New Chaos Decurion

I highly doubt we will be getting a second 7th Ed codex, but its fair to think we will get our Decurion.

With these formation books getting released, GW is able to hit us multiple times per edition to pay for rules. Its a savvy business move to release a codex to show us our terrible units, wait a while to release a few formations that we need to buy, then wait again and re-package into another formation booklet to sell to us a second time. Simply brilliant...

So who thinks we will get to keep our RSR formation? Will they update the Kabalite Raiding Party, or just leave it for the garbage it is and release a new formation?

fisheyes wrote:

So who thinks we will get to keep our RSR formation? Will they update the Kabalite Raiding Party, or just leave it for the garbage it is and release a new formation?

Wouldn't be sorry to see either of them go. I've never actually seen a Kabalite Raiding Party used and the Command Benefit for the RSR is frankly laughable when compared to the OP crap that GW has been releasing ever since the Necron codex hit.

When we get our Decurion I think the army wide special rule will probably +1 to PFP table and maybe some other stuff.

If all they did for DE is release a supplement with a decurion style detachment in it, it would be a travesty. That would do nothing to counteract the 30+ unit and item nerfs in our last codex release. Hopefully they have at least 1 person on the team that knows that in order to tell them.

From what I know, the design teams for the Codices etc. have very little power. There was an article on BOLS a while ago where a former employee talked about how he tried to make the CSM Codex on par with the SM codex but his ideas and changes were overruled. It is very apparent that GW doesn't play test their formations etc. so I don't think that the Deldar will get big buffs, even if there are Deldar fans on the design team. They probably don't operate in terms of "Oh, we nerfed the Deldar so we should buff them again this edition". They'll do whatever and I don't think we can hope for more than a Decurion with some mid-tier formations.

I guess it all depends on if the dark eldar models sold well. Honestly we're probably screwed either way. If the kits sold well then they think the rules don't influence our purchases.

If they didn't sell well then the faction must not be popular so let's not waste time and money on them, just slap out a copy paste with a full price tag and some repackages.

I can feel the cynic overtaking me.

I dont think it would be too hard for a release of a DE decurion to bring us up to Mid-Tier like this one did for Chaos. Although we have not received half the formations that have been dropped for Chaos pre-decurion.

With minimal effort on GWs part and without changing the codex (stats, points, etc) we can still get some new relics (AP2 CCW please!), a new PFP table, and a few formation based buffs (something for our jinking transports please!). This would go a long way to allowing us to do something other than "Venoms Everywhere" which seams to be our only real tactic...

Totally off subject, but Warhammer 40k tv just dropped a few second video with the nids logo.... Are we even remembered by now?

Quote :

Totally off subject, but Warhammer 40k tv just dropped a few second video with the nids logo.... Are we even remembered by now?

I try to look at it this way: The old dogs finally get some attention! First the ancient CSM got some new stuff and now it seems like the Nids get some love too (altough rumour has it that it's just the teaser for the Genestealer Cult which came in the Deathwatch box and will now be sold as single units). Following that logic the Deldar might get some attention too since we are also an old bone.

These formations look average at best. Nothing here scares my DE.

If I played CSMs I would not be pleased.

Say what? I thought they looked pretty good (to fantastic, for some).

No. They are different shades of "meh"

The fun thing is even if they gave out formations that kinda mirror loyalist formations, they somehow managed to stack more boni in the loyalist formation while at the same time gave drawbacks to the CSM formation.

Ravenguard gets a formation that lets their jump packs choose when to deepstrike, has a mechanic to prevent scatter and lets them assault after DS.

CSM just got a formation that sill has to roll for reserves, has no mechanic to prevent scattering, gives their enemies -2 to fear tests and lets them assault from DS as a disordered charge.

That basically sums it up. This formation is actually worse then just DS 5 Raptors (without formation) with 2 plasma as the kill potential on the plasma is way higher.

The drake formation has a conditional that never happens. You get additional vector strikes (they happen in movement) against models that are pinned or gone to ground.
So... you pin them or force a gtg in your shooting phase (after your movement phase were your drake gets the bonus). In their turn they stand up again (no test required) so they are no longer gtg or pinned when your movement starts.

The best thing in this book are the psi powers as they are 1:1 copies of the loyalist powers (and we cant screw up our most supported masterrace, can we?)

One (rarely played) faction having a formation which is mildly better doesn't inherently make another formation bad. Librarius Conclaves have better bonuses than Seer Councils, but saying that a Seer Council is a 'meh' formation would be absurd.

