Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

90 percent of thier rules gone, and onley a shadow of what normal marines are, going from a hammer, in combat, to now, very choosy, alot of conditional convoluted rules, like once per game, you may use 2 strats, when other armies have 2 per phase, many things in this index seem like obvious nerfs. even some of thier buffs may not work properly im kinda curious why GW decided to do that, i checked the win rates and grey knights were not that high for most of 9th, onley 3-4 months in the middle of the edition they had a 58% win rate, but for a year it was 45% even with the good rules they had. they were quite ballanced. it is interesting to me that custodes, and space marines kept most of thier best rules, they did loose alittle but gained in rerolls, and grey knights lost all thier rerolls, hammers, and even hammerhands onley works half the time. feels like somone didnt like the army. but who knows. also been ten years since i have been on this forum so hi! should be interesting im really looking forward to 11th edition, hoping that 10th is one of those two year eds, like 6th and 7th were as this one feels dry. thoughts? why does GW so rapidly tear down a system instead of staying in one edition, and upgrading that edition, and selling models. they could have an upgradable app that is offline online, and update much better faster kinda wish they would do that.

Depending on who you ask, the army lost its flavour in 5th edition already. When a faction is supposed to be interesting (not necessarily strong, but just fun to play), it helps tremendously to have someone who is passionate and knowledgable about it. I don't think somebody actually dislike GK at the design studio, but rather there is nobody championing them.

I support this.

Thematically and rulewise and don't think they were flavourless in the book. In 6th-7th where I played. However, they were so bad that you couldn't really ever get them to work right on the tabletop whenever not facing pure demon army as they paid expensive anti demon powers that would serve them nothing otherwise. If going up against another army, you need to sport lists that broke the immersion or use bend the scenario to help... At least that's what I've seen playing against them as proxies.and very recently in their due format.

Using codex Inquisition instead helps a lot though, but being 3rd edition you need to sometimes make little adjustments to fit perfectly.

So in a certain way, it could seem as if they never really unlocked their real potential.

I think a lot of factions have lost their flavour in the change to 10th.

It's like 4th edition D&D. It's perfectly functional as a game, but a massive and unwelcome shift from the game it was supposed to be continuing.

Well, it certainly lost a few rules & options.
I'm not sure the new army wide movement shenanigans are enough to offset that.
(Though I do think they're interesting)

As for its "soul"? No, I don't think so. It still feels like it's got a little - the same little bit it's held onto since 8e.
The faction was losing soul for yesrs/editions & then came 8e wich basically drained it.

I don't need to read a single datacard or play a single game to unequivocally say yes.

Every psychically dependent army lost it's soul in 10th, because this edition gutted and trivialized psychic rules as a whole.

 vipoid wrote:
I think a lot of factions have lost their flavour in the change to 10th.

Yeah, this. For me, too many Space Marine units were tossed to legends, and anything left has undergone the 10th ed sterilization.

Waiting for Karol to write a doctoral thesis-level reply to this...

10th really cut the legs out from psychic powers in general. Buffs are limited, automatic and can only affect the one unit the psyker is in. Damage abilities are just normal weapons l. Debuffs are nearly gone. 10th just is a much more limited game in many aspects for that

Though another part of the problem is that grey knights were a unit entry that got turned into an army. They really should be in an inquisition rulebook. Sisters, Deathwatch, and greyknights in one army would flesh them back out. With detachments you can even make benefits for having only one order.

I would tend to agree, because this way the load of inquisitorial options it would help make the grey knights retain their fluff feel while not being limited to overpriced anti demon capabilities that cripple them in any other scenario and makes for less than enjoyable transcription of the lore into the table. Pretty much how they feel with these older codices.

Although considering the take on psychic powers, this would still lack the sense of randomness, danger and power psychic abilities are said to have got in the lore so they would probably still feel off, I suppose.

Btw, how's deathwatch in 10th? Because in 7th it was both very fluffy and horrendously clunky and non functional as a standalone army.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
I think a lot of factions have lost their flavour in the change to 10th.

Yeah, this. For me, too many Space Marine units were tossed to legends, and anything left has undergone the 10th ed sterilization.

A lot of factions, not just the Marines - although its usually most obvious and most impactful there. The Detachments are too generic and easily stretching into unintended uses. The Chaos Faction Ability is too specific for all the Legions and Warbands that would use it. Some factions have been dealing with the same sorts of things for even longer - Orks were hammered into the Chapter Tactics/SuperDoctrine/etc thing even though Klan Kulture didn't lend itself well to that system and a different approach should have been taken. The Poor Dark Angels players have been dealing with an absolutely atrocious flavor unit in The Fallen for quite some time - where GW expects not-DA players to buy, paint, and carry around a Fallen unit or two just in case they run into a DA player, instead of having the DA player able to loan the Not-DA player a unit of fallen to control for the game that then opens up a DA based mini-game within the game. Some armies that were armed thematically are also getting shafted by the paradigm shift in flavor of the month turning into preferred enemy - i.e. Lascannon for Tanks, Melta for Light, Plasma for MEQ, etc. which really stuck it to Sisters - Basically its not limited to Space Marines, and its not new. Arguably one could even say we caused it by complaining about "bloat" and such.

On the flipside this feels very much like a Beta Test - I'll be interested to see what 11th is like as they reconfigure the "elemental" weapons (Las/Plas/Melt/Flame/Grav) to cover the spread better for the thematic armies - in addition to any other returning/replacing Fluff Units.

I'll be interested to see what the middle of 10th looks like as well - hopefully they'll have hammered out what issues they can with points. They're trying to push Terminators hard, but Terminators are neither good nor bad. Probably need a somewhat significant price drop - especially as the DA Deathwing units are about to fall flat.

I'm hoping they take some of the halfway good ideas and jump them up with what they learned in 10th. The Psychic Phase doesn't need to come back, just make the Psychic Rules like the Primarch of the XYZ Legion rule - one "gun" power, and pick one of three other powers to be active for the battle round - Which presumes they're going to be far less restrictive/stupid on who can join what.

