); All that is necessary is that you have X models on 1" bases spread with a 2" gap between them. Place some models on the tabletop, use a template & figure it out. It can happen

@AP if your flamer template is 8.5" long I think we may be getting cheated in Canada (well… its cold) mine measures 20.5mm (8.07"). So yeah, @somecallmetim I'll admit I'm incorrect because you will have 0.07" overlap.

You can hit 4 dudes… I just don't know what to say, this has rocked my world. My god! I finally see what everyone else sees now! the heldrake is the auto-win button! This thing is broken, we gotta tell GW you guys

😛 8.5" is an approximation; "more than eight inches by a meaningful fraction" is usually good enough for most people.

Since you seem to consider four guys the absolute maximum it can ever hit, I suppose that would be a fairly world-shaking revelation. Not every squad is spread to 2" coherency in a V-formation for the entire game because sometimes considerations like movement, LOS, claiming objectives, assaults, etc, constrain you in other ways.

but if the heldrake is the "auto-win" button surely you're taking every single precaution to minimise its effectiveness thus at least minimising a massacre into a minor victory right? I mean, if you litteraly break out in cold sweat at the top table of a tournament becuase you see your chaos opponent reach for his flying stand SURELY you're spreading out to attempt to minimise the effect of the heldrake….. I think you've missing my hyperbole here. Fact is the prevailing attitude on 3++ (love the site, love what you, Kirby & Matt put together for us, really I do! I come to this page several times a day for a reason!) is that the Heldrake is broken & is the auto-win (hell, thats the comment I replied to), my point is that it is NOT broken and that if you look past the list-building phase you can take steps to mitigate its effect in game even if you can't stop it completely.

*grumble*comment length*grumble*

Sure – you're not always going to be able to spread out, I've even mentioned that in this discussion chain, but if you're that worried you SHOULD spraed out when you can. Failing that take any other number of reasonable steps to mitigate the results of the Heldrake – get stuck in combat, mech up, build hordes (or MSU, either works), cling to multi-level ruins where you can. Be a good general, not a good list builder is my point.
I think I'm going to tap out of these discussions until you get to the Fast Attack review of the chaos codex (coming soon I hope!). At that point hopefully we'll have some meaningful (& on topic) discussion about the strengths of the Heldrake & various methods for minimising its threat. Until then, any posts from me will be merciless & unrepentant trolling.

"Broken" and "auto-win" are not the same thing. A broken unit is one that is unbalanced, undercosted, or otherwise detrimental to the health of the game- it's something that is too good at what it does. That in no way means that it is an "auto-win," which is a fictional concept made up by morons to deride units they don't like.

Even discarding that idea aside, if you are spreading out all of your models to minimize Heldrake damage you are going to be paying a cost there- for example, having your squad strung out over 12" or 14" of table makes you easy prey for an assault, letting the CSM player annihilate the unit without having to face return attacks. It also makes getting cover more difficult (since you are physically spread over more table space), makes your unit more difficult to maneuver, etc, etc.

"Just spread out" is a much more difficult problem than it seems at first glance. There are very good reasons why people don't keep all of their models 2" away from each other at all times.

First article I’ve read from this site. Never coming back again. Narrow minded ness combined with 40k just takes out all the fun. Most everyone else who commented has explained why this ‘article’ is crap.

He might be from YTTH, he's operating on about the same level of cognition as most of those slugs.

They're no dumber than the people here; there's just a different prevailiing opinion and level of politeness.

And an habbit of overusing what used to be called "blue language," because saying fuck a lot makes him seem edgy.

His recent article on the DA book as a whoel was also rather blue. I'd only ever deride a codex like that if my significant other had just dumped me, or I found out a friend was diagnosed with a terminal illness.

Are DA the new Eldar? Are Deathwing Knights the new Howling Banshees?

