# Why bother with the new 40k Deathwatch?



## Xabre (Dec 20, 2006)

So for those that haven't seen the rules yet... click here.

I need some help trying to figure out the point to these guys.

Squad Donatus: Assuming that the frag cannon is around the same points as a plasma cannon, this 5 man squad is 10 points more expensive than a standard 5-man sternguard with the same wargear. These 10 points get you Stubborn on your vet Sergeant, precision shots on ONE boltgun, FNP on ONE guy, and 2 CCW on one guy.

Ortan Cassius: +5 points for special ammo in the bolt pistol.

Edryc Setorax: +1 point for Stealth. Otherwise he has Raven Guard tactics.

Antor Delassio: +1 point for absolutely nothing that I can see. BA tactics included.

Jensus Natorian: +5 points for special ammo in the bolt pistol.

Garran Barantar: The only Cheap purchase I can find. -15 points if you consider the master craft on both weapons, AND the fact that he gets a second gun. However, he has no special rules to FIRE both.

Jetek Suberei: +4 points for Special Issue Ammo on the bike's bolters, and a TeleHomer.

Kill Team Cassius: WHY. Why would anyone want a large unit where the bikes and jump packs are slowed down by the Terminator and Heavy Weapon? Is the rerollng 1s that important?

*note: Edryc, Antor, Garran, and Jetek are Characters, but NOT Independent Characters. Therefore, they're going to die fast outside of the Kill Team formation.


----------



## ntaw (Jul 20, 2012)

Not everyone is motivated by rules. Those are some sweet models, and I would love to play skirmishes using them like the Last Chancers. 

If you're all about rules then skip this and wait for the next rotfstomp Formation to come out. Easy peasy.


----------



## Xabre (Dec 20, 2006)

I feel like that's the only purpose for them. Which I guess is possible. Just run them as a 550 point game against something.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

Why bother with Warp Talons? Why bother with Thousand Sons? Why bother with Sentinels? Why bother with the Sanguinor?

It's 40k, lots of stuff is cool but terrible. This ain't no thing that's new or surprising.


----------



## ntaw (Jul 20, 2012)

That's the only use for them to you, to be sure. There's a ton of excitement for these guys in my group and, iirc, we don't yet have actual knowledge of how they fit into the game individually. They have FOC designations but they're not Space Marine Faction so this is a bit premature anyway.

Personally I'd play them against increasing points values and create custom scenarios around them to help balance the game. Sure there's the minigame but I like the parameters of 40k more for gameplay.

The more I think of it, there could easily be a Deathwatch Detachment with a FOC and maybe there's even rules for creating your own DW members. Great way for GW to expand the line and pilfer our wallets more, just like what's rumoured (and what I've always thought would happen) with Battle at Calth.


----------



## Haskanael (Jul 5, 2011)

personaly I would just love to play the standalone game and paint the miniatures. I'm sure I can find a use for them in the game somewhere at some point tho. 

you can also use the models for character/HQ conversions. with a little knife work that white scar makes a great captain.


----------



## Drohar (Jan 22, 2014)

I pre-ordered the genestealer patriarch from b&k - I'll use it as a broodlord  

Rest of the kit is cool, but not for my taste. For some reason I am not a fan of genestealer cults (a huge fan of the pure Tyranid genestealers though) and don't really like the lack of an inquisition leader. In stead we get an all SM line up.

But I must say the kit looks good, I am sure the game is awesome, but just not for me.


----------



## jin (Feb 20, 2014)

MidnightSun said:


> Why bother with Warp Talons? Why bother with Thousand Sons? Why bother with Sentinels? Why bother with the Sanguinor?
> 
> It's 40k, lots of stuff is cool but terrible. This ain't no thing that's new or surprising.


where went the rpg aspect of the game?
the build your own history.
now, everything is netlisted commission painted cardboard.


----------



## jin (Feb 20, 2014)

Drohar said:


> I pre-ordered the genestealer patriarch from b&k - I'll use it as a broodlord
> 
> Rest of the kit is cool, but not for my taste. For some reason I am not a fan of genestealer cults (a huge fan of the pure Tyranid genestealers though) and don't really like the lack of an inquisition leader. In stead we get an all SM line up.
> 
> But I must say the kit looks good, I am sure the game is awesome, but just not for me.


if i didn't already have too much to do, 
and if i had a basement,
i would pick this up with a small inquisition force built around the box contents.
add a few units into two 1500 point armies.
build cool lists and keep them as permanent armies
like a chess kit in the basement.

instead, i have been basically working to this situation
closer to 3000pts. each side
with inquisition/marines
eldar and harlequins
and orks with some chaos allies.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

jin said:


> where went the rpg aspect of the game?
> the build your own history.
> now, everything is netlisted commission painted cardboard.


You build your own history with that set of special characters someone else wrote the back stories for. I'm going to go off and have challenging, enjoyable games with my army of my own guys, each of whom was painstakingly painted by me, myself.

Get off your high horse and stop being such a passive-aggressive tosspot.


----------



## jin (Feb 20, 2014)

MidnightSun said:


> You build your own history with that set of special characters someone else wrote the back stories for. I'm going to go off and have challenging, enjoyable games with my army of my own guys, each of whom was painstakingly painted by me, myself.
> 
> Get off your high horse and stop being such a passive-aggressive tosspot.


wow.

aggressive and passive?
high horse?

hmm...

how about you stop being a self-righteous and actively aggressive pinprick.


----------



## ntaw (Jul 20, 2012)

woo woo! :laugh:


----------



## jin (Feb 20, 2014)

ntaw said:


> woo woo! :laugh:


looking back,
i think that there is a bit of a misunderstanding.
i am 110% for buying this new box
and building the cult into an ally for a few other armies 
in a collection, would be awesome and playable so many ways.
no need to use GW formation named ability nonsense
unless someone were to want to do so...
and here is where things start to go wrong, for me.
it's like racketball.
some dudes are really into winning,
so pay for lessons and buy a expensive gear,
and then give you a good match for sure,
but then there is the guy with the weird style,
and maybe a couple of killer moves,
and a mix of players like that is the most fun...
and best for someone who wants to be a good racketball player in the long run also...
i just tend to see 40k like this.
a hobby, wherein the buy-in is mainly time and creativity and practice
instead of a credit card, epistane and the new magic racket.


