ICs going away as a thing isn't a problem if it fixes the stupid desthstars that dominate games through rules exploits.
That said the game will NEED to be balanced in such a way thattheydon't go down like a sack of bricks thrown into the ocean when shot at.
I also personally hope that retinue units will return as upgrades so you can buy a unit to stick the ICs into to protect them if they can't join normal units.
Failing at if it's super broken we have a chance to push GW to make changes, but considering the response from those involved in the play testing I can't imagine it being as bad as we think it is right now.
This is just a mindset, there is nothing different than a character walking next to a unit, rather than being in that unit other than the rules that stop it being cheesy.
Just get in the right mindset of "This character is in this unit, because he is marching up with them".
Ok, but why do I need to change my mindset over something that should never have been removed to begin with.
Are they going to be able to ride with units in transports? I don't know. But I do know I don't want to foot slog my terminator lord up the board.
To bad Belial can't deep strike with this Death Wing anymore, right guys? It's super unfluffy to have to join a unit that he was designed to be with, right?
Who is going to take any Dark Eldar Character if they can't take a transport? Not that anyone takes anything but a Lhamian now anyway because GW can't write a proper codex to save their life.
Jervis had some things to say about the new edition in a Twitch stream (nicked from Natfka):
J on v8 :
- V8 was made broad and flexible (3 way of playing)
-Easy to play and start is a focus.
-Games are like a garden : tend to overgrowth and you need to « prune » it at some point. v8 is a good opportunity to do it.
-They learned from the past, enjoying playing the game is what they want.
-Games should be easy to tackle (easy to play hard to master?)
-They made all the armies at the same time so they have a good idea of mechanisms as a whole.
-The first International grand tournaments was JJ asking the studio managers money to organise it, so he could talk about the game with very invested players.
-JJ Love the way GW interact with us now, using the new media
-JJ loved american Football and wanted to mix it with warhammer.
-Favorite rules : Turn over rule in bloodbowl (3ed), his first game with conscious experience on game design. Invented in the bath ^^
-JJ vision of faction is skewed by his job. So he's always thinking is this right or ok ?. Exception is Bloodbowl he's back to be a coach now and enjoy the game.
Automatically Appended Next Post: All armies made at the same time gives me renewed hope for balance. Less creep should have snuck in that way.
ClockworkZion wrote: ICs going away as a thing isn't a problem if it fixes the stupid desthstars that dominate games through rules exploits.
They have already said that keywords are going to prevent abuse. Also that allied armies won't be able to wreck the game. Why would that necessitate removing the ability for ICs to join units if they can only influence their own armies.
ClockworkZion wrote: ICs going away as a thing isn't a problem if it fixes the stupid desthstars that dominate games through rules exploits.
They have already said that keywords are going to prevent abuse. Also that allied armies won't be able to wreck the game. Why would that necessitate removing the ability for ICs to join units if they can only influence their own armies.
Buff abilities could change from unit to a aura bubble around the model.
I get what you're saying but until I see the rules and know for sure I can't see this as a possible bad thing right now.
What I don't get is why all these 'awww it's gonna be broken; hordes are gonna suck and ICs are gonna die immediately every game awwww' people think that they've cracked some kind of code or seen solved some kind of super secret puzzle in figuring out the systems as described by the PR person who did the very vague write up have areas where a particular playstyle or unit type might be overly vulnerable?
If you and I can see that gak in like 5 seconds do you really think frankie, reece, the adepticon guys or the Nova guys missed it? Do you really believe that players who are genuinely incredible at the game, who have gotten a chance to stress test these rules, who find breaking the system to be the most fun part of the game missed something that people on Dakka forums picked up?
There's so much special snowflake 'well I see a problem and because I'm so great there's no way that this problem could have already been solved in a way that's far more elegant than I would ever be capable of divining and there certainly isn't any amount of relevant information missing because this is how I think the game is going to be played.'
8th isn't going to be perfectly balanced, there will always be tiers of armies and certain playstyles will always be more efficient than others, and even small advantages will grow over time as players get better at exploiting them. That said, I think the age where a particular type of strategy being wholesale useless is gone. Not that it'll stop people from whining, the more balanced a game is the smaller the margin necessary to insight RAEG.
ClockworkZion wrote: ICs going away as a thing isn't a problem if it fixes the stupid desthstars that dominate games through rules exploits.
If they can still buff nearby units then deathstars wasn\t really fixed.
If they can't say with keywords doesn't really matter if they are in unit or not, deathstars got nerfed anyway.
Issue comes with preventing expensive ~3 wound models(if dreadnoughts, Guillimann etc have around 7-9 can't expect lowly chaplains to have many) getting sniped too easily. Even inability to target outside 12" as nafka rumour said wouldn't be much of a help.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ERJAK wrote: If you and I can see that gak in like 5 seconds do you really think frankie, reece, the adepticon guys or the Nova guys missed it? Do you really believe that players who are genuinely incredible at the game, who have gotten a chance to stress test these rules, who find breaking the system to be the most fun part of the game missed something that people on Dakka forums picked up?
Who says they called in the shots though?
As I have said before: GW has utilized hardcode tournament players in playtesting before. IT'S NOT A NEW THING! Yet why it didn't result in perfection before?
If a character can buff a unit but the same unit don't just become inmortal and make inmortal the own character that does the buff, then thats a nerf to deathstars.
The problem with deathstars now is that you can't negate the posibility of all the buffs. They just did it and you can't did nothing about it. Focusing the buffing characters of your enemy to negate them those synergies is a tactical choice to make during the game.
I agree that I don't want my characters to be sniped from 48" in turn 1, but we can't just want our characters to live all the game. Units have to die, if they find a good balance between making characters killable but not so much that is pointless to bring them, to me it will be fine.
Just get in the right mindset of "This character is in this unit, because he is marching up with them".
And when he dies, you can just pretend he's still alive!
Isn't that what we all do now anyway? Get's wounded and taken off the battlefield?
Though for real, what difference is there between a character joining a unit, or just marching with a unit in the sense of being with them?
It prevents breaking of rules, which is great.
Breaking of rules is prevented by keywords which prevent that multi buff. Without that they would buff units ANYWAY.
Difference is you can't expect your chaplains/librarians/commanders actually survive even one round of enemy shooting except when inside transport. The moment he's out he's almost certainly a dead guy. Leaves assault out of transport as only way they can actually do something.
Hopefully this is reflected in points so that they are dirt cheap though you can't still take many of them so they will have limited use anyway so would be cheapish fire magnet to protect your other tougher targets from enemy fire instead.
Dutch508 wrote: So, after about six years of being absent from wh40 and this forum I am back...
what's changed?
lol
Welcome to the "absent since the end of 5th edition because 40k became a clusterfeth an is now full of hope"-club ;-) *highfives Dutch*!
Dakka is a place full of negativity and cynicism, even more so than before, but still a very active place full of good comments and fast information delivery.
But my point is it's unlikely that position gave him ultimate authority(he was one of many) even then so if he now has ultimate power either GW retconned or that's new change after he woke up. Ie he usurped himself power he didn't have.
I don't think it has been said that he has any sort of ultimate authority, at least not de jure. He is 'just' one of the High Lords. I'm sure the other High Lords could oppose him if they had balls to do so
Well, we are talking about these shining beacons of proactivity and authority:
I doubt they put much of a fight when Rowboat waltzed in, grabbed the biggest chair around, put his feet on the desk and declared that "I am now in charge!".
That said I still doubt that he is now in charge or even control of the entire Imperium, the Mechanicus, Ecclesiarchy and Ministorum are each too gigantuan an institution for Girlyman to properly manage even if he dedicated his entire focus on it rather than going on a crusade far away from Terra, so they (especially the Mechanicus) will still do what they want even if they on the surface they give their agreement to whatever big G decides.
He likely is now effectively the Commander-in-Chief of the entire Imperial military though, so the high lords of the IG and Navy and Arbites won't have much say anymore. The Sororitas to some extend will likely do what he wants as well simply because he is the son of the Emperor and as a result going on a crusade with him is basically their wet dream, though the Ecclesiarchy might have a word to say in that as well.