There’s a few comments above that are perilously close to suggesting DWK are a finesse unit

They… kind of are. They're not spectacular against anything except Chaos units; they can't shoot (obviously), and DW termies with a mix of LCs and TH/SS will out-melee them against MEQs and can stil bring shooting if they like. Knights are better against GEQs, but that's not exactly a stellar achievement.

I think a lot of people are underestimating the strength of WS5 along with Power Mauls; they may not be Thunder Hammers, but they're still weapons that are putting in a lot of wounds against most targets. Hitting on 3s and wounding on 2s is forcing a lot of saves on dudes and unlike most Terminators they strike at initiative, which means DWK can't as easily be dragged down the way TH/SS are. (Termagants, Guardsmen, and Orks LOVE the fact that TH/SS always go at I1, and who cares if they ignore armor saves?)

DWK are a special kind of hammer unit, I think- unlike TH/SS they can't just casually carve their way through anything they face, but they are all but guaranteed to absolutely devastate the enemy in one fight; beyond that, they will consistently outfight most things through a combination of toughness and hitting power, but not overwhelmingly so. I'm not sure whether that guaranteed ability to win a single fight is something DA needs, but they do fill a sort of niche.

Yes, and here I was thinking we wouldn't agree on this. As I said above, hordes can be a real liability if you got TH/SS on the board, DWK shore up that weakness. Also, T5 FNP units, I4(or less) MCs/ICs, are all units that the DWK will tend to perform better against (with smite), at least once per game (and really, how many armies are loaded with units you will really need smite against)?

Oh, and they are more resilient to torrent fire (when bunched), which is another common way of dealing with TH/SS…

Well, MCs can be a real problem, since your 1/game smite will take out _a_ Tervigon/Trygon, but then there will be 3-5 more behind it. Concussive does help there, though.

Being able to pick up T5 is a nice trick and ripe for shenanigans, but it makes Plasma Cannons and blast weapons pretty threatening. Taking 20 missile saves because you were bunched into "shoot me" formation can defeat the purpose of being grouped.

I don't really think though that DAs really need the horde-killing that Knights are good for; you've got several units in the book, especially with banner of Destruction, that will remove those hordes no problem and have greater use against other units. I guess though that if you are dead-set on playing a purely DW army, or purely DW and RW army, that Knights would be a useful unit to include.

I'm thinking that good old fashioned assault cannons and storm bolters will deal with hordes well enough, since for the most part hordes are going to be made of weaker stuff in terms of Toughness and Armor.

The Deathwing Knights, to me, seem very much a case of "an answer in search of a question."

DWKs do better against 4+ save hordes I guess, but how often do you run into those? I suppose… maybe if you're facing Orks and they have a huge unit of 'Ard Boys? Can they take more than one squad of them? The hordes that come to mind are IG infantry blobs, Orks, Nids, and Cultists/Zombies, none of which are 4+. People do run 20-man CSM/Berseker squads, but nowhere near often enough to make it something you should base your list around.

It's not so much that the maces are AP4, it's that they're in the hands of terminators who get to strike at initiative, allowing them to start thinning out the horde (which WS5 S6 attacks will do) before the horde gets to hit them.

To me, the DWK seem the ultimate answer to the most difficult combat conundrum; how to stay in combat in the enemy's turn. DWK are good enough (WS5, S6, 2+) that they will kill just about everything they hit. But unlike their terminator-wearing brethren, they aren't guaranteed to do it immediately. With a character to soak the Knight Master's AP3 attacks first round, and their own armour proof against nearly every weapon out there, it's a safe enough bet that there will still be surviving enemy models at the end of combat. Not many, but a few. Of course, once that character is dead, and those S6 AP3 wounds start spreading out into the squad, survivors seem far less likely…

I was looking at something similiar with DCA against terminators. Power axes kill 7 Terminators, but it is at I1 so all the terminators get to attack back also. With a power maul you are wounding on a 2+ also and striking at I6, you only kill 5 terminators, but it is at I6 so they don't get to attack back. I think I remembered all that right.

I need to look at it more to see which works out better overall.