----------



## Haskanael (Jul 5, 2011)

jin said:


> a hobby, wherein the buy-in is mainly time and creativity and practice
> instead of a credit card, epistane and the new magic racket.


I can get that. to give an example. 
we have a local 7 month campaign running in my area. you have to chose and paint one unit each month. you get 250 Points a month, and you can save up unused points for later. 

HQ
Troop
Elite
Fast Attack
Free choice
Troop
Free choice.

now everyone is having fun. and the idea of saving up points for later is neat and helpfull for certain spots. but then. you get to the free choice slots. now no one realy has the money to spend more then maybe 40 euro's on this campaign. a month.
then there are these two... strange people who decide that in the first free choice month they will bring along superheavies one of them is bringing a tesseract vault and the other an eldar knight.
(to clarify: at the end of each month we play a game. either a free for all or team based depending on how many people show up.)
which leaves me thinking "well shit."


----------



## DaisyDuke (Aug 18, 2011)

Personally I am tempted by this game, I have fond memories of playing space hulk back in the nineties, and this looks along those lines.
Also I ran a stealer cult with no cultists just stealers and a patriarch. Being able to expand on that original force would be a cool addition to my nids. But I am not sure about the marine elements, their 40k rules do seem a little odd, unless some new kill team rules are in the pipeline. For lone marines are not going to last long in a game above 300 points.


----------



## jin (Feb 20, 2014)

Haskanael said:


> I can get that. to give an example.
> we have a local 7 month campaign running in my area. you have to chose and paint one unit each month. you get 250 Points a month, and you can save up unused points for later.
> 
> HQ
> ...


cool way to get stuff painted.
i guess the next troops choices will be swarms and something cheap,
so that in the final week you can afford to spend 400 points on a something to screw the wraithknight.
the necron thing is ...
you guys should have constrained that 'free choice'
to a 'not so free choice'

.


----------



## Haskanael (Jul 5, 2011)

jin said:


> cool way to get stuff painted.
> i guess the next troops choices will be swarms and something cheap,
> so that in the final week you can afford to spend 400 points on a something to screw the wraithknight.
> the necron thing is ...
> ...


the apparent hope was that people would stay within reason. sadly that was futile. 

and yeah I am hoping I might have the money for either a knight or a stormsword in the last month.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

jin said:


> looking back,
> i think that there is a bit of a misunderstanding.
> i am 110% for buying this new box
> and building the cult into an ally for a few other armies
> ...


Ah, you see, I thought you were saying that everything is netlisted commission painted cardboard, which is both untrue and offensive.



jin said:


> it's like racketball.
> some dudes are really into winning,
> so pay for lessons and buy a expensive gear,
> and then give you a good match for sure,
> ...


On-topic, in the context of the Deathwatch Kill-Team which is what we were talking about, I'll apply it to your analogy. There's a guy at the racketball club. He has a ping pong paddle, and one of those football mascot giant fursuits. He has a really *weird* style, and it doesn't work. Like, at all. He then snipes at people for using proper, functional equipment, because fuck man that's so unoriginal, I bet they learned that style from someone rather than inventing it all by themselves! _Everyone_ uses functional rackets, but he's okay with his ping pong paddle because it's just as good, it's just a specialist item and you need to know how to use it.

That, applied back into 40k, is the other side of the flavour-of-the-month scatter-bike-spam horror story that bad players like to throw around. Fluff gamers have a nightmare scenario - deploying opposite a guy who unpacks 6 scatpacks, 2 Wraithknights, Wraithguard in an allied Raider and an Aspect Host of Warp Spiders, and then argues every rule down to the wire, and gloats when he pastes you. Well, 'competitive' players (not even tournament players; just the ones who value the game like the fluff players value the fluff) have a nightmare too. You deploy opposite some manchild who deploys a fucking _terrible_ list; it's got melee Carnifexes, it's got Tyranid Primes, it's got a Tyranid Warrior deathstar; the works. There's no plan in the list; it's just a bunch of models decked out in a weird paint scheme and dumped on the table. No idea of a game plan. He then fucks up rules throughout the game in between passive-aggressive, snide comments because you play Battle Company, and that's just an overpowered netlist, man.

I'm not going to run the Deathwatch Kill Team, and I wouldn't advise anyone else to run it either. People running shit armies and being bad is just as great a problem as people being WAAC jerks.



jin said:


> looking back,
> i think that there is a bit of a misunderstanding.
> i am 110% for buying this new box
> and building the cult into an ally for a few other armies
> ...


Ah, you see, I thought you were saying that everything is netlisted commission painted cardboard, which is both untrue and offensive.



jin said:


> it's like racketball.
> some dudes are really into winning,
> so pay for lessons and buy a expensive gear,
> and then give you a good match for sure,
> ...


On-topic, in the context of the Deathwatch Kill-Team which is what we were talking about, I'll apply it to your analogy. There's a guy at the racketball club. He has a ping pong paddle, and one of those football mascot giant fursuits. He has a really *weird* style, and it doesn't work. Like, at all. He then snipes at people for using proper, functional equipment, because fuck man that's so unoriginal, I bet they learned that style from someone rather than inventing it all by themselves! _Everyone_ uses functional rackets, but he's okay with his ping pong paddle because it's just as good, it's just a specialist item and you need to know how to use it.

That, applied back into 40k, is the other side of the flavour-of-the-month scatter-bike-spam horror story that bad players like to throw around. Fluff gamers have a nightmare scenario - deploying opposite a guy who unpacks 6 scatpacks, 2 Wraithknights, Wraithguard in an allied Raider and an Aspect Host of Warp Spiders, and then argues every rule down to the wire, and gloats when he pastes you. Well, 'competitive' players (not even tournament players; just the ones who value the game like the fluff players value the fluff) have a nightmare too. You deploy opposite some manchild who deploys a fucking _terrible_ list; it's got melee Carnifexes, it's got Tyranid Primes, it's got a Tyranid Warrior deathstar; the works. There's no plan in the list; it's just a bunch of models decked out in a weird paint scheme and dumped on the table. No idea of a game plan. He then fucks up rules throughout the game in between passive-aggressive, snide comments because you play Battle Company, and that's just an overpowered netlist, man.