Breton wrote:
On the flipside this feels very much like a Beta Test

After 9 previous edition, I'd rather hoped we'd be past the beta-test stage.

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
I would tend to agree, because this way the load of inquisitorial options it would help make the grey knights retain their fluff feel while not being limited to overpriced anti demon capabilities that cripple them in any other scenario and makes for less than enjoyable transcription of the lore into the table. Pretty much how they feel with these older codices.

Although considering the take on psychic powers, this would still lack the sense of randomness, danger and power psychic abilities are said to have got in the lore so they would probably still feel off, I suppose.

Btw, how's deathwatch in 10th? Because in 7th it was both very fluffy and horrendously clunky and non functional as a standalone army.

Gutted, as they're incompatible with GW's current design philosophy. We lost most our options (32 to *11* on a basic DW vet), our units are severely overcosted due to how 10th handles points, (360pts for 5 vets, 4 terminators and a bike!), and the kill-teams are set up strange now. Whereas before you could have up to 5 of the given unit, (5 hell-blasters, 5 terminators, etc.) now they're restricted to whatever is in the box -1, so 4 terminators, 2 bikes, 4 hellblasters, 2 suppressors, etc. Additionally, the changes to strats both in a meta and specific sense have ruined basically all but 2 of them, teleportarium (grab unit not in melee, stick in reserves, deep strike next turn) and Armor of contempt. Spec issue ammo are now strats, but because people combined the Desolators with Hellfire rounds to give them Anti-infantry 2+ and Anti-Monster 4+ (and before you get excited, it explicitly bans dev-wound weapons). Now it's restricted to a list of vaguely boltgun weapons, however some are missing like Heavy Bolt Rifles. Any attempt to show kill team specializations like before is mostly gone besides unit abilities that are completely unrelated to the previous versions, most of which are underwhelming besides the basic veteran ability. They've also just given up trying to represent them as combining the abilities of individual chapters in a complimentary manner.

All in all, deathwatch are in a pretty rough spot right now just due to how they function as an army concept. It could be made to work, but it's been clear they're pretty creatively bankrupt when it comes to the Deathwatch, and have been since 8th.

Sad to hear, Deathwacth are quite rad lorewise :/

 evil_kiwi_60 wrote:
10th really cut the legs out from psychic powers in general. Buffs are limited, automatic and can only affect the one unit the psyker is in. Damage abilities are just normal weapons l. Debuffs are nearly gone. 10th just is a much more limited game in many aspects for that

Though another part of the problem is that grey knights were a unit entry that got turned into an army. They really should be in an inquisition rulebook. Sisters, Deathwatch, and greyknights in one army would flesh them back out. With detachments you can even make benefits for having only one order.

You've got it backwards.

Putting Ordo Hereticus into the Sisters book could work.
Putting Ordo Malleus into the GK book could work.
Putting Ordo Xenos into the Sisters book could work.

But taking the Chambers Militant and shoehorning them into a monster Inquisition book will lead to a loss of units, lore and options.

My preferred solution is for GW to release an Agents dex; create an Arbites Hq and a Navis Hq. The dex can then have detachments for each Ordo, Rogue Traders, Arbites and Navis.

The Inquisition detachments need a Chamber Militant rule that allows them to be fielded along with a detachment from their Chamber. The reason this is necessary is that the Assigned Agent rules leave any Agents without strats, enhancements and a detachment rule that actually buffs them, rather than one which merely allows them to be included. Arbites, Navis and Rogue Trader detachments could be fielded alongside Guard detachments for the same reason.

Without parallel detachments, Agents will always be at a loss in someone else's army, because that army's enhancements, strats and detachment rule don't apply to the Agents.

People who say that someone else's faction just straight up shouldn't exist aren't coming to the table with a real solution- they're just saying "I don't care enough about this faction to find a way to make it work." It's not an effective premise for working towards a viable option. I mean, I could say that the solution to the recent Dark Angels nerf is to just not have Dark Angels... But then I realize that this isn't going to be an effective solution for Dark Angels players, and I stop myself before I propose something that is stupid, and will make the game worse.

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
Sad to hear, Deathwacth are quite rad lorewise :/

They were better before they started trying to shoehorn all the individualistic components of a Kill Team into singular squads.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

PenitentJake wrote:

But taking the Chambers Militant and shoehorning them into a monster Inquisition book will lead to a loss of units, lore and options.

Outside of Sisters of Battle, there's not really a dearth of "units" or "lore" surrounding the Chamber Militant stuff.
Kill Teams are just Marines with a funny paintjob.

My preferred solution is for GW to release an Agents dex; create an Arbites Hq and a Navis Hq. The dex can then have detachments for each Ordo, Rogue Traders, Arbites and Navis.

No thanks. Arbites should have been a Regimental Advisor or attached to Officio Prefectus stuff, if they were going to be shoehorned into tabletop warfare. Navis Imperialis is the same deal.

Without parallel detachments, Agents will always be at a loss in someone else's army, because that army's enhancements, strats and detachment rule don't apply to the Agents.

Good. Agents aren't something that ever should have had a fleshing out into factions proper, and pretending that all of these subfactions that they encompass are worth having as fully supported factions is goofy.

People who say that someone else's faction just straight up shouldn't exist aren't coming to the table with a real solution- they're just saying "I don't care enough about this faction to find a way to make it work." It's not an effective premise for working towards a viable option.

Counterpoint:
People who say that a faction could work by basically reinventing the faction and what it encompasses aren't coming to the table with a real solution either.

Simply saying "Deathwatch should be in an Ordo Xenos detachment" is ignoring that the problems with Deathwatch started when they created these goofy named "Kill Teams" that mix and match things into one mish-mash squad.

I mean, I could say that the solution to the recent Dark Angels nerf is to just not have Dark Angels... But then I realize that this isn't going to be an effective solution for Dark Angels players, and I stop myself before I propose something that is stupid, and will make the game worse.

Frankly, with how this edition has treated Marines?

That's a better solution than GW has. They're afraid to make meaningful changes and create meaningful restrictions.