So basically Girlyman will have control over the military aparatus and go on crusades somewhere in the middle of nowhere while the rest of the high lords still do their thing on Terra (so basically scratching their butts and getting nothing done, which means the Imperium will remain the gakky place it has been for most of the human population for the last tenthousand years).
Fluff discussion aside, the best thing that will hopefully come out of it now, is lost but alive primarchs like Vulkan and Russ popping back up now that GW has created a precedent and it won't interrupt the perpetual stalemate, especially the Wolves need it desperately now that they lost a big chunk of their manpower and most of their recruitement ability.
If you and I can see that gak in like 5 seconds do you really think frankie, reece, the adepticon guys or the Nova guys missed it? Do you really believe that players who are genuinely incredible at the game, who have gotten a chance to stress test these rules, who find breaking the system to be the most fun part of the game missed something that people on Dakka forums picked up?
Who says they missed it?
The fact that GW are using outside playtesters is in no way proof that everything the playtesters flag as an issue is acted upon.
Rippy wrote: Though for real, what difference is there between a character joining a unit, or just marching with a unit in the sense of being with them? .
The difference is in survivability.
Characters in units tend to live longer. Characters by themselves, unless you prohibit them from being targeted at all, tend to not.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Why are people so against characters joining units?
"Death stars!"
Fine. "Up to one Independent Character can be attached to a unit at any given time."
There. Done. No multi-character allies-shenanigan Death Stars, the former 'cause of the rule above, the latter due to keywords.
I don't think anyone is against character joining units. Is more a sentiment of "Meh, I don't care" that anything else. The Deathstar thing as you say can be just fixed with the use of keyword.
If they implement some style of "look out sir!" if the character is next to a ally unit of the same type (Infantry, vehicle, etc...) in a range of 2" or less, and let different units and characters go inside the same transport, really it will be basically the same as characters joining units, at least to me.
To some people, X rules are dealbreakers. Thats totally fine. But to others it just doesn't matter. Is not a fact of you love it or hate it. The mayority of the players (The silent mayority!) will just shrug their way throug the rulebook, as always.
I hope they take their time and slowly move the Primarchs back in... 1 or 2 a year would be great... Sanguinus clearly is coming back from the dead, Dorn can, Ferrus... not so much, so that's 7 more to go... so 5 years of pacing it out would be awesome. Though it seems right and proper that at least one refuses to come back. A dissenting opinion just seems right
As far as ICs go... just like just about everything else people are getting their panties in a bunch about... we don't know how anything works in its entirety... so all the pointless (probably disingenuous) ultimatums about you walking away from the game because of rule leak X can probably stop
Lobukia wrote: I hope they take their time and slowly move the Primarchs back in... 1 or 2 a year would be great... Sanguinus clearly is coming back from the dead, Dorn can, Ferrus... not so much, so that's 7 more to go... so 5 years of pacing it out would be awesome. Though it seems right and proper that at least one refuses to come back. A dissenting opinion just seems right
As far as ICs go... just like just about everything else people are getting their panties in a bunch about... we don't know how anything works in its entirety... so all the pointless (probably disingenuous) ultimatums about you walking away from the game because of rule leak X can probably stop
I feel like Khan has earned a little time in the spotlight somehow
Just get in the right mindset of "This character is in this unit, because he is marching up with them".
And when he dies, you can just pretend he's still alive!
Isn't that what we all do now anyway? Get's wounded and taken off the battlefield?
Though for real, what difference is there between a character joining a unit, or just marching with a unit in the sense of being with them?
It prevents breaking of rules, which is great.
Breaking of rules is prevented by keywords which prevent that multi buff. Without that they would buff units ANYWAY.
Difference is you can't expect your chaplains/librarians/commanders actually survive even one round of enemy shooting except when inside transport. The moment he's out he's almost certainly a dead guy. Leaves assault out of transport as only way they can actually do something.
Hopefully this is reflected in points so that they are dirt cheap though you can't still take many of them so they will have limited use anyway so would be cheapish fire magnet to protect your other tougher targets from enemy fire instead.
This is speculation at the moment, we don't know how shooting at characters is going to work yet. If they can be shot from anywhere by anything at anytime with LoS, then I will change my mind. My point was more about people getting upset about their characters not being in a unit, when for all intents and purposes, they are by walking next to them.
Well, I'm looking forward to dusting off my space mans for this. A good revamp was desperately needed. I wish they'd gone full unit activations rather than just in one phase, but I'll take what I can get. Interested in how my LotD turn out.
I remember playing against so many folks who forget which units suffered 25% casualties for morale purposes. Soon, we will need to track how many models were removed from a unit each turn for morale purposes. I am curious about how well this mechanic will play.
Sarigar wrote: I remember playing against so many folks who forget which units suffered 25% casualties for morale purposes. Soon, we will need to track how many models were removed from a unit each turn for morale purposes. I am curious about how well this mechanic will play.
Like it does in Sigmar probably. Lay your dead guys down or place dice next to a unit to show missing dudes from that turn (non-d6 or special color so they don't accidentally get picked up).
You only have to track the dead from a unit each turn so it's not a huge admin deal.
You already had to do similar junk to figure out if you'd achieved x% casualties due to shooting in previous editions.
Sarigar wrote: I remember playing against so many folks who forget which units suffered 25% casualties for morale purposes. Soon, we will need to track how many models were removed from a unit each turn for morale purposes. I am curious about how well this mechanic will play.
I was thinking this exact thing. It will be difficult or impossible to remember all of the deaths from the psychic, shooting, and combat phases for all units on the table.
I'm thinking about getting some matching D20s (I play orks, so 20 may not even be enough) to mark each unit.
On second thought, they don't have to all be D20s. Elites can get away with D12s, or even D8s for the tiny units
Sarigar wrote: I remember playing against so many folks who forget which units suffered 25% casualties for morale purposes. Soon, we will need to track how many models were removed from a unit each turn for morale purposes. I am curious about how well this mechanic will play.
For AoS I simply lay the model down next to the unit. After battleshock is resolved I moved the dead to the dead pile. It works fine in actual play.
I'm sure someone will comment next how it is the stuff of nightmares.
Rippy wrote: My point was more about people getting upset about their characters not being in a unit, when for all intents and purposes, they are by walking next to them.
Which was missing the reason that people are complaining. The issue isn't that people are worried their characters will be lonely. The issue is that removing the ability to join units means characters die.
Rippy wrote: My point was more about people getting upset about their characters not being in a unit, when for all intents and purposes, they are by walking next to them.
Which was missing the reason that people are complaining. The issue isn't that people are worried their characters will be lonely. The issue is that removing the ability to join units means characters die.
You're assuming there won't be some protections for characters. There is still a lot we don't know about 8th edition.
You're assuming there won't be some protections for characters. We don't know that.
No, I'm assuming there will be some protection for characters, but that unless it's a flat 'You can't target characters' it is likely to be as ineffectual a protection as it was in 4th edition.
Sarigar wrote: I remember playing against so many folks who forget which units suffered 25% casualties for morale purposes. Soon, we will need to track how many models were removed from a unit each turn for morale purposes. I am curious about how well this mechanic will play.
For AoS I simply lay the model down next to the unit. After battleshock is resolved I moved the dead to the dead pile. It works fine in actual play.
I'm sure someone will comment next how it is the stuff of nightmares.
I guess I'm hoping this will be intuitive for opponents. I'm a big fan of using markers/tokens which helps considerably. I've have multiple occasions playing against folks who do not do these kinds of things and it creates in game challenges. Some examples: morale, psychic powers in effect, flat out moves, wounds on models, soulfire, broken units, MSU armies and remembering which units already fired, damage effects on vehicles, etc... It's not anything intentional trying to mislead players, but these things come up.
Not overly challenging to overcome, but I'm thinking how this will actually play out on the tabletop.
Clearly those folks haven't played much AoS, then. Characters usually have ample wounds, excellent saves AND benefit from special rules on top of that. They're not enough to base the whole army on, but you get your points worth from the games we've played and watched.
Sarigar wrote: I remember playing against so many folks who forget which units suffered 25% casualties for morale purposes. Soon, we will need to track how many models were removed from a unit each turn for morale purposes. I am curious about how well this mechanic will play.
For AoS I simply lay the model down next to the unit. After battleshock is resolved I moved the dead to the dead pile. It works fine in actual play.