I'm not going to run the Deathwatch Kill Team, and I wouldn't advise anyone else to run it either. People running shit armies and being bad is just as great a problem as people being WAAC jerks.



Haskanael said:


> I can get that. to give an example.
> we have a local 7 month campaign running in my area. you have to chose and paint one unit each month. you get 250 Points a month, and you can save up unused points for later.
> 
> HQ
> ...


And fuck those guys who want to play Imperial Guard, right? Because unless you want to be restricted to one option for Troops, you can start with 10 Guardsmen in month 2, burn your free choice to add another ten in month 5, bring a PCS in month 6, and burn your last free choice on a squad of Veterans to get a legal army. It's not going to be an army worth dick, because you get one Fast Attack and one Heavy Support and the rest of the options might as well be blank (you can't bring a Tank Commander, and we've established that you can't bring any real infantry presence so the Lord Commissar and CCS are worthless; Elites is a blank slot for Guard at the best of times; you get a Vendetta, the one thing you can realistically do that's not bad; and one Heavy Support, which is going to have to be a squadron of Russes or you're going to have a _lot_ of spare points go up in smoke). You can bring a Warhound fairly easily, but your actual Guard element is going to be garbage.

Meanwhile, Eldar get a Farseer on Jetbike, 2 squads of 9 Windriders with Scatter Lasers, a squad of 10 Warp Spiders, 3 D-Cannon artillery, and a Wraithknight, with a bunch of points to spare.

Sure, you can wring your hands and say 'well the system won't break if people don't act like jerks', but if your system allows people to be jerks then it's a broken system. I absolutely wouldn't get involved in it unless it was purely within a cabal of people I knew well as hobbyists, because otherwise the probability is that it's going to be an uninteractive and laughably imbalanced farce.


----------



## jin (Feb 20, 2014)

MidnightSun said:


> On-topic, in the context of the Deathwatch Kill-Team which is what we were talking about, I'll apply it to your analogy. There's a guy at the racketball club. He has a ping pong paddle, and one of those football mascot giant fursuits. He has a really *weird* style, and it doesn't work. Like, at all. He then snipes at people for using proper, functional equipment, because fuck man that's so unoriginal, I bet they learned that style from someone rather than inventing it all by themselves! _Everyone_ uses functional rackets, but he's okay with his ping pong paddle because it's just as good, it's just a specialist item and you need to know how to use it.


racketball with a ping pong paddle sounds like something that only 5 year olds would find enjoyable.
so i take it you are talking about children.
man-children.



> That, applied back into 40k, is the other side of the flavour-of-the-month scatter-bike-spam horror story that bad players like to throw around. Fluff gamers have a nightmare scenario - deploying opposite a guy who unpacks 6 scatpacks, 2 Wraithknights, Wraithguard in an allied Raider and an Aspect Host of Warp Spiders, and then argues every rule down to the wire, and gloats when he pastes you. Well, 'competitive' players (not even tournament players; just the ones who value the game like the fluff players value the fluff) have a nightmare too. You deploy opposite some manchild who deploys a fucking _terrible_ list; it's got melee Carnifexes, it's got Tyranid Primes, it's got a Tyranid Warrior deathstar; the works. There's no plan in the list; it's just a bunch of models decked out in a weird paint scheme and dumped on the table. No idea of a game plan. He then fucks up rules throughout the game in between passive-aggressive, snide comments because you play Battle Company, and that's just an overpowered netlist, man.


actually very interesting example.




> I'm not going to run the Deathwatch Kill Team, and I wouldn't advise anyone else to run it either. People running shit armies and being bad is just as great a problem as people being WAAC jerks.


ok, so now there is a bit of an issue.
and there has been some wider attention here recently.
jervis got hammered for saying it is just a game.
points and even rules are for people who can't think for themselves.
i mean, originally, this whole thing was an rpg,
models to suport rpgs
then massed up into squads and into plastic big models and now... new hotness rules power creeping for market share.
so, even from within gw the message is do one thing with one hand
and another thing with another.
i stopped listening.
also originally, the culture of the game was very rpg-y too
as it was with a circle of mates all quite familiar and regular.
this has changed in the tournament scene and with the usa influence
more often than not people drive a couple of hours and get a game with total strangers, just to practice to go to a tourney and compete against a bunch of other total strangers.
unless you are a member of one of these competitive circles, 
then you likely don't know many people very well, anyways...

formally, we can view the difference between interactions within these two sorts of groups through the lens of game theory. in simple terms, one proceeds as competition under a cooperative umbrella, and the other as cooperation under a competitive umbrella. one cooperates by following the rules to the letter under the competitive understanding that it is my mission to - however possible - exploit and even 'break' said rules in order to win. the other group is motivated first under an umbrella of cooperation. then, understanding that the purpose of the exercise is to enrich lives, the group proceeds to compete in doing just that - becoming better painters, modelers, strategists, historians, tactitians, resource managers, even sportsmen.

on the one hand, under the competitive umbrella, we have an essentially one-off feedforward series of decisions within a relatively complex decision space that is made much simpler with intentionally 'broken' rules and spammed bullshit (who collects an army of 45 warp spiders and why? why? the models are simply not that cool.. in fact they are all the same.) in this context, 'breaking' the game by playing to the letter of the rules seems a viable strategy, and so the netlisted commission painted posieur emerges on the scene. on the other hand, we have a long-term interaction with multiple temporally recursive feedback loops. 

under the cooperative umbrella, ironically, we hear the talk about "comp" scores... because living under a competitive umbrellas is living in a tent with lawyerly pricks and that gets boring, thin, as if the soul of the hobby were sucked dry.