 Kanluwen wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

But taking the Chambers Militant and shoehorning them into a monster Inquisition book will lead to a loss of units, lore and options.

Outside of Sisters of Battle, there's not really a dearth of "units" or "lore" surrounding the Chamber Militant stuff.

Dearth... You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 Kanluwen wrote:

My preferred solution is for GW to release an Agents dex; create an Arbites Hq and a Navis Hq. The dex can then have detachments for each Ordo, Rogue Traders, Arbites and Navis.

No thanks. Arbites should have been a Regimental Advisor or attached to Officio Prefectus stuff, if they were going to be shoehorned into tabletop warfare. Navis Imperialis is the same deal.

Without parallel detachments, Agents will always be at a loss in someone else's army, because that army's enhancements, strats and detachment rule don't apply to the Agents.

Good. Agents aren't something that ever should have had a fleshing out into factions proper, and pretending that all of these subfactions that they encompass are worth having as fully supported factions is goofy.

I'm sorry - did you manage to type the guff in that post with a straight face?

You? The guy who keeps claiming that Imperial Guard Stormtroopers getting their own Codex was a good idea? Who keeps mouthing off about how Skitarii should be kept distinct from Ad Mech? You?

...the hypocrisy is strong with this one.

PenitentJake wrote:


You've got it backwards.

Putting Ordo Hereticus into the Sisters book could work.
Putting Ordo Malleus into the GK book could work.
Putting Ordo Xenos into the Sisters book could work.

But taking the Chambers Militant and shoehorning them into a monster Inquisition book will lead to a loss of units, lore and options.

My preferred solution is for GW to release an Agents dex; create an Arbites Hq and a Navis Hq. The dex can then have detachments for each Ordo, Rogue Traders, Arbites and Navis.

The Inquisition detachments need a Chamber Militant rule that allows them to be fielded along with a detachment from their Chamber. The reason this is necessary is that the Assigned Agent rules leave any Agents without strats, enhancements and a detachment rule that actually buffs them, rather than one which merely allows them to be included. Arbites, Navis and Rogue Trader detachments could be fielded alongside Guard detachments for the same reason.

Without parallel detachments, Agents will always be at a loss in someone else's army, because that army's enhancements, strats and detachment rule don't apply to the Agents.

People who say that someone else's faction just straight up shouldn't exist aren't coming to the table with a real solution- they're just saying "I don't care enough about this faction to find a way to make it work." It's not an effective premise for working towards a viable option. I mean, I could say that the solution to the recent Dark Angels nerf is to just not have Dark Angels... But then I realize that this isn't going to be an effective solution for Dark Angels players, and I stop myself before I propose something that is stupid, and will make the game worse.

There are 116 entires across the chamber militants and imperial agents available on the web store. There are 224 space marine options. A combined imperial agents book would still be under the size of the space marine book so nothing would have to be cut provided GW used common sense. Within that boom you could use detachments for each order militant, a combined inquisition conclave, and two or three for the agent factions to taste.

As it is right now the arbites, navis, and rogue trader options would need much more model support to flesh onto into their own stand alone force. I agree squatting a faction isnt realistic or desired but creating a new mode line isn’t realistic either frankly. Otherwise you end up with a micro codex that can be hit or miss.

Now this obviously hinges on GW treating other armies like space marines which is a big ask. But it would be better to buy one rulebook for the inquisition backed forces then three plus the supporting base imperium one s.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

But taking the Chambers Militant and shoehorning them into a monster Inquisition book will lead to a loss of units, lore and options.

Outside of Sisters of Battle, there's not really a dearth of "units" or "lore" surrounding the Chamber Militant stuff.

Dearth... You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

That part is a true, in the wild "oops" from writing on my phone. I'd been composing something else and it chose to replace part of it.

The correct reading should have been:

Outside of Sisters of Battle, that's not really the death of "units" or "lore" surrounding the Chamber Militant stuff.

 Kanluwen wrote:

My preferred solution is for GW to release an Agents dex; create an Arbites Hq and a Navis Hq. The dex can then have detachments for each Ordo, Rogue Traders, Arbites and Navis.

No thanks. Arbites should have been a Regimental Advisor or attached to Officio Prefectus stuff, if they were going to be shoehorned into tabletop warfare. Navis Imperialis is the same deal.

Without parallel detachments, Agents will always be at a loss in someone else's army, because that army's enhancements, strats and detachment rule don't apply to the Agents.

Good. Agents aren't something that ever should have had a fleshing out into factions proper, and pretending that all of these subfactions that they encompass are worth having as fully supported factions is goofy.

I'm sorry - did you manage to type the guff in that post with a straight face?

You? The guy who keeps claiming that Imperial Guard Stormtroopers getting their own Codex was a good idea?

Yup.

Who keeps mouthing off about how Skitarii should be kept distinct from Ad Mech? You?

Yep.

...the hypocrisy is strong with this one.

And the inability to articulate an argument or actually recall the arguments that were made by the person they're accusing of hypocrisy is strong with this one.

Stormtroopers as a full-blown codex works, assuming you're going to pretend that something like Grey Knights or Deathwatch work as codices. Hell, with less effort than they've put into trying to make the square peg of Deathwatch Kill Teams work in the round hole that is squad composition I could write an updated Scions book that turns a single kit into a real army.

My argument with Skitarii has been, continuously, that they functioned better as a standalone component and that they lost a huge chunk of their flavor when being jammed in with the Cult components.

And to further cut off some silliness I'm sure is to come:
I've suggested things like Arbites as Regimental Advisors or Officio Prefectus assets for some time. It's far more flavorful than making them able to be taken by any and every Imperial factions.

I've also suggested that Brood Brothers be a restricted as hell thing, removing any and all options with a singular world as a takeable option. No GSC Kasrkin, no GSC DKoK, no GSC Catachans, etc.

But I'm sure that makes me a hypocrite, somehow...

 evil_kiwi_60 wrote:
Though another part of the problem is that grey knights were a unit entry that got turned into an army.