Like everything else, it's going to take time to suss out their performance, but I don't see any reason to dismiss them out of hand.

Actually I would call that comparison fair. I used raven guard as my night lords for a bit and I'm just happy to have a proper chaos version, though it does not get the same support I admit.

I think I'll bring the raptor Talon as warp talons and use cursed earth or an allied banner to prevent scatter.

Jimsolo wrote:

One (rarely played) faction having a formation which is mildly better doesn't inherently make another formation bad.  Librarius Conclaves have better bonuses than Seer Councils, but saying that a Seer Council is a 'meh' formation would be absurd.

Like everything else, it's going to take time to suss out their performance, but I don't see any reason to dismiss them out of hand.

"midly" better?
No scatter, no disordered, cheaper formation, more special rules and choose when to arrive is "midly" better?
That is like saying a Wraithknight is midly better than a Talos.

Librarius got a DIFFERENT bonus than Seer. Not a better bonus (and most people played librarius wrong anyways - also a lot of librarius power is in fact just tigurius).
Cabal is also a different bonus from Librarius and this was well done.

40k is not quantum mechanics. If the special power of a 200 points unit is "10 attacks WS4 S4, IF you happen to survive the close range DS" it is just bad. You actuall get more damage out of a 5 man tactical dropping SAFELY in rapid fire range (for way less points).
Also if the same unit is actually the same without the formation, the formation is not contributing.
Same with the fun terminator formation in BL that give fearless to an already fearless lord.

Taffy10 wrote:

Totally off subject, but Warhammer 40k tv just dropped a few second video with the nids logo.... Are we even remembered by now?

That was the Genestealer Cult log, Tyranids have the two bugs back to back whilst GSC is just the one bug. Conisdering they've got models and no codex to use them with I don't think any body has a right to complain that they're going first ahead of another faction (a couple pages out of a White Dwarf with pre set units, no options and a single 600 point formation does not a codex make).

I'm not sure what people were expecting with Traitors Hate, it's a supplement not a new codex so it was hardly going to completely re-write the faction and boost them up the competitive order, they're still going to be rooted to the bottom along with Orks and Nids.

Fact is there hasn't been a codex for a pre-existing faction since Tau dropped last October, 11 months ago, and that was little more than a copy-paste job with a few new units and formations added in. By all accounts this is down to one thing, the higher ups are well aware that th is a lame duck and are instead focussing on 8th whilst tiding everyone over with rushed out supplements. If a future supplement comes out that features the True Kin I'd expect us to get new formations, maybe some new models if we're really lucky but overall nothing more than that and until 8th comes that's all anybody can expect.

What does quantum mechanics have to do with this? Your analogy isn't clear.

And the Conclave is very similar to a Seer council. (Although not better.)

Further, the ability to just take a unit outside of the standard FOC can make a formation viable, with no bonus required. These formations all give bonuses, though, so I don't see what you're getting at.

Quote :

Further, the ability to just take a unit outside of the standard FOC can make a formation viable, with no bonus required. These formations all give bonuses, though, so I don't see what you're getting at.

1 Succubus
3 -5 units of hekatrix

May assault after running but counts as disordered
Unit gains HoW if you roll at least 10" for assault

Would that be a good formation?
Probably not. Because niether the involved unit, nor the boni are any good.

Same with the CSM formations. They largely consist of terrible units with bad or even completely defunct formation boni.

Quote :

I'm not sure what people were expecting with Traitors Hate, it's a supplement not a new codex so it was hardly going to completely re-write the faction and boost them up the competitive order, they're still going to be rooted to the bottom along with Orks and Nids.

Actually a lot of these terrible formations could have been a lot better with even tiny adjustments.

The possessed and DP formation for example. It is largely terrible because possessed are terrible. Having to take 3 of them is just too expensive, they only get the bonus if within 12" of the DP and the bonus is completely melee related.
Easy fix: Make it a Crimson Slaughter Formation (can not be because of the DPs VotlW).
Suddenly your possessed gain shrouded, beast movement (so they can keep up with the dp) and a 3++
Amazing. From terrible to amazing in just a tiny change.

The Raptor Formation.
Let them reduce scatter by 1D6, no disordered charge and instead of the -2 to fear tests grant the Talons Daemon of X in addition to Mark of X (like in KDK) and the Raptors rending in the turn they are assaulting. Fixed. Still in the same range as the ravenguard formation, still worse than skyhammer but an actual bonus to two terrible units.

And crap like the drake formation bonus or the fearless lord that gets fearless should not even happen to a professional game designer.