> And fuck those guys who want to play Imperial Guard, right? Because unless you want to be restricted to one option for Troops, you can start with 10 Guardsmen in month 2, burn your free choice to add another ten in month 5, bring a PCS in month 6, and burn your last free choice on a squad of Veterans to get a legal army. It's not going to be an army worth dick, because you get one Fast Attack and one Heavy Support and the rest of the options might as well be blank (you can't bring a Tank Commander, and we've established that you can't bring any real infantry presence so the Lord Commissar and CCS are worthless; Elites is a blank slot for Guard at the best of times; you get a Vendetta, the one thing you can realistically do that's not bad; and one Heavy Support, which is going to have to be a squadron of Russes or you're going to have a _lot_ of spare points go up in smoke). You can bring a Warhound fairly easily, but your actual Guard element is going to be garbage.
> 
> Meanwhile, Eldar get a Farseer on Jetbike, 2 squads of 9 Windriders with Scatter Lasers, a squad of 10 Warp Spiders, 3 D-Cannon artillery, and a Wraithknight, with a bunch of points to spare.
> 
> Sure, you can wring your hands and say 'well the system won't break if people don't act like jerks', but if your system allows people to be jerks then it's a broken system. I absolutely wouldn't get involved in it unless it was purely within a cabal of people I knew well as hobbyists, because otherwise the probability is that it's going to be an uninteractive and laughably imbalanced farce.



your conclusion is a sound one.

by the way, i have a thread with my most recent collection.
orks. 
i collected up an 1850 point list,
and i have a few units yet to add for some flexibility that aren't painted yet so not included
but this represents something that i would like to play,
and that surely is not competitive under the contemporary "meta" (competitive more than cooperative, as described above),
i think that it should score well in a tournament even with many lost matches...
well, i would have to improve the paint a bit,
and some display case may be necessary,
but i would hope to score well if the tourney were optimized for what i find rewarding about the hobby.
meta-level reasoning skills, cordiality, intellect, community mindedness (thinking about what your selections and movements will do to the others with whom you share decision space). modeling, pointing, fine motor skills, fairness, sportsmanship, friendship in the Socratic sense of the word, and so on...

after all, what is the purpose of racketball?
for most, it is health.
only an over-competitive even professional and paid fanatic (remember, the fanatics?) would damage their health to win.
when i played racketball, i liked to play against guys i could never beat - university football players and dudes who have been playing the game forever and who had the new great rackets and so on - but i never minded losing. i wasn't there to win the game by points, alone, i was there to become a better person, a better athlete, in better health, with a better mind...
40k, ideally, should leave us like that.
not broke, broken and breaking.

and as for this new box, i see that it can go one of two ways.
one, people will buy the box to build armies to the new hotness rules to exploit some further rules
and they will get all excited about how to counter and so on,
and others will say - hey man, look, i always wanted to collect up a cult army and you have mehreens right, so how bout we split it and then i can spend the rest of the money on a couple vehicles?
i can tell you who i want to spend my time with, already.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

jin said:


> racketball with a ping pong paddle sounds like something that only 5 year olds would find enjoyable.
> so i take it you are talking about children.
> man-children.


Exactly. You wouldn't want to play racketball against someone _that bad_, but that's what it's like when good 40k players who want a challenging game go up against someone that brings one of every unit in their Codex in some weird, dumb mish-mash because muh fluff.




jin said:


> ok, so now there is a bit of an issue.
> and there has been some wider attention here recently.
> jervis got hammered for saying it is just a game.
> points and even rules are for people who can't think for themselves.
> ...


And that's fine, but if you're going to an organised tournament with the ITC/NOVA/Adepticon rulesets or with its' own FAQ and ban list rather than entering into a narrative campaign or one of the ridiculous Games Workshop-organised clusterfucks at Warhammer World, and you insist upon bringing some bad list with the new Deathwatch Kill Team and you just, like, want to build a narrative man, and fuck those WAAC jerks sure are uptight assholes and stuff, then _you_ are a grade-A asshole for not only complaining that people who went to a tournament tried to win, but also for attending an event with a list that nobody else wanted to play. Well done, you made the event less fun for everyone involved; you, your opponents, the TOs who have to deal with the knock to the reputation, everyone.



jin said:


> on the one hand, under the competitive umbrella, we have an essentially one-off feedforward series of decisions within a relatively complex decision space that is made much simpler with intentionally 'broken' rules and spammed bullshit (who collects an army of 45 warp spiders and why? why? the models are simply not that cool.. in fact they are all the same.) in this context, 'breaking' the game by playing to the letter of the rules seems a viable strategy, and so the netlisted commission painted posieur emerges on the scene. on the other hand, we have a long-term interaction with multiple temporally recursive feedback loops.
> 
> under the cooperative umbrella, ironically, we hear the talk about "comp" scores... because living under a competitive umbrellas is living in a tent with lawyerly pricks and that gets boring, thin, as if the soul of the hobby were sucked dry.


Well, I'm sorry that it upsets you that other people like things you don't like, but calling them pricks because they like playing with their war dollies differently to how you like playing with your war dollies is a bit silly.



jin said:


> i think that it should score well in a tournament even with many lost matches...
> well, i would have to improve the paint a bit,
> and some display case may be necessary,
> but i would hope to score well if the tourney were optimized for what i find rewarding about the hobby.
> meta-level reasoning skills, cordiality, intellect, community mindedness (thinking about what your selections and movements will do to the others with whom you share decision space). modeling, pointing, fine motor skills, fairness, sportsmanship, friendship in the Socratic sense of the word, and so on...


No, you shouldn't do well in a tournament. You should place highly in a painting competition, or a comp event with sportsmanship points (insomuch as anyone can place highly in that system, it's always a bit of a gamble as to who gets sportsmanship points and who doesn't). You should be respected for your care for the community and desire for fairness. But you shouldn't get to win tournaments just because you're a nice guy with a painted army, because a tournament shouldn't be focussed on those things. Many tournaments do have a set of awards for sportsmanship or painting or whatever, but the guy who wins the tournament is the guy who wins the most battle points/wins the most games by the biggest margin/scores the most victory points in his games or whatever else.



jin said:


> after all, what is the purpose of racketball?
> for most, it is health.
> only an over-competitive even professional and paid fanatic (remember, the fanatics?) would damage their health to win.
> when i played racketball, i liked to play against guys i could never beat - university football players and dudes who have been playing the game forever and who had the new great rackets and so on - but i never minded losing. i wasn't there to win the game by points, alone, i was there to become a better person, a better athlete, in better health, with a better mind...
> ...