I think you could do something interesting with a spin-off Marine subfaction that's all psykers and has more Inquisitorial support in lieu of conventional arms.

Flanderizing them into Teleport Marines (feat. babycarrier) doesn't really hit the mark. So I'm not sure how much of their blandness is 10th Ed killing them, versus 10th Ed just revealing how shallow their characterization had become.

Also, maybe hot take: I'm personally fine with relatively 'limited' factions being rolled into another codex but giving you the option to focus on them if you want. Scions/Stormtroopers being part of the Guard codex works; they don't really have enough to be a standalone codex but you can still make an army of them if you want. Grey Knights could be a set of unique units, plus provision to draw from the SM codex, as part of an Inquisitorial codex. YMMV.

Kan, do you think Stormtroopers SHOULD have their own Dex?
Or just that, if there’s gonna be a lot of minidexes, they’re not a bad choice?

 Kanluwen wrote:

They were better before they started trying to shoehorn all the individualistic components of a Kill Team into singular squads.

"Better" is word that is so vague, it doesn't really mean anything. Do you think they were more "lore accurate," more "playable," more "efficient?"

Now on the rest of the piece, you've got me, since GW never made an "Alien Hunter" dex, I didn't go very far with Death Watch in their "Origin" phase, and I don't know for a fact that Kill Teams were there in the lore from the very beginning but I think they were. The lore of accepting only blooded marines from other Chapters based on their performance against Xenos opponents certainly has been there from the beginning, and that supports the Kill Team concept.

I don't know anything about Death Watch rules prior to 8th, so I don't when exactly GW started trying to reflect DW Kill Teams as written in lore on the tabletop, though certainly by the time Kill Team Cassius appeared in the Death Watch Overkill box set- which I think came out in 7th?

It's also a little tone deaf (or outright, active trolling) to argue against extreme customization in an edition almost universally criticized for a loss of customization.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Outside of Sisters of Battle, there's not really a dearth of "units" or "lore" surrounding the Chamber Militant stuff.
Kill Teams are just Marines with a funny paintjob.

Yeah... I'm not sure you're right about that.

The GK Lore is fairly deep- I think it was Malcador who moved Saturn so that they would have a hidden Fortress Monastery, making them the earliest of the Chambers Militant, making the Ordo they represent the earliest manifestation of the Inquisition. This connection was heralded in 2nd ed even before their 3rd ed Daemon Hunter dex via the Inquisitors in Terminator Armour.

As for Kill Teams being paint jobs, you yourself complained about Kill Teams being more than paint jobs in the quote above, so make up your mind about a) whether or not Kill Teams are paint jobs or have rules, and b) which of these two mutually exclusively ideas you prefer.

 Kanluwen wrote:

No thanks. Arbites should have been a Regimental Advisor or attached to Officio Prefectus stuff, if they were going to be shoehorned into tabletop warfare. Navis Imperialis is the same deal.

Thankfully, the game designers don't and never have agreed with you. I played a full fledged Arbites army in 2nd using Covert X rules from Citadel Journal 42, and I played base Arbites units for Witch Hunters as described in the dex itself. Their relevance to both Hereticus and the psyker tithe make them ideal for narrative gaming, as does the increasing amount of "Cult" subfactions.

I think the thing preventing us from having a more fulsome conversation is that you think I want to be able to field 2k points of Navis Imperialis, for example. For the record, I don't. But I DO want to field a detachment that is a Commander and a Navigator in a Valkyrie, supported by two other Valkyries each containing a Lieutenant and a unit of Voidsmen. That battlegroup can have an aerial-oriented detachment rule, as well as six strats and four enhancements. It can fight alongside any other Imperial detachment.

Just try to keep in mind that not everyone plays to the 2k pick-up game standard, and the game is built specifically to allow for other ways to play.

Inquisition forces may not be amassed in the kind of numbers a 2k force would represent often, but a 500 point force is basically an Inquisitor with retinue in a vehicle and a back-up utility squad in another vehicle. It's a nice fluffy little battle group that is absolutely appropriate; it can fight on its own or unite with other requisitioned Imperial forces, who retain their own internal command structures.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Good. Agents aren't something that ever should have had a fleshing out into factions proper, and pretending that all of these subfactions that they encompass are worth having as fully supported factions is goofy.

This carries on from the point above, obviously.

I'm not saying make every Agent subfaction into a full faction; I'm suggesting allowing each of the Agent subfactions to take the field as a detachment. Inquisition and Rogue Traders already have all the models they need to do this- they just need the rules to be a detachment so that they can do things that all other basic units can do- namely access a list of enhancements and strats, have access to transports in their own list and have a detachment rule that actually has an effect on the battle, rather than merely being the mechanism by which individual units can be included in other armies.

Arbites and Navis do need HQ models in addition to detachment rules, but that's a matter of two characters, and I'll just "counts-as" if GW can't be bothered.

I am not asking for what you think I'm asking for; I don't want more models, so much as I want what we already have to actually function effectively and consistently with lore. Agents, more than any other part of the range just need effective rules, rather than a wide and expansive collection of datacards.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Counterpoint:
People who say that a faction could work by basically reinventing the faction and what it encompasses aren't coming to the table with a real solution either.

Simply saying "Deathwatch should be in an Ordo Xenos detachment" is ignoring that the problems with Deathwatch started when they created these goofy named "Kill Teams" that mix and match things into one mish-mash squad.

As explained in great detail above, the lore of the existence of the Chambers militant as both independent organizations with their own command structures AND as Chambers militant is well established, and Deathwatch functioning as Kill Teams goes back to at least 7th.

Everything that I would like to see done with Agents has already been done in 8th and 9th. I'm not here for a revolution; I'd settle for a couple of White Dwarf articles, which is all this would take.

GW chose not to explicitly say an army could consist of more than one detachment. And I think that was a good enough decision, because if all of the detachments that you chose to include came from fully developed factions with extensive ranges, things could get overwhelming and gamey very quickly. But because Agent ranges are as sparse as they are, they lend themselves well to a "combined detachment" exception clause. All this does is allow Agent models to access to the same types of tools as non-Agent models in the same army.