I'm sure someone will comment next how it is the stuff of nightmares.
I guess I'm hoping this will be intuitive for opponents. I'm a big fan of using markers/tokens which helps considerably. I've have multiple occasions playing against folks who do not do these kinds of things and it creates in game challenges. Some examples: morale, psychic powers in effect, flat out moves, wounds on models, soulfire, broken units, MSU armies and remembering which units already fired, damage effects on vehicles, etc... It's not anything intentional trying to mislead players, but these things come up.
Not overly challenging to overcome, but I'm thinking how this will actually play out on the tabletop.
You're assuming there won't be some protections for characters. We don't know that.
No, I'm assuming there will be some protection for characters, but that unless it's a flat 'You can't target characters' it is likely to be as ineffectual a protection as it was in 4th edition.
Okay, you've convince me, all is lost.
Can we have a dedicated thread for everyone to put videos of the burning armies.
Rippy wrote: My point was more about people getting upset about their characters not being in a unit, when for all intents and purposes, they are by walking next to them.
Which was missing the reason that people are complaining. The issue isn't that people are worried their characters will be lonely. The issue is that removing the ability to join units means characters die.
No, that was the issue you were complaining about. Look at who I replied to.
Sarigar wrote: I remember playing against so many folks who forget which units suffered 25% casualties for morale purposes. Soon, we will need to track how many models were removed from a unit each turn for morale purposes. I am curious about how well this mechanic will play.
For AoS I simply lay the model down next to the unit. After battleshock is resolved I moved the dead to the dead pile. It works fine in actual play.
I'm sure someone will comment next how it is the stuff of nightmares.
Nah it works fine. Reminds me of games of FB where we actually left dead models for rest of game (albeit THAT only works due to nature of armies odds of anybody moving over dead models was pretty small).
Would be my solution anyway. More visual than dices which I might accidentally knock off etc, easier than keeping track out of table.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
UltraPrime wrote: Surely you just put the models that died together, seperate from ones killed in previous turns? Seems straight forward enough.
Problem is separating "was this dead IG trooper from this unit or that unit?".
You either need some book keeping system out of board, dice or some other marker. Easiest solution is to have something near unit in question. Dice etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
privateer4hire wrote: Clearly those folks haven't played much AoS, then. Characters usually have ample wounds, excellent saves AND benefit from special rules on top of that. They're not enough to base the whole army on, but you get your points worth from the games we've played and watched.
3-4 wounds might be good in AOS with little shooting with multiple d6. Lascannon meanwhile tosses d6 damage. Multi-melta will likely be around same. Those will munch 3-4 wound characters like chaplains, commanders, commisars, chaplains etc without issue(and dont' expect 6+ wounds for those...) if they can be pointed with weapons at all. Even "can't target outside X" range" is meagre save in a game with fast glasshammers like landspeeders, buggies, vypers etc.
jamopower wrote: I don't think there are any characters with less than 5 wounds in AoS. And there are warp lighting cannons in that game as well.
Upper scale models have more wounds though. We know guillimann has 9, dreadnought 8. Unlikely something like basic librarian/chaplain is approaching those numbers...Nevermind commisars.
I am in the process of painting my Wolf Lord and the fun squad of WG Terminators he will be deepstriking into battle with...or...you know, not.
I have been searching for the source of the info about IC's no longer being able to join units. Is this still a rumor or has this been spoken about by GW themselves? My eyes hurt from trying to find the original post myself.
jamopower wrote: I don't think there are any characters with less than 5 wounds in AoS. And there are warp lighting cannons in that game as well.
Upper scale models have more wounds though. We know guillimann has 9, dreadnought 8. Unlikely something like basic librarian/chaplain is approaching those numbers...Nevermind commisars.
So chaplains could well have 5 wounds, making them quite unlike to be killed with a single multimelta shot from a land speeder etc. It's good to remember that 40k will have also the toughness value. It has quite a difference if you have 9 wounds with toughness 7 or 5 wounds with toughness 4.
Little shooting with multiple wounds in AoS? Big lols.
Also worth mentioning there are things in AoS that stop multiple damage, reduce a weapons damage characteristic. Have we seen all weapons profiles, or is chicken licken getting bumps on the head after seeing the lascannon
Also worth mentioning there are things in AoS that stop multiple damage, reduce a weapons damage characteristic. Have we seen all weapons profiles, or is chicken licken getting bumps on the head after seeing the lascannon
The sky has been falling in some new way every time they release a new rule. Literally the only thing I've seen people not put up as prime evidence that the world is ending is 2 wound terminators.
My favorite so far is how the bandwagon has done a complete 180 on guardsmen and not one even notices the hypocrisy/irony:
"Oh lasguns can hurt landraiders?!?!?! WTFBBQOMGKOS!!! Blobs of 50 guardsmen are gonna wreck whole tables! 8th is the SUCKS!"
"Oh morale is based on number of models lost?!?!?!?! WTFBBQOMGKOS!!! What about my blobs of 50 guardsmen? I'm not gonna be able to do ANYTHING! 8TH IS THE SUCKS!"
Or maybe it's actually possible to deduct things from rumours...People noted problems with 6th ed and 7th ed rules long before release from leaks and those were less accurate than now.
100% perfect? No. But funny that things don't need to be known 100% to have idea of how things go.
People have been able to figure out optimal builds of armies based on leaks before and sure enough they were the broken combos.
All this "just wait for full rules" is just ostrich sticking head under sand syndrome.
And btw lasgun vs landraider is less about it being broken and more about it being silly, unrealistic and unneeded.
tneva82 wrote: Or maybe it's actually possible to deduct things from rumours...People noted problems with 6th ed and 7th ed rules long before release from leaks and those were less accurate than now.
100% perfect? No. But funny that things don't need to be known 100% to have idea of how things go.
People have been able to figure out optimal builds of armies based on leaks before and sure enough they were the broken combos.
All this "just wait for full rules" is just ostrich sticking head under sand syndrome.
And btw lasgun vs landraider is less about it being broken and more about it being silly, unrealistic and unneeded.
Do I think it's possible to deduct things accurately from rumors? Absolutely, throw enough scrabble tiles at a wall and it'll eventually spell something. (And no ones been able to get an 'optimal' build from rumors lol. You can can get good builds, even great builds from unit stats but people tweak lists for months after they come out even ignoring a constantly shifting meta.)
Do I think YOU can or have accurately deducted things from rumors? No. It's chicken little syndrome plain and simple(lots of poultry up in here)
And silly, unrealistic and unneeded is the best tagline for 40k I've ever heard. Doesn't mean it's not great.
tneva82 wrote: Or maybe it's actually possible to deduct things from rumours...People noted problems with 6th ed and 7th ed rules long before release from leaks and those were less accurate than now.
100% perfect? No. But funny that things don't need to be known 100% to have idea of how things go.
People have been able to figure out optimal builds of armies based on leaks before and sure enough they were the broken combos.
All this "just wait for full rules" is just ostrich sticking head under sand syndrome.
And btw lasgun vs landraider is less about it being broken and more about it being silly, unrealistic and unneeded.
People were able to deduce things from 6e and 7e because there was complete information on all the codexes, plus the vast majority of core rules didn't change at all. Neither of those statements is true for 8th - we have no clue on points, unit special rules or whether rules for any given phase are close to what we have now. The contentions coming up thus far have largely been absurd. People argued vehicles would be too weak because of the lasgun thing, despite the maths showing that they'd be about as durable as they were in 5th. Then people complained that vehicles should be able to die in one hit, which we've had no confirmation of one way or the other, and it's a personal preference thing anyway (I personally hope instakills have disappeared).
Now we've got this, a situation where people are panicking about low leadership hordes dying to morale, despite not knowing ANY of the rules around unit sizes or what the rules for the units in question actually are, including whether they're totally fixed sizes, any Ld modifiers, how objectives are held, etc. I'm not going to say there's nothing to worry about, but the amount of people already calling for rules changes before even seeing the rules is ridiculous. For all we know, Orks gain 1 Ld per model in the unit, Tyranid monsters have 100 wounds each and guardsmen can have 1 special weapon per guy. We literally know almost nothing.