Here we agree. The _aim_ of a game is to win. The _point_ is to have fun. Anyone who abides by only one of those two things is an asshat.



jin said:


> and as for this new box, i see that it can go one of two ways.
> one, people will buy the box to build armies to the new hotness rules to exploit some further rules
> and they will get all excited about how to counter and so on,
> and others will say - hey man, look, i always wanted to collect up a cult army and you have mehreens right, so how bout we split it and then i can spend the rest of the money on a couple vehicles?
> i can tell you who i want to spend my time with, already.


So can I; the first player. I want to see if my Guard Blob + Librarius or, when it's finished, Ultramarines Skyhammer can deal with massed Infiltrate and first-turn charges. You'd prefer to play against the second player - _and that's absolutely fine_. Neither of us is more right than the other; your preference to play in a more casual, perhaps lax environment with a focus on cool models and fluff instead of the rules of the game is no more or less valid than my preference to play against the first player and test my skill as a player of the game.


----------



## jin (Feb 20, 2014)

MidnightSun said:


> And that's fine, but if you're going to an organised tournament with the ITC/NOVA/Adepticon rulesets or with its' own FAQ and ban list rather than entering into a narrative campaign or one of the ridiculous Games Workshop-organised clusterfucks at Warhammer World, and you insist upon bringing some bad list with the new Deathwatch Kill Team and you just, like, want to build a narrative man, and fuck those WAAC jerks sure are uptight assholes and stuff, then _you_ are a grade-A asshole for not only complaining that people who went to a tournament tried to win, but also for attending an event with a list that nobody else wanted to play. Well done, you made the event less fun for everyone involved; you, your opponents, the TOs who have to deal with the knock to the reputation, everyone.


only sith deal in absolutes.

the 'community' seems caught in a schism,
cut into factions, yet still one body.
gw is giving up the ghost, so to speak,
as it is directing itself into the 'we make plastic toys'
'buy the complete playset and receive free shipping'
wannabe hasbro mode.
so, increasingly, 
it seems that
it is up to the people willing to put in the time and effort 
to keep the creature moving.
and there seem to be two sorts of motivations driving these people.

we must admit, to each other,
that one without the other will die alone.



> Well, I'm sorry that it upsets you that other people like things you don't like, but calling them pricks because they like playing with their war dollies differently to how you like playing with your war dollies is a bit silly.


you missed the point entirely.
a prickly inclination drives one's rules as written religiosity for self-aggrandizement,
not the other way around. 




> No, you shouldn't do well in a tournament. You should place highly in a painting competition, or a comp event with sportsmanship points (insomuch as anyone can place highly in that system, it's always a bit of a gamble as to who gets sportsmanship points and who doesn't). You should be respected for your care for the community and desire for fairness. But you shouldn't get to win tournaments just because you're a nice guy with a painted army, because a tournament shouldn't be focussed on those things. Many tournaments do have a set of awards for sportsmanship or painting or whatever, but the guy who wins the tournament is the guy who wins the most battle points/wins the most games by the biggest margin/scores the most victory points in his games or whatever else.


who said 'win'?
but, really, why not?
anyways, here, i take it that you mean the itc/nova/adepticon scene, so of course. THOSE tournaments.
sprotsmanship is a bit of a gamble,
because this is not a hyper competitive racketball game for MOST people,
and it is frustrating when the measure of success becomes so loaded towards exploitation and free capital. but, then again, these are the virtues that have risen in the usa to replace the ethic that founded the nation, and another reason that i don't miss it, living there, in a sort of shark tank.



> Here we agree. The _aim_ of a game is to win. The _point_ is to have fun. Anyone who abides by only one of those two things is an asshat.


if this is true,
then we must encourage an environment in which both flourish together in the same room, no?



> So can I; the first player. I want to see if my Guard Blob + Librarius or, when it's finished, Ultramarines Skyhammer can deal with massed Infiltrate and first-turn charges. You'd prefer to play against the second player - _and that's absolutely fine_. Neither of us is more right than the other; your preference to play in a more casual, perhaps lax environment with a focus on cool models and fluff instead of the rules of the game is no more or less valid than my preference to play against the first player and test my skill as a player of the game.


right. good. go for it.
frankly, i believe that this read on the game is due to the influence of card players.
of course, the usa loves card games... poker, magic.
which is kind of like playing with a ping pong paddle, for me.
i mean, even if you are great at ping pong,
it is still ping pong,
and the paddle still feels like a ping pong paddle in my hand.
it doesn't feel substantial,
and rather sounds hollow, like its airy balls.
cards are boring, for myself,
and this is why i liked 40k and man o war and necromunda and ...
because they were not card games.
now, why not just print the cards and set them on the table and move them around?
if people are just going to pay someone else to paint someone else's list
or worse, some unreasonable list which no one would really want to collect
unless they were some dentist's kid with too much pocket money and a needy ego
then why not just make it the card game that it really is?
i stack my deck against your deck and we toss off on some expensive board.
yeay, you win.


----------



## Tyriks (Dec 9, 2015)

jin said:


> only sith deal in absolutes.


That statement is an absolute.

Also, as far as tournament versus casual play, you don't need both. If tournaments stop existing, casual players will keep playing casually. If casual play stops happening, tournaments will still happen. They don't need to mutually coexist. Playing in a tournament IS fun for people, which is what MidnightSun is saying. 

Everything you have posted thus far reads as if you feel like you have the moral high road for not playing competitively (which is maybe not your intent, but I'd have a hard time believing that) and THAT is the problem here. Let MidnightSun and others play the game they want to play. Don't say total bullshit like "points and even rules are for people who can't think for themselves" because you are trying to restrict the way people play the game. If you want to play a game without rules, play Calvinball or some shit. Don't tell someone else they aren't playing the game right because you don't like following the rules.