 Kanluwen wrote:

That's a better solution than GW has. They're afraid to make meaningful changes and create meaningful restrictions.

The changes that GW made from 9th to 10th were quite restrictive, and severe. If GW can ditch costed equipment, nuke the psychic phase and send swathes of existing units to Legends, I'd say that's proof they aren't afraid to do anything.

I'm late to the conversation and mostly here to echo what others have said. Did 10th remove some of the flavor from GK? Yes, but arguably so have most editions since they became their own army, and also becoming their own army arguably diminishes some of their mystique/eliteness.

Personally, I kind of liked their 5th edition incarnation (OP though it was said to be) in that each squad had some versatile basic powers (choose between offense/defense with hammerhand/sanctuary), characters could expand your versatility further (throw a libby in there for Gate of Infinity or whatever), and then you had specialized units that added a psychic twist to the usual marine stuff (devastator equivalents shooting through walls, teleport pack shenanigans, etc.)

Regarding the inquisition and other factions...

You've got it backwards.

Putting Ordo Hereticus into the Sisters book could work.
Putting Ordo Malleus into the GK book could work.
Putting Ordo Xenos into the Sisters book could work.

But taking the Chambers Militant and shoehorning them into a monster Inquisition book will lead to a loss of units, lore and options.

Partly agree with this. I don't want a Codex: Inquisition because outside of oddball situations, you don't generally see the Death Watch and the Sororitas palling around with Grey Knights all at once.

A better way to handle it, I think, would be to just treat super duper special elite factions as units that can be allied into various (most? all?) imperial armies. Don't give them detachment rules, and probably don't give them enhancements or stratagems. They're optional units available to imperial armies, and they should be good enough at their jobs to not need enhancements/strats.



Alternatively, if people want entire armies of this niche subfactions, then they should probably be designed around the concept of being taken en masse to serve as a full army rather than a small strikeforce. Death Watch being sent on a 1-squad surgical strike are surely organized very differently from Death Watch forces consisting of hundreds of marines tasked with engaging a threat en masse. Cool as the hodgepodged little kill team squads are, I think maybe they're just fundamentally flawed as a concept in a 2,000 point game. They make way more sense in something like Kill Team or a hypothetical Combat Patrol sized game where they have rules to support their individuality.

EDIT: I think of DW, GK, and Custodes in much the same way I think of harlequins. They're supposed to be mysterious, elite, and possessed of abilities beyond what most units on the battlefield are capable of. They have exotic powers and equipment that should be dripping with flavor. But then you make them an army on the tabletop. A game where you fail to kill a good chunk of your opponent's army is usually a bad experience, so you make those armies killable, but then you've got mysterious ninja clowns and custodes dying in droves and thus diminishing some of their own gravitas. And you want them all to have these cool pieces of weird wargear and flavorful special abilities, but then you risk making the army too convoluted/clunky. So now instead of clown squads with dark/light/twilight special abilities and an evocative medley of clown weapons (kisses, caresses, embraces), we just get a homogenized weapon statline and locked-in special abilities for characters.

Instead of an army, my harlies might be better represented as one or two really well-done units that you splash into a space elf army. Or alternative, go the assassin route and make the inclusion of a troupe squad plus some characters an expensive investment that comes with a bunch of special abilities.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Kan, do you think Stormtroopers SHOULD have their own Dex?
Or just that, if there’s gonna be a lot of minidexes, they’re not a bad choice?

All of the above?

First, to clarify:
I'm talking about Scions. People can pretend that the name change didn't accompany a fluff change, but I'm not talking about "The Stormtrooper Regiment" that was retconned out by the existence of Scions.

I'm, personally, of the opinion that Scions should be removed from the Guard codex and brought in as an independent faction/supplemental codex. After all, if Deathwatch can be an independent faction...

By doing such, I'm of the opinion that we can create room for a non-namedRegiment keyworded "stormtroopers" unit that allows for things like GSC Brood Brothers in carapace armor, Traitor Guard in carapace armor, Gue'vesa, etc.

It also creates a space for expanding/clarifying what Scions are supposed to be. Are they "elite shock troops"? Are they "psychotic bullyboys"? Are they really closely tied to the Inquisition? Are they really closely tied to the Commissariat?
All of those things, currently, are what they're supposed to be. So which is it?

PenitentJake wrote:

"Better" is word that is so vague, it doesn't really mean anything. Do you think they were more "lore accurate," more "playable," more "efficient?"

Now on the rest of the piece, you've got me, since GW never made an "Alien Hunter" dex, I didn't go very far with Death Watch in their "Origin" phase, and I don't know for a fact that Kill Teams were there in the lore from the very beginning but I think they were. The lore of accepting only blooded marines from other Chapters based on their performance against Xenos opponents certainly has been there from the beginning, and that supports the Kill Team ideology.

I don't know anything about Death Watch rules prior to 8th, so I don't when exactly GW started trying to reflect DW Kill Teams in lore, though certainly by the time Kill Team Cassius appeared in the Death Watch Overkill box set- which I think came out in 7th?

Here's the thing to understand:
Prior to Overkill? A Kill Team wasn't the mishmash of things that exists now. You didn't have bikers or assault marines in them. A Deathwatch Kill Team, from the time of the never-manifested Xenoshunter codex, was a squad of Marines with Special Issue Ammunition. That concept is what became the Sternguard for all intents and purposes.

It's also a little tone deaf (or outright, active trolling) to argue against extreme customization in an edition almost universally criticized for a loss of customization.

Throwing things at a dartboard isn't the same thing as customization. I'm going to be circling back to this in a moment though.

Yeah... You're really, really wrong about that.

The GK Lore is fairly deep- I think it was Malcador who moved Saturn so that they would have a hidden Fortress Monastery, making them the earliest of the Chambers Militant, and the Ordo they represent the earliest manifestation of the Inquisition. This connection was cemented in 2nd ed even before their 3rd ed Daemon Hunter dex via the Inquisitors in Terminator Armour.

Yes, and in that timeframe they were effectively two units: Power Armor and Terminator Armor.