I think it's more really, really wanting DWK to be a good unit. Everyone can see it, that glimmer of awesome, and is just trying to find a way to scrape all the dirt off until a shiny new WTFOMFGBBQKITTENS unit is revealed. T5 Termies just make people want them to be good so very badly; but sadly you can't take Thunder Hammers and that is…just kind of sad really; it hurts to see wasted potential.

Are Death wing Knights close to becoming a finesse unit ? combine with Black Knights and they certainly are. Of all the codex bikers Black Knights are one of the most respectable in shooting and combat now (Nurgle bikers are very close or even) Use them together and its finesse.

What about DW with BA allies? Bring in a Stormraven for flyer support and some priests to make survivability better.

According to the FAQ, priests' bubble only affects BA units. BA/DA armies are quite good, though.

I'll really have to disagree with this article – sure, squads of TH/SS terminators aren't really viable now due to being overcosted, but squads consisting of primarily SB/PF with Cyclones, AC or PC can now be pretty good due to the changes to DWA and of course vengeful strike.

Dropping 25 terminators with 20 assault cannon shots and 40 SB shots, all twin linked, can fuck some shit up. You need to combine it with melta RW, something killy in a drop pod or some other kind of anti vehicle shooting to make it work, but the new rules have made is much easier to do what Deathwing players have always had to do – bring all your force to bear, together.

I've been playing RW/DW since the start of 5th and I believe my army will be more competitive than before, although I'll have to start swapping out some of my TH/SS arms.

You know I've considered this too. SB/PF aren't nearly as resistant sure, but with the new rules and split fire, seems like you could make that up and then some with a well placed alpha.

I kinda lean this way as well- during 5E I was totally behind running 2-4 Storm bolters in each squad in order to help thin out enemy infantry, and twin-linked on the drop makes this a lot more useful. On the other hand, with Plasma everywhere now you may not be able to afford to do this, as you will be taking a LOT of fire in that one turn.

This is why you'll want to stick at least one Storm Shield into each Deathwing squad and try to carefully position him to "catch" those plasma shots. It's not a guarantee, of course, but even with plasmas increase in popularity you generally never see more than one and almost never more than two plasma weapons in an enemy squad. (Yes, 4x Plasmagun Command Squads and 4x Plasma Cannon Devastators _are_ out there. Horses for courses.)

I'm still partial to the five-man band of 1x TH/SS, 1x Assault Cannon & Chainfist, 2x Storm Bolter & Powerfist, 1x Storm Bolter & Power Sword for my general purpose Deathwing squad.

Why not Plasma Cannon instead of Assault Cannon? If everyone is screaming for Plasma in 6th, it would make sense, now that DW can carry them, to use them on a force that will be arriving a relatively close range, and has it twin-linked? Thats 245 points, 490 for 10 men, and 680 including Belial for that Turn 1 no deviation KAPOW

"I'm still partial to the five-man band of 1x TH/SS, 1x Assault Cannon & Chainfist, 2x Storm Bolter & Powerfist, 1x Storm Bolter & Power Sword for my general purpose Deathwing squad. "

Put the TH/SS on the Sergeant who starts with the PS. Not only do you replace a weaker weapon (PS rather than PF) with the TH, but you also put the strongest CC option on the character who will be taking/issuing challenges.

Also, if you're willing to go with 2 TH/SS in a squad, I'd consider putting one up front, and the Sgt in the back with a TH/SS and a CML. That opens up the possibility of hitting with Precision Shots with the CML.

I prefer to have the power sword and storm bolter on the Sergeant, to take advantage of the precise shot rule and in order to strike at full initiative during challenges. It is probably a case of "six of one, half a dozen of the other," as my grandmother used to say. There is some merit to ramping up his durability with the Storm Shield, some merit to ramping up his choppy prowess with claws, and (I feel) some merit to the shooting ability. YMMV.

(I am also a stubborn old curmudgeon, and it just feels weird not to have the Sergeant armed with his traditional power sword. Get off my lawn!)