----------



## jin (Feb 20, 2014)

Tyriks said:


> That statement is an absolute.
> 
> Also, as far as tournament versus casual play, you don't need both. If tournaments stop existing, casual players will keep playing casually. If casual play stops happening, tournaments will still happen. They don't need to mutually coexist. Playing in a tournament IS fun for people, which is what MidnightSun is saying.
> 
> Everything you have posted thus far reads as if you feel like you have the moral high road for not playing competitively (which is maybe not your intent, but I'd have a hard time believing that) and THAT is the problem here. Let MidnightSun and others play the game they want to play. Don't say total bullshit like "points and even rules are for people who can't think for themselves" because you are trying to restrict the way people play the game. If you want to play a game without rules, play Calvinball or some shit. Don't tell someone else they aren't playing the game right because you don't like following the rules.


"you don't need both."
well, i think that you do.
with only one, you get a card game with big expensive cards.
with only the other, you get hair on your neck and back probably,
and crusty ass cracks and rotten teeth from gamer-meth, i.e. mountain dew.

so, moral high road, no, but i do know how to read.

and i read a lot.
for example, the role of cooperation in the emergence of civilization over evolutionary time.
i read about that, too.
under a cooperative umbrella, great things are made by good people working together.
under a competitive umbrella, not so much.

this is not a moral high road, so much as a fact of human evolution.

you, i think cannot read clearly
because you are so filled with some prejudice that what you see is what you have already seen.

for example:
"Don't say total bullshit like "points and even rules are for people who can't think for themselves" because you are trying to restrict the way people play the game."
i didn't say that.
i was summarizing an existing and recent discussion in the broader community of gamers who frequent blogs about games specifically 40k and Fantasy.
and i am not trying to restrict how you play with your toys or cards or whatever it is you play with.
i am just trying to make room for others who play differently under one umbrella,
a cooperative umbrella.
but see, yours is not a cooperative umbrella, and so you are unable to stand under a different kind of umbrella,
so you cannot really read what i am writing, as you only see the inside of your own lukewarm skull.


----------



## Tyriks (Dec 9, 2015)

If you want people to understand what you are writing, try actually using punctuation and proper grammar. 

Cooperation is valuable to humanity as a race, yes. That has literally no bearing whatsoever on this discussion. Competitive play and casual play do not need each other. Some people enjoy only one of them, and they will keep enjoying it if the other stops. Sure, people that like both would be sad, but it wouldn't prevent them from still playing the game. In fact, if Games Workshop wasn't catering to different crowds, a lot of people might even like the game more. Neither competitive play nor casual play is more valid or necessary. Your opinion that the two need to cooperate is irrelevant.


----------



## ntaw (Jul 20, 2012)

Guys, is it really worth interacting this way? The thread's about the Deathwatch and their viability in 40k with their known WD rules, not the differences between competitive and casual play.

I was looking at the FOC designations of the various DW models and there's the following assortment:

2 HQ
3 Elite
1 Troop
1 Fast Attack

Given that we have all 8 pages of rules spoiled (thanks to some handsome guy over in the linked Rumour thread) I doubt we'll be seeing any form of Deathwatch Detachment in the near future. I hope I'm wrong, but it looks like the only way to field them outside of the supremely awesome Formation is via an Allied Detachment.

The only way I could play them as a standalone Last Chancer/Dirty Dozen (the bird counts, right??) force is via an Unbound list. Looks like custom mission scenarios will be in order if I ever get the chance to involve them in games. I know a few people getting the box and while they all play in the local tournaments they also love a good narrative match with a special scenario to change things up a bit.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

Stop being on-topic, can't you see we're crashing this thread with no survivors?!



ntaw said:


> Given that we have all 8 pages of rules spoiled (thanks to some handsome guy over in the linked Rumour thread) I doubt we'll be seeing any form of Deathwatch Detachment in the near future. I hope I'm wrong, but it looks like the only way to field them outside of the supremely awesome Formation is via an Allied Detachment.
> 
> The only way I could play them as a standalone Last Chancer/Dirty Dozen (the bird counts, right??) force is via an Unbound list. Looks like custom mission scenarios will be in order if I ever get the chance to involve them in games. I know a few people getting the box and while they all play in the local tournaments they also love a good narrative match with a special scenario to change things up a bit.


...but why would you _want_ to? You can represent everyone other than Jap Cap Subuteo with a 1st Company Strike Force, except it'd be, y'know, customisable so you can fulfill your 'my dudes' dreams.


----------



## Xabre (Dec 20, 2006)

Have you seen the Deathwatch Strike Team formation in Damnos?

It's apocalypse, but not very overpowered. Far superior choice, I feel.


----------



## ntaw (Jul 20, 2012)

Standalone meaning by themselves, nothing else. Do you remember how the Last Chancers were introduced to the game? Those were some of the most fun games I ever played as a kid.

I want to because I think it's cool, why else? You should know by now I'm not talking about playing this at a tournament or in a competitive setting, we've had enough conversations over the years and threads to move on from such assumptions. Did my mention of custom scenarios and narrative gaming not tip you off brother?

EDIT: ninja'd by @Xabre. I would like to learn more about that Detachment you speak of.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

ntaw said:


> Standalone meaning by themselves, nothing else. Do you remember how the Last Chancers were introduced to the game? Those were some of the mose fun games I ever played as a kid.


Before my time, me old fruit.

The First Company Strike Force is nearly standalone - sure, you have to bring 15 guys instead of what, nine or ten or however many there are in the box, but is that really such a massive deal?



ntaw said:


> I want to because I think it's cool, why else? You should know by now I'm not talking about playing this at a tournament or in a competitive setting, we've had enough conversations over the years and threads to move on from such assumptions. Did my mention of custom scenarios and narrative gaming not tip you off brother?


So why not use the formation?



ntaw said:


> EDIT: ninja'd by @Xabre. I would like to learn more about that Detachment you speak of.