As for Kill Teams being paint jobs, you yourself complained about Kill Teams being more than paint jobs in the quote above, so make up your mind about a) whether or not Kill Teams are paint jobs or have rules, and b) which of this two mutually exclusively game states you prefer.

CIRCLING BACK!

When I say that Kill Teams are "Marines with a funny paintjob", I mean exactly that. Go read the actual unit entries for a Kill Team.
Now compare that to what/how Kill Teams are supposed to operate. KT: Cassius, for example, had a biker operating as a forward scout. They had a Raven Guard member who operated as an ambusher. They had a Terminator who was kept in reserve until needed, then teleported in.

It was, for all intents and purposes, a "detachment" of its own by the lore descriptions rather than a singular squad mooshed into one that just granted USRs like the rules did.

Thankfully, the game designers don't and never have agreed with you. I played a full fledged Arbites army in 2nd using Covert X rules from Citadel Journal 42, and I played base Arbites units for Witch Hunters as described in the dex itself. Their relevance to both Hereticus and the psyker tithe make them ideal for narrative gaming, as does the increasing amount of "Cult" subfactions.

Yeah, and that's great for people playing a narrative campaign or back in the days of C: <Insert Target Type Here>hunters, where your army special rules actually "gifted" your opponent something that gave you that reason for you to be fighting them.

I think the thing preventing us from having a more fulsome conversation is that you think I want to be able to field 2k points of Navis Imperialis, for example. For the record, I don't. But I DO want to field a detachment that is a Commander and a Navigator in a Valkyrie, supported by two other Valkyries each containing a Lieutenant and a unit of Voidsmen. That battlegroup can have an aerial-oriented detachment rule, as well as six strats and four enhancements. It can fight alongside any other Imperial detachment.

No, the thing preventing us from having a more fulsome conversation is that you seem to be of the opinion that those things should be separated from the Guard. The Officer of the Fleet and the Astropath(TWO OF THE THREE MODELS IN THE REGIMENTAL ATTACHES!) should have cemented Breachers showing up in there, if not the Valkyries themselves.

Not sure why you bring up Voidsmen though. Rogue Traders are their own things.

Just try to keep in mind that not everyone plays to the 2k pick-up game standard, and the game is built specifically to allow for other ways to play.

I'm well aware. It's why I'm elbow deep in writing up a campaign tree & working on a new board themed around it, thanks.

Inquisition forces may not be amassed in the kind of numbers a 2k force would represent often, but a 500 point force is basically an Inquisitor with retinue in a vehicle and a back-up utility squad in another vehicle. It's a nice fluffy little battle group that is absolutely appropriate; it can fight on its own or unite with other requisitioned Imperial forces, who retain their own internal command structures.

It's not a "battle group", it's a "strike force". Maybe. 500 points would be a Combat Patrol level force; the kind of thing that is basically just a character and some goodies.

This carries on from the point above, obviously.

I'm not saying make every Agent subfaction into a full faction; I'm suggesting allowing each of the Agent subfactions to take the field as a detachment. Inquisition and Rogue Traders already have all the models they need to do this- they just need the rules to be a detachment so that they can do things that all other basic units can do- namely access a list of enhancements and strats, have access to transports in their own list and have a detachment rule that actually has an effect on the battle, rather than merely being the mechanism by which individual units can be included in other armies.

Cool, so would you support the same thing for Knights at lower points?

This is the thing to understand:
You're asking for a faction composed of organizations literally known for being agents of an authority, rather than as standalone factions to be given the ability to be standalones.

Arbites and Navis do need HQ models in addition to detachment rules, but that's a matter of two characters, and I'll just "counts-as" if GW can't be bothered.

It is not currently keyworded, but there's literally a pair of (lorewise) Navis characters in the regimental attaches. It's called the "Officer of the Fleet" and "Astropath".

I am not asking for what you think I'm asking for; I don't want more models, so much as I want what we already have to actually function effectively and consistently with lore. Agents, more than any other part of the range just need effective rules, rather than a wide and expansive collection of datacards.

If we want to talk about things to "actually function consistently with lore"?
That's why I suggest Arbites and PDF as Regimental Attaches or Auxilias. Arbites are, per their lore, supposed to ensure that Imperial forces can reclaim a fallen world. By the time we're hitting 40k or even Combat Patrol point levels? That world's gone.

As explained in great detail above, the lore of the existence of the Chambers militant as both independent organizations with their own command structures AND as Chambers militant is well established, and Deathwatch functioning as Kill Teams goes back to at least 7th.

It goes back further, and 7th was a retcon of the concept but thanks for telling me things I already knew.

As mentioned, they don't work as a concept NOW because the whole of the Deathwatch is effectively just Marines with a funny paint job. Go read the unit rosters for Deathwatch. Go read the individual Kill Teams.

It feels like you think there's some kind of "gotcha!" in talking about Kill Teams going back to 7th, while ignoring that it's just basically compacting multiple Marine unit types into one mishmashed bit of garbage.

Bah. That's not lore friendly, that's not anything but powergamer friendly. BAH!

Everything that I would like to see done with Agents has already been done in 8th and 9th. I'm not here for a revolution; I'd settle for a couple of White Dwarf articles, which is all this would take.

Then did you ever consider it would happen in due time?

The changes that GW made from 9th to 10th were quite restrictive, and severe. If GW can ditch costed equipment, nuke the psychic phase and send swathes of existing units to Legends, I'd say that's proof they aren't afraid to do anything.

And I'm telling you they're afraid to do anything genuinely meaningful. They didn't do gak to encourage their literal Phobos detachment to be nothing but Phobos.

They didn't even have the spine to utilize the Armies of Renown that they had done for the previous edition as the basis of these detachments.

Scions as their own Dex but GK and DW as attached units is pretty damn hypocritical.
Yeah, you’re not making yourself out very well here, Kan.