Also, by my reading of the codex, the Deathwing Terminator Sergeant cannot be given a cyclone missile launcher. The exact wording of the codex is "one Deathwing Terminator may choose one of the following[,]" and the unit composition is quite explictly 4-9 Deathwing Terminators and 1 Deathwing Terminator Sergeant. Ergo, the Sergeant's only options are his default kit or the three melee options which say "any model…"

Bigger units=Better (or more efficient) blessings. I definitely see potential for Belial, a couple of large Term squads, a couple Libies (one from allies), and then sprinkle in some fire support. Could potentially end up with two pretty fearsome scoring units if you can get the points worked out right.

I find it interesting that Terms biggest weakness is getting shot to death, but people tend to be down (or at least not very high) on Sword and Board LG…who are very similar to their Term cousins, just trading in some of the CC punch for extremely good resistance against…getting shot to death. Oh yeah, and access to that flying thing that allows them to be placed anywhere on the board without scattering and is a pretty nasty unit in its own right…

To each his own I guess.

Oh, and for functionality, DWK are probably much closer to Sword and Board LG then they are TH/SS, FWIW.

The thing is, by the numbers Lychguard are _significantly_ less resistant to most types of firepower versus Terminators. Not only do AP3 weapons force them to rely on their invuln, but T5, while nice againstthe S3/4 weapons out there is much less impressive against the S5/6/7 firepower that also abounds in the game. They are also a lot less versatile in CC (there's a world of difference between an I2 Power Sword and a Power Fist).

I would agree that DWK and Lychguard share a lot in common, but there are some critical differences: a 3++ is a pretty big upgrade over a 4++ and 2+ armor beats the hell out of 3+ armor, not to mention I4 and the Smite attack.

Also there's the small issue of that guy with the S7 AP3 weapon and three base attacks and also WS5. Long story short, DWK have _tons_ of advantages over Lychguard and cost about the same.

You're missing a pretty massive rule in all of that, RP. RP makes all the difference in the world, combined with a Res Orb (which you really shouldn't run LG without one), you are saving 75% of the big shots (versus 66%)and 83.3% of the little shots (same, but less wounds will get through the T5). There is really no argument that S/B LG aren't more resilient, against everything. Well, high strength low AP is a wash, I guess.

Also, they're AP 3, which is a pretty big advantage when comparing them to DWK (except for smite), and can have an RC attached (who will prison rape your S7 AP3 WS5 guy), which if designed right pretty much shores up all their weakness. Oh yeah, and Nightscythes are pretty good too. And you can throw Trazyn in for more MSS, scoring, and anti horde. LG have a shit ton of options.

I kind of like both of them personally, (kind of in the fact that they look pretty on my paper armies but I haven't really used either that much). What other _tons_ of advantages are you seeing that I'm not? Outside of what we already mentioned I see a couple of small things, like the reflecto shot for the LG, but nothing game breaking.

Correction, High Strength (greater then 6) AP3 is a slight advantage for the Terms, but we're talking about Missiles (dropping in popularity) BWs, and the 8/3 Pie Plates, none of which are all that common currently.

Edit: Looks like S5 and 6 are slight advantages for the Terms as well (a bit surprised but that), S4 is a was, and S3 is advantage LG. Alright, so the Terms mostly own the AP 3 market, but the LG own pretty much everything else…so THERE…PUNK. 🙂

And of course, half of those wounding AP 3 shots are going to bounce back and hit your unit in the face! Boom! 😉

Yeah, that was the conclusion I came to as well. RP evens the gap a bit, but only against guns against which there was a reasonable comparison before- against the various AP3 weapons the Lychguard are still losing out pretty badly. Remember also that RP can be negated by a larger squad "wrapping around" you and preventing you from having a place to put models as well as by failing a morale test (even Ld10 screws up sometimes) and by the squad being wiped out, and it doesn't help you get your chance to swing in melee combat. It's a powerful ability, but it can have a lot of caveats attached if you're trying to compare how tough it makes you.

