Page 1 of 2
New 40k - rules questions
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 3:21 pm
by me_in_japan
Ok, so I may be being stupid here, but I'd like to confirm a few things.
1) when playing games against each other, assuming no other prior agreement has been made, are all armies required to be battle forged? (I specifically mean us, here, at Nagoya games days. Not gamers around the world playing 40k).
2) when building a battle forged army, is it the case that only ONE faction keyword (at least) needs to be shared in order for that detachment to be legal? E.g. On pg 57 of the chaos Index book it lists all possible units for a Death Guard army. Chosen, Raptors and Bikers do not appear on the list. So they can't be Death Guard. But codex CSM contains all those units, and they, along with the listed Death Guard units have the faction keywords "heretic astartes", "chaos" and "chaos god of choice, let's say, Nurgle". So, even though those units aren't allowed to have the Death Guard faction keyword, they could use any of their other, shared, keywords to be in the same detachment as a bunch of plague marines and Typhus? If so, what's the point of the Death Guard keyword? Or indeed, the whole system, as it relates to army composition (I can see how the various keywords affect gameplay, just not army composition). Why not just use the Chaos keyword and have Kairos Fateweaver and Annnnggrraaarath in your Death Guard army? (Aside from it being ass-hattery, I mean)
Cheers in advance, folks

Re: New 40k - rules questions
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 9:54 pm
by The Other Dave
For 1) I at least wouldn't mind particularly if you decide not to bring a battle-forged army. Having zero command points is a big, big penalty. Technically for matched play missions you have to be battleforged but eh. Narrative missions explicitly don't care. Personally I think the line between the two is pretty fungible.
For 2), you are correct. The big reason to take detachments sharing more-narrow keywords is for the chapter / traitor legion / forgeworld / presumably-incoming craftworld bonuses, which require every unit in the detachment to share the <chapter>-analogue keyword. If I take, say, a squad of Guard in a troops slot with my Scythes, it'll still be battleforged ('cause they share the Imperium keyword), but I'd lose the very nice Ultramarines-successor chapter tactic for the detachment. Presumably DG will get a chapter tactic giving them a buff for an all-DG detachment in their codex too.
Re: New 40k - rules questions
Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 2:20 am
by YellowStreak
I think thus far everyone has been taking battle-forged armies to gain the CPs. I'd have no issue with non-BF, especially if it made sense from a narrative perspective.
Re: New 40k - rules questions
Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 2:29 am
by The Other Dave
And
speak of the devil!
That's the DG chapter tactic - a doozy. That's what you give up by not having everything in the detachment have the <Death Guard> keyword.
Re: New 40k - rules questions
Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 2:35 am
by me_in_japan
cheers dave. Also, *sad face*, because half my army is now non-valid

(by which I mean, non-useable as Death Guard. Unless they shake things up a lot in the new dex, I lose my bikers (including chaos lord), raptors, havoks, chosen and two members from every other squad except plague marines. My daemons may or may not go (currently they're non-valid, but that may change. Seems odd not to allow DG to summon things.)
I appreciate that I can put most of these in a separate detachment, but it'll get confusing for folks trying to remember which grotty marine in technically not a death guard and which is. darn it. The more I look at it the more they seem to have torn up the previous army composition. Maybe I should just give up on death guard and play them all as CSM. But then again, theyre all obviously nurgle marines. I'm vexed I even have to make that decision, tbh. Why can't I just play my death guard as death guard, hmmn? Riddle me that, gee dubs...
Re: New 40k - rules questions
Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 2:50 am
by The Other Dave
They're making them all thematic-like I guess - I can understand your frustration though. I imagine Bikers and Raptors won't make the final cut, but wouldn't be surprised if Havocs and Chosen, or something enough like them that you could use the models, are among the "completely new units" the article talks about.
Daemons, if you summon them, don't need to come in a detachment at all - just set points aside for summoning before the game starts and choose what you want to call when you make the roll. Daemons starting on the field, though, yeah, would have to be in a separate detachment from the DG - they aren't a part of Legion XIV after all. (Check the "Daemonic Ritual" rule in the Daemons army list - any character with the Chaos keyword can attempt to summon, so DG certainly still can.)
Re: New 40k - rules questions
Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 3:05 am
by me_in_japan
I've had a dig around the various books, and if I put my bikers, raptors, spawn and biker lord in an Outrider detachment then they're valid (as CSM, not DG). I can shoehorn my chosen in there, too. My actual DG detachment looks pretty thin at that point though. Suppose I'd better get on with painting that Dark Imperium stuff, and start filling up the gaps. *shrug*
Re: New 40k - rules questions
Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 5:24 am
by The Other Dave
Sort of a shame you have to kludge it like that, but after all, all you need for a battalion is 2 HQs (the terminator lord and the sorcerer) and 3 troops (plague marines, poxwalkers, and one more). I expect a battalion plus an outrider detachment would probably be pretty feasible at 100 power / 2000 points.
Re: New 40k - rules questions
Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 4:54 pm
by AndrewGPaul
Get some photos up of these Death Guard. Last time I saw 'em, in Glasgow, they were primer white.

Re: New 40k - rules questions
Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2017 2:12 am
by me_in_japan
Painted em ages ago, chief:
http://www.nagoyahammer.com/forum/viewt ... ?f=51&t=19
There's a squad of bikers I did, too. Need to find pics of them, as they're rather natty if I do say so meself.