I will give Kan this, i do agree with his take on the current kill teams. If you look at the Deathwatch debut, for teams they had veterans who were mix and match, then you had various squads that were specific named kill teams. Now, in 7th this was very restrictive, meant to represent specific lore kill teams (who were then promptly forgotten) with specific loadouts. They weren't necessarily good, but they then got a few extra rules on top. They could go back to this idea, with specific kill teams with a specific wargear and model list for specific jobs. Now, I don't know I would want it as specific as the precisely prescribed teams in 7th, but I think it's something worth revisiting, and would fit nicely in the 10th ed design philosophy.

Now will this happen? Absolutely not. Because the designers have no idea what to do with Deathwatch.

wow this has been interesiting yea id say the army has lost its soul and options, most armies feel hollow this edition.

Edit- sorry Kan; I went back over my post and made a few clarifications. I don't think it affects any the comments you've posted in response, but if so, apologies.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Here's the thing to understand:
Prior to Overkill? A Kill Team wasn't the mishmash of things that exists now. You didn't have bikers or assault marines in them. A Deathwatch Kill Team, from the time of the never-manifested Xenoshunter codex, was a squad of Marines with Special Issue Ammunition. That concept is what became the Sternguard for all intents and purposes.

True, but don't get that piece of truth confused with all the other things. Yes, a Kill Team had no bikes in it back in the day. That's obvious.

What I take exception to are your thoughts on the faction level. Your desire for more narrowly focused rules for Kill Teams seems to have affected your thoughts on whether or not Deathwatch should exist as a faction, and whether or not they are connected to the Ordo Xenos. It's possible I'm misinterpreting you, and if so, apologies.

Rules for Kill Teams will change from edition to edition. But the Deathwatch as a whole have always been able to field as an independent army with its own command structure, and they have always served as the Chamber Militant of the Ordo Xenos. There has always been the capacity to field members of these two organizations together, and that capacity should carry on, though the mechanisms used by GW to represent this will change from edition to edition.

 Kanluwen wrote:

When I say that Kill Teams are "Marines with a funny paintjob", I mean exactly that. Go read the actual unit entries for a Kill Team.
Now compare that to what/how Kill Teams are supposed to operate. KT: Cassius, for example, had a biker operating as a forward scout. They had a Raven Guard member who operated as an ambusher. They had a Terminator who was kept in reserve until needed, then teleported in.

It was, for all intents and purposes, a "detachment" of its own by the lore descriptions rather than a singular squad mooshed into one that just granted USRs like the rules did.

Look, the only difference between KT: Cassius in the lore and KT: Cassius on the table is a rule that says: Models in this unit need not follow unit coherency rules.

My argument is that in most situations that the Odro Xenos works with the Deathwatch, they won't be working with just a Kill Team- there might be a Watchmaster, or a Captain, or a Lieutenant, or a Librarian- a few Kill Teams, maybe a unit of Vets and a unit of Outriders.

If the Inquisitor shows up alone, the rules as we have them are fine. But the more Agents that Inquisitor brings to the battle, the more important it is for them to have access to the same tools as every other unit in the same army- strats, enhancements and a detachment rule buff. If they don't, then the most basic of units in the allied force is more versatile on the field than the supposedly elite personal guard of the Inquisitor who is leading the operation.

Hell, even if you want to solve this problem by saying "For the purposes of detachment rules, strategems and enhancements, Agents are considered to have the Faction trait of the detachment to which they are allied."

See, I'm in a 500 point Escalation League, and my 500 point force has two possible builds- both have a Canoness leading a BSS and a Palatine leading a BSS. Build A has a Hereticus Inquisitor and a unit of Arbites. Build B has a Missionary and three Arcos and a Preacher and three arcos. In team B, the Missionary, the Preacher and the Arcos all get their Martyrdom trick as a detachment rule, they get six bespoke strats they can use and they get some Enhancements they can use.

Now fluff-wise, the missionary could theoretically be as well resourced and trained as the Inquisitor, but it's unlikely; certainly the Preacher and the Arcos aren't. But the Inquisitor and the Arbites? Their detachment equivalent rule is just that they're allowed to show up, they only get the BRB strats, and they can't take enhancements.

That's what I'm trying to prevent. Because the Inquisitor and Arbites should outclass the Missionary, Preacher and Arcos but they don't. And data cards aren't the issue.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Yeah, and that's great for people playing a narrative campaign or back in the days of C: <Insert Target Type Here>hunters, where your army special rules actually "gifted" your opponent something that gave you that reason for you to be fighting them.

Which can now be achieved via Crusade rules- in fact in 9th, GK Crusade rules did exactly this. Having an Agents dex would facilitate the Ordo getting these kinds of rules- in 9th GW went as far as creating Crusade rules for Rogue Traders, but they couldn't quite get there with the Inquisition.

 Kanluwen wrote:

No, the thing preventing us from having a more fulsome conversation is that you seem to be of the opinion that those things should be separated from the Guard. The Officer of the Fleet and the Astropath(TWO OF THE THREE MODELS IN THE REGIMENTAL ATTACHES!) should have cemented Breachers showing up in there, if not the Valkyries themselves.

Not at all. Those things should always continue to be part of the guard.

But the three major Ordos of the Inquisition DO have their own Astropaths, voidcraft, Navigators, etc. that AREN'T part of the guad and should thus be able to field them without the guard be a part of the equation. Because the lore supports that. I'm not saying every Inquisitor has it, but some do. The current rules do not allow us to represent that in game.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Not sure why you bring up Voidsmen though. Rogue Traders are their own things.

10th blurred the lines between the two units- personally, I preferred to use Breachers as Navis and Voidsmen for RT Crews, but GW only gave "Battleline" to Voidsmen, creating a space for both units in both factions.

 Kanluwen wrote:

I'm well aware. It's why I'm elbow deep in writing up a campaign tree & working on a new board themed around it, thanks.

Well then stop being such a stick in the mud and get onboard with small forces who are perfect for 500-1000 point games. And if you don't want to get onboard, that's fine- but don't block the people who do.

 Kanluwen wrote:

It's not a "battle group", it's a "strike force". Maybe. 500 points would be a Combat Patrol level force; the kind of thing that is basically just a character and some goodies.