Also I think saying Lychguard "own pretty much everything else" is a gross overstatement. Against S3/4 weapons that don't have AP3, Lychguard are better. Against most other guns, Storm Shield Terminators are better. With the increasing visibility of AP3 weapons (from CSM, but also from other places) as well as AP3 melee weapons- which are the most common type apart basic CCWs- I think their weaknesses are extremely relevant.

>>Also I think saying Lychguard "own pretty much everything else" is a gross overstatement. Against S3/4 weapons that don't have AP3, Lychguard are better. Against most other guns, Storm Shield Terminators are better.

That's not true. As long as RP is kicking in, the LG will be better against Heavy Bolters, Multi/Scatter Lasers, Tesla below Destructor (which will be a wash), Plasma, Las, Melta… with the last three having the benefit of the reflecto shot with each successful save. The key with the LG is you have to make it large enough, and had disabled enough of their firer power by the time they arrive, to where they can't wipe you in one turn. If you can accomplish that, you'll be surprised how hardy these guys are.

It takes average 12 Heavy Bolter hits to lay down an LG base permanently versus 9 for the Terms. It takes about 5 hits of the las/plas/melta per LG versus 4 for the Terms. Elaborating on what I said before, if you add up all the Bolters, Heavy Bolters, Lasers, Tesla, Heavy Gauss, Las, Plas, Melta, I'm pretty sure it outweighs the Missiles, Normal Destroyers, Helldrakes, and any other high strength AP 3 weaponry.

The LG are more challenging to build a list around, no question. It takes a bit of investment for them to reach their full potential, but I do think the potential's there. Trazyn, 10 Sword and Board, SW/MSS/WS/RO Lord, Night Scythe. A scoring Hammer you can shove right up the enemy's ass. The last 6 months of 6th edition have shown me how strong a hard nosed scoring unit like that can be.

HQ: Belial, Master of the Deathwing (Storm Bolter & Sword of Silence) [ 190 pts ]
HQ: Librarian (Level 2 +35; Terminator +30) [ 130 pts ]
T: Deathwing Squad (x5; 1x TH/SS +5; 1x Assault Cannon +20 & CF +5; 1x SB/PF; 1x SB/PW) [ 250 pt ]
T: Deathwing Squad (x5; 1x TH/SS +5; 1x Assault Cannon +20 & CF +5; 1x SB/PF; 1x SB/PW) [ 250 pt ]
T: Deathwing Squad (x10; 2x TH/SS +10; 2x Claws & CML +50; 1x SB/CF +5; 4x SB/PF 1x SB/PW) [ 505 pts ]
T: Deathwing Squad (x10; 2x TH/SS +10; 2x Claws & CML +50; 1x SB/CF +5; 4x SB/PF 1x SB/PW) [ 505 pts ]
HS: Devastator Squad (x5; 4x Missiles +60, Flakk +40) [ 170 pts ]

(190+130)+(250+250)+(505+505)+(170)= 2000

Although a gimmick list like this is unlikly to ever win me any tournaments — and will probably lose as many casual games as it wins — it serves a very specific need in real life: easy transport. 37 infantry figures with magnetic bases can fit inside a breifcase with a metal plate on the bottom. Allowing me to take them onto the bus, train, or even motorcycle… the same cannot be said of my Imperial Guard.

With the Purge, Emperor's Will, and Relic missions the general theory would be that the two large Deathwing Terminator squads and the Devastators deploy on the table. The Deathwing deploy as far forward as feasible to push into the midfield, the Devastators look for the best possible firing position. The two smaller Deathwing Terminator squads each accompanied by one character will arrive by Deathwing Assault.

For the missions with a greater number of objectives the role of the Deathwing Terminator squads is reversed. The smaller squads will deploy in my own deployment zone with control of one or two objectives, the large Deathwing squads will teleport into the enemy deployment zone or midfield to take and hold objectives there.