2 Sternguard Squads and a Captain, they get Preferred Enemy against one Xenos Codex chosen at the start of the game and get Antiphasic Bolts added to their list of ammo; AP4 bolters that force re-rolls on Reanimation Protocols.


----------



## Xabre (Dec 20, 2006)

MidnightSun said:


> Before my time, me old fruit.
> 
> 
> 2 Sternguard Squads and a Captain, they get Preferred Enemy against one Xenos Codex chosen at the start of the game and get Antiphasic Bolts added to their list of ammo; AP4 bolters that force re-rolls on Reanimation Protocols.


2+ squads of EITHER Sternguard or Vanguard, in any combination.

And the anti-phasic bolts only affect bolters/combis, so no help to pistols in the hands of the Vanguards.

There's also bonus VP if these guys slay a Xenos warlord.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

I meant added to the list of Sternguard ammo, should have clarified.

Meh. Never seen it, never will.


----------



## jin (Feb 20, 2014)

Tyriks said:


> If you want people to understand what you are writing, try actually using punctuation and proper grammar. Especially


yeah, "especially"[.]



> Cooperation is valuable to humanity as a race, yes. That has literally no bearing whatsoever on this discussion.


y? u r not human?



> Competitive play and casual play do not need each other. Some people enjoy only one of them, and they will keep enjoying it if the other stops. Sure, people that like both would be sad, but it wouldn't prevent them from still playing the game.


y play a game that makes u sad?



> In fact, if Games Workshop wasn't catering to different crowds, a lot of people might even like the game more. Neither competitive play nor casual play is more valid or necessary. Your opinion that the two need to cooperate is irrelevant.



Look, brainchild, this has everything to do with the current discussion.
There is only one crowd.
You choose to see things otherwise, as is typical, but this bigotry is post hoc.

"Why bother" is a question that arises in a certain context.
Note how the recent comments have advised that the player collect for a more powerful force as written in the rules.
And yet, one commenter has suggested rather that he wants to collect a less powerful perhaps allied detachment per the rules because this is fun, like the Last Chancers with some role-play built in.
So, from this perspective, collecting Deathwatch is very worthwhile.
From a "competitive" card-game point of view, it is senseless, because everyone knows that collections are justified when they result in hyper-powered raw stacked decks. 
Well, sometimes, especially maybe after 30,000 years of war, people are not able to stack their decks anymore. The universe is not full of super-killy raw idiocy. Rather, one must use what one has, e.g. Last Chancer style.

In my opinion, this box is one of the coolest things I have seen from GW in a very long time,
including the 30k box.
But, of course, I am discouraged from buying it because I don't want to show up for a game with some card player who is looking for practice with his deathstar and have the poor bean counter be disappointed to play against a list that 'no one wants to play against'.


----------



## Tyriks (Dec 9, 2015)

jin said:


> y? u r not human?
> 
> y play a game that makes u sad?
> 
> ...


If you want to boast about your reading comprehension, might want to make sure you can actually understand what is being said. You obviously failed to comprehend my post.


----------



## ntaw (Jul 20, 2012)

MidnightSun said:


> Before my time, me old fruit.


Look it up and you'll see what I'm on about. Mini army vs. full army with hilarious mission twists for a bit of game balance.



MidnightSun said:


> So why not use the formation?


That means they work as a unit which is lame and completely defeats the purpose I would have in mind for the models should I come across someone looking to use them in games.

...like hell I'm buying something that has an Imperial fucking Fist with a frag cannon.

It's not about having a full sized army, it's more about themed game play among those nostalgic enough to remember the WD rules/missions for the Last Chancers.



Xabre said:


> 2+ squads of EITHER Sternguard or Vanguard, in any combination.
> 
> And the anti-phasic bolts only affect bolters/combis, so no help to pistols in the hands of the Vanguards.
> 
> There's also bonus VP if these guys slay a Xenos warlord.


Meh, that's not too appealing to me. If I was gunna do a Formation of Sternguard/Vanguard I'd bust out the modeling skills and concoct that BA Formation where everyone gets free power (VG) or combi-weapons (SG).


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

From what I can tell, they are not all essential anyway. There is a five man squad that can have one or both characters attached to it. They fall under Troops and HQ respectively so this forms a neat little allied unit for any other Imperial Army. The remaining models can be used as characters elsewhere, including plastic alternatives to Khan and Shrike. Granted they're not the most balanced unit internally, but they are not without uses.


----------



## jin (Feb 20, 2014)

Tyriks said:


> If you want to boast about your reading comprehension, might want to make sure you can actually understand what is being said. You obviously failed to comprehend my post.


boasting?
show me where, please.

maybe the problem isn't reading, 
rather simple vocabulary.


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

Be nice, please.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

ntaw said:


> That means they work as a unit which is lame and completely defeats the purpose I would have in mind for the models should I come across someone looking to use them in games.
> 
> ...like hell I'm buying something that has an Imperial fucking Fist with a frag cannon.
> 
> It's not about having a full sized army, it's more about themed game play among those nostalgic enough to remember the WD rules/missions for the Last Chancers.


...so why do you need GW's permission to run them as seperate guys? You can use Squad Donatus in a game of Kill Team, I'm pretty sure.

I don't really understand your mindset (I'm not condemning it, just saying that I don't understand it). You're not looking to play them the way GW has stated you can play them (i.e. in a big squad as a formation in a bigger game of 40k), but you don't want to play with them unless it's in a GW-stated way. It sounds, to my ears, like you want to play the game with weird variant rules and alternative scenarios but not unless GW tells you to.


----------



## ntaw (Jul 20, 2012)

MidnightSun said:


> I don't really understand


Nor will you by the sounds of it, but here it goes anyway.



MidnightSun said:


> It sounds, to my ears, like you want to play the game with weird variant rules and alternative scenarios but not unless GW tells you to.


I'm talking about rekindling something GW has already done because I liked the idea. I've always wanted to update the Last Chancers to something that could work within the parameters of 7th edition, this looked like it had the opportunity to be a Deathwatch version of that idea without me having to make a ton of stuff up. The lack of specific Detachment doesn't slow me down, it just means that there's more stuff to make up and as such more stuff to explain and workshop with opponents before we play. If there was a Detachment (FOC style, not a Formation) that had some unique Command Benefits or Special Rules it could potentially be a much easier sell to use in said mission and let the mission special rules work to balance the otherwise hilariously one-sided match. Ultimately the Detachment is not necessary for my plan, I just wish there was one.