I was using the term generically to refer to a group of units tasked to participate in combat. As small as Commander + Retinue. Still a group of units dude.

 Kanluwen wrote:

This is the thing to understand:
You're asking for a faction composed of organizations literally known for being agents of an authority, rather than as standalone factions to be given the ability to be standalones.

Oversimplification- the Navis Imperialis and Adeptus Arbites in the Lore ARE known for fighting on their own as well as assisting other groups.

And some Inquisitors do maintain their own retinues, house militias, and small collections of voidcraft- nothing so big as a proper fleet- think more along the lines of the kinds of Vessels that got people to Precipice in BSF.

 Kanluwen wrote:

It is not currently keyworded, but there's literally a pair of (lorewise) Navis characters in the regimental attaches. It's called the "Officer of the Fleet" and "Astropath".

I love those units, and frequently include them in my Inquisition armies. Giving them the Keywords to allow them to function in Navis armies in particular is something that should be done. I could see them functioning differently in a full Navis force- this Master of the Fleet would want a statline that befits the title at least. The Valkyrie also once had the Aeronatica Imperialis keywords- I forget which edition it was.

 Kanluwen wrote:

That's why I suggest Arbites and PDF as Regimental Attaches or Auxilias. Arbites are, per their lore, supposed to ensure that Imperial forces can reclaim a fallen world. By the time we're hitting 40k or even Combat Patrol point levels? That world's gone.

As I understand it, the lore of the Arbites is that they enforce Imperial law in a variety of different contexts. The Adeptus Arbites list in Citadel Journal 42 certainly didn't mention reclaiming fallen planets, but they did have Marshalls, Proctors, Judges, Assault squads (Shields and Mauls), Tactical squads (Executioner Shotguns), bikes, Repressors... It was an Army dude. So the precedent is there, and that's going back to second.

The problem with making them Regimental Attaches or Auxilias is that THEY AREN'T- they often function 100% independently of other forces, and that has ALWAYS been the lore. They CAN function as part of the guard or a combined force. But the lore has never, ever suggested that this is the ONLY way they operate.

 Kanluwen wrote:

It goes back further, and 7th was a retcon of the concept but thanks for telling me things I already knew.

As mentioned, they don't work as a concept NOW because the whole of the Deathwatch is effectively just Marines with a funny paint job. Go read the unit rosters for Deathwatch. Go read the individual Kill Teams.

It feels like you think there's some kind of "gotcha!" in talking about Kill Teams going back to 7th, while ignoring that it's just basically compacting multiple Marine unit types into one mishmashed bit of garbage.

Bah. That's not lore friendly, that's not anything but powergamer friendly. BAH!

As mentioned previously, if we added a line to Kill Team Cassius that said "The models in this unit need not maintain unit coherency," they would function exactly as they do in the lore. Them not having the rule doesn't change the fact that lore wise, it IS a unit that includes a bike, a vet, a termie etc. That's the gotcha.

You keep saying a combined unit isn't lore friendly, but Cassius IS a combined unit and has been since seventh, which means YOU ARE WRONG. Such things are lore friendly because they exist in the lore.

Whether they have a rule that allows them to break coherency like they do in the lore is a separate issue. Personally I agree that such a rule should exist- it's why I prefer 9th's version where you could at least combat squad and represent a team that had two coordinated but distinct battlefield roles.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Everything that I would like to see done with Agents has already been done in 8th and 9th. I'm not here for a revolution; I'd settle for a couple of White Dwarf articles, which is all this would take.

Then did you ever consider it would happen in due time?

Yes, in fact I was considering that it might happen in due time while I wrote my original post. But then some buzzkill came along and said a bunch of crazy gak like GK only being a unit or two that ally with other armies, or that Inquisition don't have the resources to act independently.

 Kanluwen wrote:

And I'm telling you they're afraid to do anything genuinely meaningful. They didn't do gak to encourage their literal Phobos detachment to be nothing but Phobos.

Well, except actually make a Phobos detachment and enough Phobos units to fill it. Seriously- aren't there are two variants of the base phobos squad, a captain, a Lieutenant, and a Librarian? See, an Inquisition player, or a Navis player doesn't need the detachment to give us excuses to take it- we'll take it if we like it, either for rule of cool or narrative reasons. All we need is for it to exist so that we can.

I don't think 10th Edition resulted in a loss of the Grey Knights Soul. They have been steadily losing that with every edition of their rules since Codex Daemonhunters. Back then, Grey Knights consisted of 4 Infantry units (Hero, Terminators, Grey Knights, and Purgation Squads) and a "Grey Knight" vehicle variants. Only the Hero and the Terminator squad had any Psychic Squad (only Holocaust on GKT unit). To put is thematically, Grey Knights were Psychic Marines not Psycher Marines. They channeled their Psychic might via equipment and into very powers used by only the strongest of their members.

5th Edition exploded the number of units and made everyone Psychers with unit specific Psychic Powers outside of the new Grey Knight Librarian. The 7th Edition Codex leaned even further into making them Psychers by making all the characters honest Psychers, while units remained with specific powers.

8th sent Grey Knights into pure Psycher mode with every Infantry unit being Psychers with free selection of powers (with nerfed Smite). Psychic Awakening added the Master of the Warp ability. 9th Edition compiled added Masters of the Warp to the formal Codex while taking one step back by assigning units specific psychic powers (with full powered Smite), but leaving all characters as full Psychers.

So 10th Edition Index List is in many ways a leap all the way back to the 5th Edition Codex. The problem is that the Index link got so many things wrong, it just isn't functional. Since when were Grey Knights about teleportation? Isn't their big schtick psychic-powered weapons?

Imagine how cool and functional it would be if instead of Teleport Strike they had Psy-Rune Weapons that allowed each unit to either enhance their Ranged or Melee weapons during their Command phase until their next Command Phase. A little extra strength would allow those weapons to either be much more effective against Infantry or actually function as AT weapons. Then add stats for Nemesis Daeman Hammers (and Falchions while you're at it) and you just might get a functional codex.