Strengths: Universal 2+ Armor and multiple 3++ in each squad to try to catch AP2 hits, flexible deployment options, and extremely low model count.
Weaknesses: Poor anti-aircraft firepower, poor manuveribility once deployed, and extremely low model count.

10 man terminator squads basically just don't make sense.

Also, if you're going to run that many terminators, the fnp banner is basically a must-have. The lvl 2 librarian is not.

Your one lone squad of really expensive devestators will not save you from air. If anything, it will just give the helldrakes something pricey they *can* kill.

I'd run it like so:

Belial 190

Terminator Command Squad 330
-FnP banner

Terminator Squad 245

Terminator Squad 245

Terminator Squad 245

Terminator Squad 245

Terminator Squad 245


Company Command Squad 50

Veterans 75

Vendetta 130

Drop down turn 1, 30 fnp terminators in their face with nice alpha-strike shooting, run at them and give zero %*(#s.

I just wanted to mention how much I like this idea. I am attempting to do it myself, though I have some space more then a briefcase. I’m trying to fit my bikers, SoBs, and GKs all into a GK case and a second plastic tub for my vehicles. I’m finding I’m now starting to consider purchases not entirly off of usefulness, but by how I’ l tetris th i.Into place…

I'd rather get to play and lose, than not play at all. The giant box my Guard live in weighs more empty than my eldest child, once I add in the 14 Russes, 150 infantrymen, and whathaveyou it's basically only movable by a car with a large trunk or ample bad seat… neither of which I have. (Wife git the kids and the dadvan in the divorce.)

I started collecting a Deathwing force months before I learned a new codex was in bound specifically to be a "shoebox army." Its thematic, fun, and wins enough to be worth it (and with secondhand Black Reach and Dark Vengeance termies, cheapish to collect.)

Now I want to figure our a WHFB equivalent, as neither Empire or Dark Elves (which I presently play) really fit into this concept.

Yeah, but I don't really like either one. Heh.

I suspect I might be able to make a knight-heavy Empire army work, at least in terms of transportation. I normally go for the massive infantry style of play and my current Empire army has a mere six mounted figure in it… which I almost never use. A 2500 point knight army should be breifcase-able and provide a fun expansion to the existing force.

(As an added benefit, I don't use GW models for my WHFB army. So I could easily repurpose them as Bretonnians when that army book is eventually released. Now I just need to hit the lotto…)

You cant have Lightning Claws and Cyclone Missile Launchers, it states "Remove all weapons and replace with Lightning Claws", no matter which way you try to interpret it, it aint happening. Same goes for the Thunder Hammer and Storm Shield

That would depend on ordering.

If 'remove' is listed first, then you can remove all the existing weapons and replace them with Lightning claws and THEN add the missile launcher.

If the missile launcher is listed first, then you can't.

For the DW command squad, the missile is listed first.
For regular DW, missile is listed after the melee weapon swap.

Thats bollox and you know it, there ar no rules in which order you pick your wargear, but if one piece of wargear says to remove everything else and take x, you dont then get to go further down the list and choose something that counters the 'remove everything' rule

I cant imagine anyone reading the rules and trying to get that past thier opponent, its pures deliberate misinterpretation to give yourself and advantage

You can try and be glib about it, but your wrong

In both the Space Marine Codex and the Blood Angels codex, they specifically state what wargear is replace with terminator armour, all the other wargear states if you can just take it (melatbombs) or if it replaces a piece of wargear (Replace bolt pistol with lightning claw for example)

But as soon as you choose terminator armour, you lose all the wargear items you have already 'replaced' with other gear, and you are now only eligible to take wargear that specifically replaces other terminator wargear items, or unspecified items that take up no particular spot, like meltabombs.

In fact, out of the 2 codex's I can only find one person who upgrades to Terminator Armour that doesnt specify which bits of wargear he loses, it just states 'replace ALL wargear with terminator armour' and thats the sanguinary priest, so he couldnt take melta-bombs.