Eyjio wrote: People were able to deduce things from 6e and 7e because there was complete information on all the codexes, plus the vast majority of core rules didn't change at all. Neither of those statements is true for 8th - we have no clue on points, unit special rules or whether rules for any given phase are close to what we have now. The contentions coming up thus far have largely been absurd. People argued vehicles would be too weak because of the lasgun thing, despite the maths showing that they'd be about as durable as they were in 5th. Then people complained that vehicles should be able to die in one hit, which we've had no confirmation of one way or the other, and it's a personal preference thing anyway (I personally hope instakills have disappeared).
Now we've got this, a situation where people are panicking about low leadership hordes dying to morale, despite not knowing ANY of the rules around unit sizes or what the rules for the units in question actually are, including whether they're totally fixed sizes, any Ld modifiers, how objectives are held, etc. I'm not going to say there's nothing to worry about, but the amount of people already calling for rules changes before even seeing the rules is ridiculous. For all we know, Orks gain 1 Ld per model in the unit, Tyranid monsters have 100 wounds each and guardsmen can have 1 special weapon per guy. We literally know almost nothing.
We know already quite a lot and can adjust conclusion as we learn more thus shortening time we need to learn if we had waited until it's released. You can easily build up tree-branch of what if's and with new information drop incorrect branches and create new ones as needed.
You don't need to know 100% to start preparing. My holiday would have been lot harder if I had approached with that attitude. Instead I made plans as well as I could and made alternative plans based on what-if's. Information proved incorrect? Scrap those what-if's and take the ones that went accurate. Less time spent figuring on the spot.
And btw we didn't have complete leaks...We didn't get complete 7th ed leaked up and yet people could know ahead what were problems and what were new to-go list.
So 40k is getting AOSed... we are getting something like an End Times, we just don't call it that way cause we will upset people... I really wanna see where the game is going but I can tell you right now I don't like the direction.
tneva82 wrote: We know already quite a lot and can adjust conclusion as we learn more thus shortening time we need to learn if we had waited until it's released. You can easily build up tree-branch of what if's and with new information drop incorrect branches and create new ones as needed.
Do we? Okay, how is wound allocation actually resolved, including for multiwound models? How do vehicles degrade? Do monstrous creatures still have an inate save modifier? What's the points cost of a marine? How is night fighting handled, if it's still in? How are objectives controlled? What leadership modifiers are there in game? How do blast weapons work/ How do I deep strike? Is infiltration still in the game? How do reserves work? What's the profile of a plasma gun? Can you assault out of vehicles or is that a baseless rumour? How do I select psychic powers? What are the psychic powers for marines? How does terrain impact movement? What happens to units with BS currently above 5? How do characters work? How does a unit attack in combat, and from what distance? How are targets chosen for units in the shooting phase? How do thunder hammers work? How does melta work? Is summoning still in? Etc, etc.
How can you possibly say we know a lot when we can't even resolve a single phase of the game, don't know how to gain VP and have no idea what an army might look like? There's some total guesses at what we might see, but there's no evidence behind any of it.
You don't need to know 100% to start preparing. My holiday would have been lot harder if I had approached with that attitude. Instead I made plans as well as I could and made alternative plans based on what-if's. Information proved incorrect? Scrap those what-if's and take the ones that went accurate. Less time spent figuring on the spot.
And btw we didn't have complete leaks...We didn't get complete 7th ed leaked up and yet people could know ahead what were problems and what were new to-go list.
You don't need to know everything before you go on holiday, but knowing the destination, how to get there and how long you're staying would be good to know before anything else. Similarly, it might be a good idea to know how to play a single turn of the game from start to finish before panicking that X, Y and Z rules will cripple units A, B and C.
As for complete leaks, that's not what I said - I said that because not many of the rules changed, we knew the vast majority of the game so could judge the impact of the announced changes; that's not true for 8e. We DID, however, know ALL the rules for every unit in the game for 6e and 7e, because those were in codexes - we currently don't know those either.
Eyjio wrote: You don't need to know everything before you go on holiday, but knowing the destination, how to get there and how long you're staying would be good to know before anything else.
Yes and those we now know plus lot more.
We DID, however, know ALL the rules for every unit in the game for 6e and 7e, because those were in codexes - we currently don't know those either.
Not for new codexes...Yet even with incomplete info you got broken combos known.
I think the IC thing is an extrapolation from AoS - which given other stuff has been ported over isn't what I'd consider an unfair or baseless assumption.
However, it's also not a sure-thing. Given 40k has way more shooting, and at a longer range than AoS (seriously, AoS ranges are defo on the short-medium scale) it could be Characters can still formally join units as they can now.
As for it making characters more vulnerable? Yeah can't say I've got a lot of sympathy for that one. They're often the key to deathstar units (which are super dull), so knowing they risk being picked off with greater reliability is welcome in my book.
Regarding the Warzone Armageddon news posted on WarCom a few days ago
Since the warp rift tore through the heart of the galaxy, Armageddon has found itself directly in the path of The Blood Crusade, a vast legion of Khorne’s Daemons pouring into realspace.
The world looks set for one of the greatest wars in Imperial history. Greenskin, human and followers of the Blood God – all have unfinished business on the ash wastes of Armageddon, and only time will tell which force will triumph…
I scanned the story of the 1st Battle for Armageddon in Codex: Chaos (2nd Edition) and if they will go a similiar route like with Magnus and his revenge there is definitely a good chance Angron will return to Armageddon in that upcoming campaign
Frankly I've found the attempts to shut down all negativity far more unpleasant to read than any ammount of the negativity itself.
-This is a discussion board, positive and negative views are all part of the discussion.
-It is not unreasonable to comment on rules as they come out, or speculate on how they fit together. We'll get a fuller picture as we go, but there's no crime on commenting on the current picture.
-The idea that one must have perfect information to have an informed view is -sometimes- correct, but is being overused here. To use a fairly non-inflammatory analogy: You need to have a lot of information about Indiana Jones 4 to definitively comment on it's quality, but hearing without seeing it that it uses aliens is enough to comment on the idea of introducing aliens to a franchise without them, and how you think that could impact things.
-A lot is changing, and certain patterns are emerging. These are things which will inevitably cause a lot of negative feeling amongst many, and someone who lashes out at every detail has every bit as much right to discuss the new edition as someone who is hyped up to the point where they'll defend every single aspect of it.
Seems they may be the inadvertent salvation of the Imperium at that point.
Orks will go for the Daemons, as the promise da bestest fightin'. Allows The Imperium to regroup somewhat by going on the defensive - let the two invaders beat each other silly, then once supplies and troops are better organised, start strategic strikes.
Warhams-77 wrote: I scanned the story of the 1st Battle for Armageddon in Codex: Chaos (2nd Edition) and if they will go a similiar route like with Magnus and his revenge there is definitely a good chance Angron will return to Armageddon in that upcoming campaign
Which seeing Hastings said Mortarion&Angron as next 2 chaos primarch to come out isn't that surprising.
Mortarion with death guard, Angron with armageddon. Fits. Remains to be seen when Russ comes out.
Warhams-77 wrote: I scanned the story of the 1st Battle for Armageddon in Codex: Chaos (2nd Edition) and if they will go a similiar route like with Magnus and his revenge there is definitely a good chance Angron will return to Armageddon in that upcoming campaign
Which seeing Hastings said Mortarion&Angron as next 2 chaos primarch to come out isn't that surprising.
Mortarion with death guard, Angron with armageddon. Fits. Remains to be seen when Russ comes out.
Fulgrim had a role in the gathering storm after the return of gullieman, and implies we will see him agien. So realy looking foreword to the revel for what he has been planing.
Again, how can you say this when we can't resolve a single phase of the game? We don't even know how units work, including coherency and composition. If you want to go with the holiday analogy, it's like we've been told that there's sun, sand and sea, so you've come to the conclusion we're going to Yemen.
Not for new codexes...Yet even with incomplete info you got broken combos known.
Because we knew how the rest of the game worked. It turns out that it's easier to judge the power level of units when you actually know their rules, as well as the rules for literally everything else. You cannot be serious right now.
Sarigar wrote: I remember playing against so many folks who forget which units suffered 25% casualties for morale purposes. Soon, we will need to track how many models were removed from a unit each turn for morale purposes. I am curious about how well this mechanic will play.