I don't know enough to tell whether these changes make Chaos options viable or not. Nothing there seemed amazing to me, but more options are always a positive thing, unless as you provide an example of they aren't really an option at all.

Random question - what are "boni"? Is that a faux-Latin version of bonuses?

Quote :

What does quantum mechanics have to do with this? Your analogy isn't clear.

Come on buddy, this is an analogy. Like "X isn't rocket science" and you replying "what does rocket science have to do with this?". It is also pretty apparent that the CSM formations are pretty meh when compared to what the SM have.

Quote :

Random question - what are "boni"? Is that a faux-Latin version of bonuses?

Boni is the legit plural form. "Bonuses" would be the faux-latin, not the other way around. Just like malus - mali.

Klaivex Charondyr wrote:

Quote :

Further, the ability to just take a unit outside of the standard FOC can make a formation viable, with no bonus required. These formations all give bonuses, though, so I don't see what you're getting at.

1 Succubus
3 -5 units of hekatrix

May assault after running but counts as disordered
Unit gains HoW if you roll at least 10" for assault

Would that be a good formation?
Probably not. Because niether the involved unit, nor the boni are any good.

Both of these bonuses are good.  They aren't crazy OP, but they ARE good.  

Even after calculating the loss of Objective Secured, the units in this formation are inarguably better than their equivalent in a CAD.  

Causalis wrote:

Quote :

What does quantum mechanics have to do with this? Your analogy isn't clear.

Come on buddy, this is an analogy. Like "X isn't rocket science" and you replying "what does rocket science have to do with this?". It is also pretty apparent that the CSM formations are pretty meh when compared to what the SM have.

Ah, I see now.  I have literally never heard or seen anyone use 'quantum mechanics' in that colloquial context. If you'd said 'brain surgery' or 'rocket science,' then I'd have understood, because those are common colloquialisms.  Quantum mechanics is not, at least not that I've ever encountered.  I thought you were implying some sort of actual analogy between quantum mechanics and playing 40k. My apologies.

Of course the CSM formations aren't as good as the Space Marine formations.  Nothing is.  But there's lots of room between first and last place, especially in a game system with over a dozen factions (not counting supplementary factions) and a dizzying array of formations.  

If you want to compare the new formations to something, how about we compare them to the way CSM could be fielded without them?  In that case, they are good enough to throw a parade for.  

If everything that isn't as good or better than what loyalist SM can do is 'meh,' then the whole game is 'meh,' and we should all go home.  (Now I need to get a picture of Mike Myers's face on Gulliman's body and caption it "If it's not Astartes, it's crap!")

Quote :

Random question - what are "boni"? Is that a faux-Latin version of bonuses?

Boni is the legit plural form. "Bonuses" would be the faux-latin, not the other way around. Just like malus - mali.[/quote]

Not all latin words that end in -us have an -i plural form.  (The plural of bonum is bona, as I understand it.)

In english, bonuses is a correct plural form of bonus. (However, boni is preferred in italian, just for completeness sake.)

Jimsolo - I think the point of that example Hekatrix formation is not that it is worse than the original, but that it is still so mediocre that it is not really an option anyone would realistically take. Then the implication that all of the new Chaos options fall into the same trap.

Causalis wrote:

Boni is the legit plural form. "Bonuses" would be the faux-latin, not the other way around. Just like malus - mali.

I was actually confused by someone using boni, as I don't think I have seen that used before, and had to figure it out from the context. If bonus is a masculine second declension noun in Latin, then the Latin plural is indeed boni. I'm not in a position to confirm or deny that. In English though, bonuses is a legitimate plural form, and if there is a regular usage of boni then I guess that would be a legitimate plural form too.
Oxford English Dictionary link - uses bonuses in the example sentences

The skyhammer kicks the crap out of this raptor formation.

The raptors may not even make it to the table till turn 4 compared to turn 1 every time.

The raptors may DS too far away to charge or mishap.

The skyhammer gets multiple very cool buffs + chapter tactics + ATSKNF + better equipment while the raptors get a disordered nerf because F-ck chaos!

Even with pure DE I cannot remember ever losing to CSMs I can't see how these formations will change that.

The problem is just the standard Chaos Marine. How do you play those?

CptMetal wrote:

The problem is just the standard Chaos Marine. How do you play those?

Maybe min sized obj campers? or with a melta, combi melta or flamer, combi flamer and a rhino and TRY to do something.

Cheap obj campers probably better tho, save pts for non crappy units.