Exactly which models that can take terminator armour as an option are saying hi?

Chaos Lord.

As a brief example.

Note your "ALREADY" in your attempt to prove me wrong, btw. Already is an indicator of order.

Um… this is an army using Codex: Dark Angels (6th Edition, 2013) no other codices matter. The wording for the Cyclone Missile Launcher is quite clearly "Take," and not "Replace."

I'm aware, but he asked me for an example of a character in terminator armour that replaced and THEN took other weapons. Chaos Codex was to hand. I don't have a Dark Angels codex, I don't know what it says.

Which is why my original argument would be "Depends what it says".

The Chaos Lord example doesn't work. The wording says "may replace all of his wargear with terminator armor…", but then directly below it, the book states "A chaos lord in terminator armor may then take item from the termintor weapons…". It specifically states after the replacement that he may still take options. Using the Chaos Book as a precident, I would say that unless the DA book lists under the "replace" clause that he can still take other options, he can't.

Sainyg 'Chaos Lord' is not an example of any rules or a statement, exactly how does it prove me wrong?

The rules for Deathwing Terminators state

'Any model can replace all of his weapons with:'

The choices are then a Pair of Lightning Claws or Thunderhammer & Storm Shield

The choice to add a Cylone Missile Launcher might indeed come after that statement, but the first statement syas you replace all your weapons,not your storm bolter and power fist, but all

As a Deathwing Player myslef, I dont want to have to start remodelling my figures, but I dont see how you can intrepet 'replace all weapons' and still keep the Cyclone Missile Launcher

It also doesnt gel that Deathwing Squads can use a T.H.&S.S./L.C and use a Cyleon, where the command squad cannot, just because of the order the wargear options have been written

I hope they FAQ it, but until then, I will play, erring on the side of caution for my opponent.

Again, the only thing that matters is the wording of Codex: Dark Angels. I have no idea why Command Squads, Chaos Lords, or Blood Angels were brought into this discussion. The wording in the only codex that matters is as follows:

For every five models in the squad,
one Deathwing Terminator may chose one of the following options:
– Replace his storm bolter with a heavy flamer x pts/model
– Replace his storm bolter with a plasma cannon x pts/model
– Replace his storm bolter with an assault cannon x pts/model
– Take a cyclone missile launcher x pts/model

Yeah. Ish is right.

You CAN take a Cyclone on TH/SS or Twin Lightning claw guys. Want to argue about it for the sake of arguing? I don't. I think I will just go with what the entry says 'cos it is right.

Especially since I think there's a Lightning Claw-with-Cyclone in the model section of the codex. Might be wrong there.

Because replace then add comes after the replacement has occured. It isn't a weapon that exists at the time the replacement occurs.

But since it states "Adds" as Ish says, that overrides the issue entirely. It's an additional weapon added on, not part of the replacement package.

"Replace" don't enter into it AT ALL. The only language that matters is: "For every five models in the squad, one Deathwing Terminator may chose [to] [t]ake a cyclone missile launcher[.]"

I know that GW can be shakey in their wording sometimes, but with three line items immediately before this saying "[r]eplace his storm bolter with…" followed by a straight-up "Take…" seems pretty damn clear. Plus, y'know, Games Workshop

Deathwing has always needed landraiders and still does. Put them in HS if you cannot afford the deathwing vehicle upgrade to make them DT.

Command squad (melee)
Knights (melee)
DW Termies (shooty)
DW Termies (shooty)
LR Crusader (Belial + Command)
LR Crusader (Knights)

Deepstrike the shooties. If psychic power casting rules are anything to go by, you should be able to deepstrike 6" from the LR hull that belial is in without scattering. (Is this true?)

That would be correct, yes- you can measure from the hull of the tank when determining his Teleport Homer's radius.