Epic gave us a handy mechanic for that long ago. Blast markers!
Just lay one down in/next to the unit and you have a visually appealing way to track casualties for battle shock. At the very least that's how I'll be handling it.
Sarigar wrote: I remember playing against so many folks who forget which units suffered 25% casualties for morale purposes. Soon, we will need to track how many models were removed from a unit each turn for morale purposes. I am curious about how well this mechanic will play.
I plan to just lay them down until battle shock phase.
I remember once that 6 of us spent an entire tournament - 5 games a piece - without remember to do a single lea... oh no wait we didn't 'cause it's an easy rule to remember.
Saying that pinning/morale tests tests were somehow difficult to track, or were too complicate to work elegantly, reminds me of the people you see struggling at simple tasks in infomercials.
Yeah, it's not exactly an intellectual challenge to keep track of what's been killed in a given turn.
For those who don't trust their memory for whatever reason, popping the models on the unit card is an easy way to see what's been jobbed, or simply use kill markers of your own devising.
Warhams-77 wrote: Regarding the Warzone Armageddon news posted on WarCom a few days ago
Since the warp rift tore through the heart of the galaxy, Armageddon has found itself directly in the path of The Blood Crusade, a vast legion of Khorne’s Daemons pouring into realspace.
The world looks set for one of the greatest wars in Imperial history. Greenskin, human and followers of the Blood God – all have unfinished business on the ash wastes of Armageddon, and only time will tell which force will triumph…
I scanned the story of the 1st Battle for Armageddon in Codex: Chaos (2nd Edition) and if they will go a similiar route like with Magnus and his revenge there is definitely a good chance Angron will return to Armageddon in that upcoming campaign
Spoiler:
Thanks enjoyed reading that again - interesting the differences between that and the current story- ie that its the Administratum not the Inquisition that deals with the aftermath causes the bad blood between them and the Wolves.
I hope they don't mess the Armageddon background up with more battles and nuMarines backhanding Angron or something. The Armageddon campaign is very dear to me and those battle reports with Basilisks dropping pie plates from different tables...so good. I mean, I'm not actively reading current background -tried with the nuWulfen Warzone and man was that badly written- but knowing they messed it up would make me bummed out. Roboute being back and NewCrons is bad enough.
Are there any rumours on starter set price? The cheap DV price point is not realistic I guess with the same amount of models (or less), but I'm dreading it might be more than the AoS starter. I'll want at least two Nurgle halves, though. And desicated multipart kits. With a new Armagedson campaign with Khorne new Berzerkers are probably a thing as well. NuMarines might work for my true scale/bigger Word Bearers. Chaos Marines getting some love is so exciting.
So far I am still optimistic for the new ed. 8th was too much with its formations, and I am glad the storyline is moving in new ways.
The former ork player in me reels at battleshock rules, and the numarines really dont sit well, but overall it's looking like an improvement to me.
Kinda wish they'd start dropping some unit profiles/army rules now. The maim rules could be perfect, but it wouldn't mean squat to a lot of us if our models end up with awful rules!
Sooo, considering that the red line has been crossed and Girlyman is now back and kicking and more and more Demon primarchs get thrown back into the fight, it seems rather obvious that GW will very likely bring back more loyalist primarchs to get an equal balance of power and drive the story forward. Two big candidates are Russ and good old Johnson the Lion, both of their chapters having their own product lines and being very popular, more so than the Salamanders, Raven Guard or White Scars (with the other three MIA primarchs).
So I did some reading today on 1d4chan for funs and giggles, and stumbled on this, an excerpt from the 2014 audio drama "Parting Ways", Russes speech before he left the Fang:
Then Russ dropped his drinking horn on the board and then started to speak not to his warriors, but to himself or to some presence that was unseen. “It remains unfinished… I have waited for too long, building this mountain squabbling with Gulliman, I will not grow old, feeble, limping around a crumbling inheritance, I have and Oath to keep there are beasts left to slay.” At this point Russ where fully immersed in his premonitions and he looked around the room a smile dancing on his fanged face, seeing thing from either long ago or yet to come. “Listen by closely my brothers, there shall come a time far from now, where the chapter itself is dying and our foes shall gather to destroy us.” “Then my sons I shall listen for your call, in whatever realm holds me and come I shall, no matter what the laws of life and death forbid.” “At the end I will be there for the final battle FOR THE WOLF TIME!”
What happened to the Wolves lately? Near destruction and with most of their recruitement options gone they are pretty much a dying chapter. Also Russ is dicking around somewhere in the warp and trolling the Chaos gods, so that fits the "whatever realm holds me" description as well. Magnus wrecked Fenris and Chaos is conducting a massive push into the heart of the Imperium, fitting the "foes shall gather to destroy us bit". And GW is liberally reminding us of that as well, considering the not even a week old NuMarine teaser and how Guilliman calls the Wolves as on the brink of destruction. And Russ would make for one hell of an opponent for the recently released Magnus. And he would create some much welcomed opposition to Rowboat who is currently on one hell of a power trip.
Now one could argue that's just an old Black Library Audio diary, but here comes the kicker:
Lexicanum wrote:Parting of the Ways is an audio drama by Chris Wraight. It was released online in October 2014.
In December 2016, it was chosen by Matt Renshaw (Black Library's audio producer) for Black Library's Hall of Fame collection.
Chosen for the Black Library's Hall of Fame mere months ago while the GW storywriters were already hard at work writing the future story progression? Doesn't sound like a coincidence to me.
Guess after Mortarion we might see Russ as next loyalist Primarch on the tables, maybe even this year.
Sarigar wrote: I remember playing against so many folks who forget which units suffered 25% casualties for morale purposes. Soon, we will need to track how many models were removed from a unit each turn for morale purposes. I am curious about how well this mechanic will play.
I plan to just lay them down until battle shock phase.
It works quite easily, as axisofentropy said you just lay the casualties down. This similar mechanic is in AoS however and I will tell you its brutal to watch 5 guys "flee" or "tend to the wounded" when you flub a morale roll.
As long as all the Primarch / bigmarines / updated storyline stuff is done in such a way that I can completely ignore it, I'll be happy just to crack on with the new rules.
Ragnar Blackmane wrote: Sooo, considering that the red line has been crossed and Girlyman is now back and kicking and more and more Demon primarchs get thrown back into the fight, it seems rather obvious that GW will very likely bring back more loyalist primarchs to get an equal balance of power and drive the story forward. Two big candidates are Russ and good old Johnson the Lion, both of their chapters having their own product lines and being very popular, more so than the Salamanders, Raven Guard or White Scars (with the other three MIA primarchs).
So I did some reading today on 1d4chan for funs and giggles, and stumbled on this, an excerpt from the 2014 audio drama "Parting Ways", Russes speech before he left the Fang:
Then Russ dropped his drinking horn on the board and then started to speak not to his warriors, but to himself or to some presence that was unseen. “It remains unfinished… I have waited for too long, building this mountain squabbling with Gulliman, I will not grow old, feeble, limping around a crumbling inheritance, I have and Oath to keep there are beasts left to slay.” At this point Russ where fully immersed in his premonitions and he looked around the room a smile dancing on his fanged face, seeing thing from either long ago or yet to come. “Listen by closely my brothers, there shall come a time far from now, where the chapter itself is dying and our foes shall gather to destroy us.” “Then my sons I shall listen for your call, in whatever realm holds me and come I shall, no matter what the laws of life and death forbid.” “At the end I will be there for the final battle FOR THE WOLF TIME!”
What happened to the Wolves lately? Near destruction and with most of their recruitement options gone they are pretty much a dying chapter. Also Russ is dicking around somewhere in the warp and trolling the Chaos gods, so that fits the "whatever realm holds me" description as well. Magnus wrecked Fenris and Chaos is conducting a massive push into the heart of the Imperium, fitting the "foes shall gather to destroy us bit". And GW is liberally reminding us of that as well, considering the not even a week old NuMarine teaser and how Guilliman calls the Wolves as on the brink of destruction. And Russ would make for one hell of an opponent for the recently released Magnus. And he would create some much welcomed opposition to Rowboat who is currently on one hell of a power trip.