Honestly I think that if you knew what I was referencing initially you wouldn't be confused. The fact that you have/had no idea how the Last Chancers were introduced to the game is a serious impediment to your understanding of my concept; I am not talking about playing the game the way you have grown up understanding it despite using the same rules for gameplay. Ever seen the movie The Dirty Dozen?



Serpion5 said:


> Granted they're not the most balanced unit internally, but they are not without uses.


Good luck with that view in this thread :laugh:


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

ntaw said:


> I'm talking about rekindling something GW has already done because I liked the idea. I've always wanted to update the Last Chancers to something that could work within the parameters of 7th edition, this looked like it had the opportunity to be a Deathwatch version of that idea without me having to make a ton of stuff up. The lack of specific Detachment doesn't slow me down, it just means that there's more stuff to make up and as such more stuff to explain and workshop with opponents before we play. If there was a Detachment (FOC style, not a Formation) that had some unique Command Benefits or Special Rules it could potentially be a much easier sell to use in said mission and let the mission special rules work to balance the otherwise hilariously one-sided match. Ultimately the Detachment is not necessary for my plan, I just wish there was one.


Fair enough.



ntaw said:


> Honestly I think that if you knew what I was referencing initially you wouldn't be confused. The fact that you have/had no idea how the Last Chancers were introduced to the game is a serious impediment to your understanding of my concept; I am not talking about playing the game the way you have grown up understanding it despite using the same rules for gameplay. Ever seen the movie The Dirty Dozen?


Schaeffer's Last Chancers, with Kage's rules where he would only raise the alarm on a 6 when he knifed a sentry? That's as far back as I can remember with regard to the Last Chancers, the 4th edition Guard codex if I'm not mistaken. Honestly, never really been my schtick; I don't think 40k lends itself to such a small-scale engagement, at least in the rules I've been playing (i.e. 5th edition onwards). 1250pt to 2000pt is pretty much a sweet spot, lower than that and you get a lot of imbalance and it can get very fatiguing if you go much higher. In my opinion, if you want to play squad-based combat, you can't beat Necromunda


----------



## ntaw (Jul 20, 2012)

MidnightSun said:


> In my opinion, if you want to play squad-based combat, you can't beat Necromunda


You're kinda missing the point again. It isn't squad vs. squad but rather squad vs. army. Yes Necromunda is great but that isn't the type of game play I'm talking about.

I also wholeheartedly agree that 40k should be played at higher points; for me it's 1500+. 3k is a real happy place for me to spend 4-7 hours stomping face (or having my face stomped as it may be :laugh. 

Again though, custom scenarios to address the imbalance of such an idea since this is not your typical 40k game. Who knows? Maybe one night when I'm wired by being screamed at by my infant son and can't sleep despite it being the best thing ever I'll work something out and post it.

...or I'll just stare at the wall with an eye twitch. Likely that one.


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

Total Deathwatch comes to 535 pts. Using less can save you potentially over a hundred points. 

If I understand the objection correctly, it is that the options to field the Deathwatch seem noncompetitive right? You can only field them as a single unit OR as their separate units. Which means you end up with four single models that cannot join units. 

Alright. My brother and I were examining this problem last night and we've come to the simplest solution we can. The Deathwatch are an Inquisitor faction set of units, and as such can be allied to any Imperial force. Our immediate thought was Astra Militarum. The Donatus squad can run quite comfortably on its own, all of them are able to advance and shoot and the unit has a good mix of ranged fire options as well as decent cc ability. 

Cassius and Natorian are both independent characters, both have their typical unit type rules and special issue ammo. There's no real problem here, they can both join any Imperial unit they want or need to. 

The remaining four present the real issue here, however they do seem to be designed with a degree of synergy in mind. Suberei on a bike with a teleport homer is an obvious link to Branatar's terminator deep strike. 
Setorax honestly seems like the only one capable of really making any headway on his own, having a +3 to his cover save on the first turn and +1 from then onwards, as well as the ability to jump in movement and assault phases. 
Delassio seems to be the most useless. No special cc gear and a lower tier version of a weapon already carried by a more resilient member. 

So what did we decide? Easy. We're just not using all of them. Squad Donatus and most likely Natorian will be added to his Astra Militarum as an allied contingent. With an elite slot it is possible that Setorax will be used as well, but when run outside their formation it is not essential to use them all anyway. 

Meanwhile, we have models that can be stand ins for other models in his space marine army. His most common opponents are my tyranids and necrons, so it's easy to justify a Deathwatch team being split among his army to provide support and advice. They would look Deathwatch, but just count as members of those units. If no units of their type exist, then they can be counted as characters. In this way none of the models are wasted and having at least one or two actual Deathwatch units helps keep the theme.


----------



## Tyriks (Dec 9, 2015)

ntaw said:


> You're kinda missing the point again. It isn't squad vs. squad but rather squad vs. army.


I can see this. Playing one squad (or a handful of individual models) of hyper-elite units against legions of weak enemies would be fun (especially for short games). Making it balanced so it was actually a fair matchup would be tough, since one good roll could really change the game.


----------



## ntaw (Jul 20, 2012)

Tyriks said:


> Making it balanced so it was actually a fair matchup would be tough, since one good roll could really change the game.


That's kind of the glory of it. If nothing else it's a quick do over with a better plan (assuming the mission works the way it should anyway).


----------



## jin (Feb 20, 2014)

MidnightSun said:


> In my opinion, if you want to play squad-based combat, you can't beat Necromunda


yes. right.
absolutely.

some have been waiting for a Necromunda-upscaled to 1500+points of 40k for a long time...
RPG elements, delivering special abilities such as those rules developed for this current deathwatch box,
and with escalation as a decision map to collecting armies.
dunno how GW management had missed this formula, but they have and often and not by much really.


----------