However, what you have is essentially a deathstar list with zero support- it may scare some players, but many others will be able to essentially laugh it off because you basically just have four units and two Land Raiders. 20 models just isn't that hard to get rid of- what happens if you come up against a Guard Blob? They're going to drown you in attacks (both AP- and AP2.) Same with Tyranids or Orks, and other armies will have Railguns, melta, Psycannons, or Haywire to ruin your day,

Also as a side note, taking the Land Raiders as HS is always superior to taking them as transports if you have the slots available, as they can be scoring in Big Guns that way.

So what would you do? Because exchanging Land Raiders for more termies gives you a footslogging list. In which case everything dies before it reaches close combat range. The LRs are the one reason things actually manage to stay alive, and they bring a ton of firepower themselves.

If you know a better way I'd love to hear it.

I wouldn't write a Deathwing list, that's what I would do.

If you're dead-set on doing so, I think perhaps the most feasible way is to run some Ravenwing squads to Scout forward into positions of (relative) safety, ideally behind some sort of LOS-blocking wall, and use them to guide down the first-turn drop of all your Deathwing guys. Getting the "no more than 50% reserves" balance would be a little tricky, but Tacticals with Plasma Cannons or Missiles could potentially help out.

Teleport Homers + Deathwing Assault gives you incredibly reliable Deep Strikes, more so than even the old Descent of Angels army could manage. Use that.


Also no charge on same turn as deep strike. In an assault vehicle they dont have the issue of being shot to little bits before they can even do anything. Knights cant even shoot.

I do not share your experience. Theyre tough, but they still die when facing massed fire. Nothing survives if you force enough saves on them.

As I believe was mentioned before, a DW list lacks blobs. AV14 is my answer to that vulnerability problem, and so far it's the best I've seen, even if it's not perfect. I just have to take out meltas and lances before they kill my raiders.

Only way I could think of doing that better than im doing it now is take regular landraiders, sit back the first turn (deepstrike the second) and take out some tanks, but Im not sure how effective that would be in the rest of the battle, lacking bolterfire.

Everything dies if you force it to make enough die rolls, that's a truism that I hold near and dear. Deathwing lists have always had the problem of balancing scoring against durability… Frankly, I see that as part of the appeal.

Three schools of thought have developed about how to handle this: "Footslog" Deathwing — like the list I posted above — rely on the general durability of Termie armor and multiple units. The theory there is that weight of fire is the biggest threat, but it takes a long while to chew through 30-40 termies so hopfully a unit or two is alive at the end of the game to score. "Raider" Deathwing figures that Land Raiders are damn hard to kill and Termies are damn hard to kill, so they put one in the other and hope they can weather the storm. "DreadWing" sorta splits the difference, relying on the Dreads to soak some AP2 fire (which is usually the best anti-vehicle stuff) and using the Dreadnought's long range shooting for counter-fire against those AP2 enemy units. Given the sheer cost of each of these units (~250 each on average) there really isn't anyway to include all of them outside of very large games.

Some people advocate not playing a pure Deathwing list at all, and makign a balanced force that includes a Deathwing element working with the support of other options from the codex or allied codices. The technical term for these people is "sane."

I have been called many things in my life, friend, but sane is not one of them.

I guess in my 1500pt and maybe even 1750pt lists I can drop one of the raiders, and put more shootynators in instead. At least the deepstrike is going to prevent a turn of shooting on them if i start second.

You're going to have to watch the "50% of units" cap on Deepstriking. It is no longer possible to have your entire army teleport in from off the board.

Grab a copy of Imperial Armour Vol. 2 and run them as Mortis Dreadnoughts, the way that the Emprah intended for his First Legion to fight!

115 Points gets you a Dread with two krak or frag missile launchers, that gains Interceptor and Skyfire when stationary. Most fliers dislike BS4 krak missiles… especially two at a time.

Im aware of both points you mentioned. Depending on how I can fit points though, anything from missile launchers to autocannons to lascannons will work well.

If you want a 100% pure Deathwing list with nothing but Land Raiders and Terminators, your army will be shitty. No two ways about it.