Now one could argue that's just an old Black Library Audio diary, but here comes the kicker:
Lexicanum wrote:Parting of the Ways is an audio drama by Chris Wraight. It was released online in October 2014.
In December 2016, it was chosen by Matt Renshaw (Black Library's audio producer) for Black Library's Hall of Fame collection.
Chosen for the Black Library's Hall of Fame mere months ago while the GW storywriters were already hard at work writing the future story progression? Doesn't sound like a coincidence to me.
Guess after Mortarion we might see Russ as next loyalist Primarch on the tables, maybe even this year.
Yes, Russ is the most likely loyal primarch to come next, Hastings also said this last year. But this speech of Russ was already in the 2nd edition codex
Yes, Russ is the most likely loyal primarch to come next, Hastings also said this last year. But this speech of Russ was already in the 2nd edition codex
Well, I only started playing Wolves with the 3rd Edition codex, may my ignorance be forgiven .
Two big candidates are Russ and good old Johnson the Lion, both of their chapters having their own product lines and being very popular, more so than the Salamanders, Raven Guard or White Scars (with the other three MIA primarchs).
Weird how if you keep supporting one line that those not supported are less popular.....
I think Russ is a given, the more I read about the Lion the less I want to see him - much more interested in the Khan or Vulkan.
Grinshanks wrote: So far I am still optimistic for the new ed. 8th was too much with its formations, and I am glad the storyline is moving in new ways.
The former ork player in me reels at battleshock rules, and the numarines really dont sit well, but overall it's looking like an improvement to me.
Kinda wish they'd start dropping some unit profiles/army rules now. The maim rules could be perfect, but it wouldn't mean squat to a lot of us if our models end up with awful rules!
I wouldn't freak out about battleshock just yet. AoS has something similar and almost every general can use a Command to make a unit ignore battleshock.
Battle-forged armies will be familiar to Warhammer 40,000 players today – it basically means that all the models in your army are part of a Detachment or Formation.
That is still largely true in the new Warhammer 40,000, but with a few changes.
The biggest of which is… wait for it…<puff of smoke>
Formations are gone.
That’s right, no more Formations. But don’t panic!
If your army is built using Formations right now, you’re going to be fine. In their place are a dozen new game-wide Detachments that are available to all factions. These are flexible enough that all of your current forces can be fit into them to form a Battle-forged army. The advantage of these is that all factions now have an even playing field of list building mechanics, rather than some having loads and some having to stick with the trusty Combined Arms option for every game.
These detachments are made up of a combination of 9 unit types, which will look very familiar to anyone who has played Warhammer 40,000 in the past two decades. Some you’ll recognise from Space Marines company markings and the classic Combined Arms detachment of today, plus Lords of War, Fortifications and the new one – Flyers, now with their own slot.
These Detachments come with a few benefits and restrictions. The most common restriction is that all units in a single Detachment must share a faction keyword (Tyranid, Blood Angels or Imperium for example). The most common bonus is that, depending on how optimised your army is for the logistics of war, you’ll get Command Points to spend. We’ll cover exactly what these can do for you soon, but trust us when we say they are incredibly useful if used wisely, and you generally get more of them if your army is a well rounded and balanced force.
Here are a few examples:
These are just a taste of the options available.
Battle-forged armies can be used with our without points, and we fully expect gamers playing matched or narrative play games to use these in most situations as they tend to create effective armies on the tabletop that also fit the background and lore of the setting. Matched play actually has a few extra rules too, designed for competitive events, which organisers can choose to use when setting the rules for Battle-forged armies – limits on the number of separate Detachments is one example.
We’ll be back again tomorrow with more news from the new Warhammer 40,000.
So Formations are gone, and good riddance. Flyers and dedicated transports are now their own type. Overall the new system just appears to be expanded FoCs, which is fine.
I keep seeing this Keyword thing cropping up but could anyone be kind enough to explain what it is? I feel like I've missed something important. Thanks!
This is the BEST thing I've seen so far. It has me very excited for 8th edition. No more broken formations! Scaling detachments with reasonable troop requirements! I'm in heaven.
Essentially, Keywords are how your army will interact.
So for instance Guilliman might have abilities that affect Ultramarines, and Ultramarines is a Keyword for the unit, separate from the noun Ultramarine (I've used bold to help illustrate).
So for Guilliman, only Ultramarines could benefit from (the entirely made up) special rule Ultramarines Are The Best. Whereas the (equally entirely made up) Astartes Are Pretty Good In General Though would affect Astartes, which for the purpose of illustration each and every Space Marine unit would have as a keyword.
EDIT: Ah crap, this is what I get for failing to read up the page. Disregard redundant post.
Spoiler:
Posted 05/05/2017
New Warhammer 40,000: Battle-forged Armies
Battle-forged armies will be familiar to Warhammer 40,000 players today – it basically means that all the models in your army are part of a Detachment or Formation.
That is still largely true in the new Warhammer 40,000, but with a few changes.
The biggest of which is… wait for it…<puff of smoke>
Formations are gone.
That’s right, no more Formations. But don’t panic!
If your army is built using Formations right now, you’re going to be fine. In their place are a dozen new game-wide Detachments that are available to all factions. These are flexible enough that all of your current forces can be fit into them to form a Battle-forged army. The advantage of these is that all factions now have an even playing field of list building mechanics, rather than some having loads and some having to stick with the trusty Combined Arms option for every game.
These detachments are made up of a combination of 9 unit types, which will look very familiar to anyone who has played Warhammer 40,000 in the past two decades. Some you’ll recognise from Space Marines company markings and the classic Combined Arms detachment of today, plus Lords of War, Fortifications and the new one – Flyers, now with their own slot.
These Detachments come with a few benefits and restrictions. The most common restriction is that all units in a single Detachment must share a faction keyword (Tyranid, Blood Angels or Imperium for example). The most common bonus is that, depending on how optimised your army is for the logistics of war, you’ll get Command Points to spend. We’ll cover exactly what these can do for you soon, but trust us when we say they are incredibly useful if used wisely, and you generally get more of them if your army is a well rounded and balanced force.
Here are a few examples:
These are just a taste of the options available.
Battle-forged armies can be used with or without points, and we fully expect gamers playing matched or narrative play games to use these in most situations as they tend to create effective armies on the tabletop that also fit the background and lore of the setting. Matched play actually has a few extra rules too, designed for competitive events, which organisers can choose to use when setting the rules for Battle-forged armies – limits on the number of separate Detachments is one example.
We’ll be back again tomorrow with more news from the new Warhammer 40,000.
The doing away with Formations as we know them isn't unwelcome. They'd been dished out haphazardly after all.
But, I still expect to see army exclusive Detachment organisations, even if they ultimately match the above, but shifting what the minimums are (so for instance, Codex White Scars would hypothetically replace Troops with Fast Attack for minimum slots, but gain exactly the same benefits)
So for Guilliman, only Ultramarines could benefit from (the entirely made up) special rule Ultramarines Are The Best. Whereas the (equally entirely made up) Astartes Are Pretty Good In General Though would affect Astartes, which for the purpose of illustration each and every Space Marine unit would have as a keyword.
OMG! They're making Smurfs better than other marines?!? That's it, I'm out, off to burn my army, back in 5 minutes.
If HQ's are required for all armies now it suggests some changes to Harlequins and Skitarii, combined Admech confirmed? Or at least crossover keywords.
Formations gone - hurray! I liked the idea, but they made every game feel pretty similar by the end of it.
Dedicated transports and flyers getting their own spots - interesting, allows more transports to be taken for sure.
New detachments - WTF? Command points have to be extraordinarily powerful for this system to work; if they aren't, expect to see a lot of 1x patrol detachment+ actual army 2. Seriously, this looks no different to the 6e system which was very breakable, even without keywords. I know it says TOs can limit the number of detachments taken, but really, that's always been the case. It might actually be worse - if there's no ally rule restrictions (and I'm assuming if there were, they'd be mentioned), then what would stop you adding, say, a Farseer to an Ork army? Seems dumb, I can't imagine the command points having enough impact to mitigate this at all.
Interesting that none of the detachments shown have LOW or fortification slots in contrast to the detachments now; I wonder how restricted they'll be then. That said, if all armies are meant to be viable, presumably there's one for the Knights which is 3-4 LOW slots on their own...
I love it. It's nice to have flexibility in what I can take. I can take a bunch of Scouts to go with my Tactical Marines now and still get the full benefits of the detachment.
Lots more Elites slots now for those Dreadnoughts I'll be fielding too.
Great choice for GW to nuke formations and put people back to using battle forged without unlikely allies. Hopefully this brings sanity back to the game,
HOWEVER, as usual.. there is a bizarre decision.
The most common restriction is that all units in a single Detachment must share a faction keyword (Tyranid, Blood Angels or Imperium for example).
Seems fair, you can use all units in the Tyranid Faction or I can use all the units in the IMPERIUM faction to build my list! Why even have any other faction?? Maybe that just means stuff like Inquisition.
So long as they balance out the existing armies (i.e. they don't balance the tax of taking Fire Warriors against the boost of taking Eldar Jetbikes), this would go a long way towards evening the playing field and removing the worst of the formation abuses.
There will still be the Faction-specific detachments, if rumors/statements hold true, that might unbalance things one way or the other...
Kirasu wrote: Great choice for GW to nuke formations and put people back to using battle forged without unlikely allies. Hopefully this brings sanity back to the game,
HOWEVER, as usual.. there is a bizarre decision.
The most common restriction is that all units in a single Detachment must share a faction keyword (Tyranid, Blood Angels or Imperium for example).
Seems fair, you can use all units in the Tyranid Faction or I can use all the units in the IMPERIUM faction to build my list! Why even have any other faction?? Maybe that just means stuff like Inquisition.
To help avoid Deathstars I guess - and I suspect there may be as yet unexplored rules about how Deatchments in a single army interact. Perhaps along the lines of Command Benefits can only be spent within their own Detachments, and the same for character special rules? So He'Stan's super-duper flamers can never help out SoB for instance?
TonyL707 wrote: If HQ's are required for all armies now it suggests some changes to Harlequins and Skitarii, combined Admech confirmed? Or at least crossover keywords.
This is only a fraction of the detachments. The Q&A said there would be like thirteen detachments or so.
Meaning they are part of Grand Alliance of Destruction, Type Orruk, Type Greenskin, Type Orruks.
The last one is almost always the units name.
An Orruk Warboss says:
DESTRUCTION, ORRUK, GREENSKINZ, HERO, ORRUK WARBOSS
You will notice he is a Hero. Which means in AoS he cannot join units and has some special rules.
He also has abilities on his warscroll that effect a special type of unit:
Great Waaagh! Banner:
An Orruk Warboss with a Great Waaagh! Banner
gains the Totem keyword. You can re-roll
all wound rolls of 1 for Orruk units from
your army that are within 16" of a Great Waaagh! Banner when they attack in the combat phase.
So, as written his waaagh only effects Orruk units. This means while acting as a totem he is best paired with units of that type.
New detachments - WTF? Command points have to be extraordinarily powerful for this system to work; if they aren't, expect to see a lot of 1x patrol detachment+ actual army 2. Seriously, this looks no different to the 6e system which was very breakable, even without keywords. I know it says TOs can limit the number of detachments taken, but really, that's always been the case. It might actually be worse - if there's no ally rule restrictions (and I'm assuming if there were, they'd be mentioned), then what would stop you adding, say, a Farseer to an Ork army? Seems dumb, I can't imagine the command points having enough impact to mitigate this at all.
I mean there may be specific ally restrictions but even if there aren't, with the system of Tags that Farseer is only going to be buffing that unit of Guardians or Dire Avengers your brought to meet the Patrol requirements. As there are no generic psychic powers which buff units (unlike Mystic Shield in AoS) I suspect all faction psychic powers which buff units will only apply to units with particular tags.
I think the biggest takeaway from this article is the fact that they didn't tease the next article for tomorrow. This makes me believe they will be announcing preorders tomorrow since they said very clearly at the start of these teasers that they will be releasing an article every day until release. If no article is teased or planned for tomorrow we may be on the eve of release or preorders.
The new battle forged armies are pretty sweet too. Looks like it will be much easier to take an "allied detachment" with just one HQ and Troop required. Also cultists get rhinos potentially.
So for instance Guilliman might have abilities that affect Ultramarines, and Ultramarines is a Keyword for the unit, separate from the noun Ultramarine (I've used bold to help illustrate).
So for Guilliman, only Ultramarines could benefit from (the entirely made up) special rule Ultramarines Are The Best. Whereas the (equally entirely made up) Astartes Are Pretty Good In General Though would affect Astartes, which for the purpose of illustration each and every Space Marine unit would have as a keyword.
Ah, ok. So units such as HQs can buff other units and the keywords let us know which units get the effects? Sounds pretty straightforward to me. Thanks very much
ColdSadHungry wrote: I keep seeing this Keyword thing cropping up but could anyone be kind enough to explain what it is? I feel like I've missed something important. Thanks!
In AoS, each unit has a set of Keywords that define what type of unit it is. This impacts various abilities. Assuming the AoS keyword system is used...
An Ultramarines Captain might have the following keywords... "Imperium of Man; Adeptes Astartes; Ultramarines; Captain"
A Blood Angels Tactical Squad might have the following keywords... "Imperium of Man; Adeptes Astartes; Blood Angels; Tactical Squad"
Any ability that affects Imperium of Man or Adeptes Astartes units will affect both. Any ability that affects Blood Angels will only affect the second unit.
In AoS, it was common for a Skaven commander dude to have abilities that only worked on units with the Skaven keyword. You could take whatever "troops" you wanted, but it made the most sense to take Skaven troops to take advantage of the commander dude's abilities.
SO... you COULD use Imperium of Man as your common faction keyword and build a force org chart out of a variety of units, but that Ultramarines Captain you take will only benefit other Ultramarines units. In that way, players are encouraged to take the same "sub factions". Synergy falls apart when you fracture your force.
Kirasu wrote: Great choice for GW to nuke formations and put people back to using battle forged without unlikely allies. Hopefully this brings sanity back to the game,
HOWEVER, as usual.. there is a bizarre decision.
The most common restriction is that all units in a single Detachment must share a faction keyword (Tyranid, Blood Angels or Imperium for example).
Seems fair, you can use all units in the Tyranid Faction or I can use all the units in the IMPERIUM faction to build my list! Why even have any other faction?? Maybe that just means stuff like Inquisition.
Likely because there will be a Blood Angel only Detachment that gets crazy good bonuses so you would pick that instead of Imperium and be forced to bring other Imperial units in a different detachment.
In AoS (I know, again), the more specific the keywords of your army, generally the better it works together thanks to buffs, synergies, or just plain army bonuses.
I wonder if everything will follow the same basic ratios or if there will be anything that allow for more of one thing but less of another. Perhaps something like more fast attack slots but less heavy support.
I liked the idea of the special snowflake detachments of formations from 7th but this should lead to better balancing, particularly if they re-balance points yearly.
ColdSadHungry wrote: I keep seeing this Keyword thing cropping up but could anyone be kind enough to explain what it is? I feel like I've missed something important. Thanks!
Its something you see in a number of game systems from Malifaux to Heroscape.
Basically a given model or unit can have one of more "keywords" so for instance IMPERIUM, ASTARTES, SORORITAS, HERO, ELDAR, DAEMON etc
Then you can simply say that a given effect, ability or similar effects a unit or model with that Keyword:
So Saint Celestine may add +1 to the Leadership of All IMPERIUM units, she might give +2 Leadership to all SORORITAS units. She might receive +1 to hit versus DAEMON units
Its a nice slick system that allows you to do lots of things in a intuitive way.
So long as they balance out the existing armies (i.e. they don't balance the tax of taking Fire Warriors against the boost of taking Eldar Jetbikes), this would go a long way towards evening the playing field and removing the worst of the formation abuses.
There will still be the Faction-specific detachments, if rumors/statements hold true, that might unbalance things one way or the other...
But yeah, I'm happy with this.
Provided Jetbikes remain Troops and don't shift back to Fast Attack.
I despise the "1 HQ 2 Troops" methodology. I loved Skitarii for not having an HQ.
These are three of a great many detachments to choose from though.
You cannot tell me that I can build a list using my Stealth Suits, Pathfinders, Piranhas, and Ghostkeels under the showcased Detachments.
Formations were far, far superior.
They only showed three, and then said there would be around 12 (iirc) basic ones in the book and more for each specific faction. So there very well could be a Tau one that allows only suits. And also some of those units you listed might become Troops in the new edition.
But please, tell us how it's bad before we have all the information instead.
I despise the "1 HQ 2 Troops" methodology. I loved Skitarii for not having an HQ.
I really dislike this change and think it is a huge step backwards.
More specifically than what people have said already, GW also said that all formations currently playable can be made from these detachements, so I assume one of them mimics the Skitarii battle maniple.
I despise the "1 HQ 2 Troops" methodology. I loved Skitarii for not having an HQ.
These are three of a great many detachments to choose from though.
You cannot tell me that I can build a list using my Stealth Suits, Pathfinders, Piranhas, and Ghostkeels under the showcased Detachments.
Formations were far, far superior.
We don't even know if all the units you listed are going to be in the same slots they were previously or what keywords they will have or the other 6 detachments they didn't show us or if you will even want to take those units. Also, formations were not superior, they were silly additions to the game that artificially "fixed" and "buffed" certain armies with little to no downsides while other armies gained nothing. They completely broke any semblance of balance the game had over time. I'm glad the core rules put everyone on an even playing field so the army rules can manipulate them.
I despise the "1 HQ 2 Troops" methodology. I loved Skitarii for not having an HQ.
I really dislike this change and think it is a huge step backwards.
Formations in 7th Ed that had been given to all armies and/or points costed would have potentially worked - instead they were flung out willy nilly to power dexes to boost them further and begrudgingly given out to any one else.
Now from those posts it looks like formations will still be there (its even in the first line!) just not called that.
andysonic1 wrote: I think the biggest takeaway from this article is the fact that they didn't tease the next article for tomorrow. This makes me believe they will be announcing preorders tomorrow since they said very clearly at the start of these teasers that they will be releasing an article every day until release. If no article is teased or planned for tomorrow we may be on the eve of release or preorders.
The new battle forged armies are pretty sweet too. Looks like it will be much easier to take an "allied detachment" with just one HQ and Troop required. Also cultists get rhinos potentially.
They haven't been posting on the weekends, so no guarantee of anything tomorrow.
So long as they balance out the existing armies (i.e. they don't balance the tax of taking Fire Warriors against the boost of taking Eldar Jetbikes), this would go a long way towards evening the playing field and removing the worst of the formation abuses.
There will still be the Faction-specific detachments, if rumors/statements hold true, that might unbalance things one way or the other...
But yeah, I'm happy with this.
Provided Jetbikes remain Troops and don't shift back to Fast Attack.
There's a lot of ways they could rebalance things in that regard, and I've no idea how well they've done so (and won't, until I see the final product and have a while to digest it).
But I absolutely am not crying that the sky is falling - while all 3 examples we've seen have require HQ and Troops, I suspect we'll see Detachments that are more focused on other types. I'm guessing that the Detachments we've seen are nearly exhaustive of the CAD-equivalents we'll find among detachments - instead, I figure Elite-heavy, Fast Attack-heavy, Flyer-only, and Lord of War-focused Detachments (etc., etc.) will fill out the rest of the 14 we've been told will make up the initial release's base rules.
They've promised that formations are gone, but that they can mostly be remade. HQ-less and/or Troopless Detachments, then, seem almost inevitable.
I despise the "1 HQ 2 Troops" methodology. I loved Skitarii for not having an HQ.
These are three of a great many detachments to choose from though.
You cannot tell me that I can build a list using my Stealth Suits, Pathfinders, Piranhas, and Ghostkeels under the showcased Detachments.
Formations were far, far superior.
That's right. We can't tell you that. But nor can you claim it, because there's a boatload of detachments we're yet to see. So we're all flying blind.
Sure I can claim it.
Because right now, as of the information we got today, I can't do that. They gave us three that are just variations on the same thing.
That's a quarter of the "new detachments" already showcased where it's just adding in more Troops and HQs.
I can't ever think of a time in the past where I've said "Man, I really wish I had a way to take more HQs".
The doing away with Formations as we know them isn't unwelcome. They'd been dished out haphazardly after all.
But, I still expect to see army exclusive Detachment organisations, even if they ultimately match the above, but shifting what the minimums are (so for instance, Codex White Scars would hypothetically replace Troops with Fast Attack for minimum slots, but gain exactly the same benefits)
I don't know, with 14 unique FOC's available to everyone, it stands to reason that there will be ones that are Elite, Fast Attack and Heavy Support centric anyway. I wouldn't be surprised if army specific FOC's make a comeback but it certainly feels that the core set up of the game leaves a lot less space for them (Tyranids for instance would gravitate towards that brigade detachment, it's pretty easy for them to fill out all minimum requirements and still come in under 2000pts). However, we have allready been told that all armies wil get their own specific Command Points (maybe there will be generic command points available to all armies as well) and I expect thats where the focus will be on instead of giving every army a unique FOC.
Kirasu wrote: Seems fair, you can use all units in the Tyranid Faction or I can use all the units in the IMPERIUM faction to build my list! Why even have any other faction?? Maybe that just means stuff like Inquisition.
Yeah I'm a little skeptical here too.
Hopefully they mean more specific factions, I.E. Black Templars, Dark Angels, Imperial Guard/Astra Militarum, etc. rather than IMPERIUM or CHAOS.
And while I'm ok with formations going away, I still hope that there's some form of allies possible, as under a keyword system you can deal with the shenanigans which arise from Deathstars.
andysonic1 wrote: I think the biggest takeaway from this article is the fact that they didn't tease the next article for tomorrow. This makes me believe they will be announcing preorders tomorrow since they said very clearly at the start of these teasers that they will be releasing an article every day until release. If no article is teased or planned for tomorrow we may be on the eve of release or preorders.
The new battle forged armies are pretty sweet too. Looks like it will be much easier to take an "allied detachment" with just one HQ and Troop required. Also cultists get rhinos potentially.
They haven't been posting on the weekends, so no guarantee of anything tomorrow.
They just posted last weekend and the end of this post said they would have something tomorrow tho.
I despise the "1 HQ 2 Troops" methodology. I loved Skitarii for not having an HQ.
I really dislike this change and think it is a huge step backwards.
Formations in 7th Ed that had been given to all armies and/or points costed would have potentially worked - instead they were flung out willy nilly to power dexes to boost them further and begrudgingly given out to any one else.
Now from those posts it looks like formations will still be there (its even in the first line!) just not called that.
100% agreed. Formations COULD have been awesome, but in practice created some massive power divides. I'm not a fan of free benefits with no downside. That downside could be a points cost (formations were free) or some other sort of restriction.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I remember once that 6 of us spent an entire tournament - 5 games a piece - without remember to do a single lea... oh no wait we didn't 'cause it's an easy rule to remember.
Saying that pinning/morale tests tests were somehow difficult to track, or were too complicate to work elegantly, reminds me of the people you see struggling at simple tasks in infomercials.
Oh great, let's mock others for the inability to do things you can do! Glad you stopped by! /s
I despise the "1 HQ 2 Troops" methodology. I loved Skitarii for not having an HQ.
I really dislike this change and think it is a huge step backwards.
Formations in 7th Ed that had been given to all armies and/or points costed would have potentially worked - instead they were flung out willy nilly to power dexes to boost them further and begrudgingly given out to any one else.
Now from those posts it looks like formations will still be there (its even in the first line!) just not called that.
100% agreed. Formations COULD have been awesome, but in practice created some massive power divides. I'm not a fan of free benefits with no downside. That downside could be a points cost (formations were free) or some other sort of restriction.
Putting it bluntly, the problem was very rarely the formations.
It was the way players utilized them.
Skyhammer, for example, could have been easily fixed by making it so that Independent Characters couldn't benefit from it. But people argued till they were blue in the face that it had to confer and GW caved.
Battle Demi-Company and the "free" Dedicated Transports?
Required Tactical Squad sizes of 10--boom, no freebie Razorbacks from the 6 Tactical Squads.
And let's not even start looking at the whole nonsense with "Superfriends" and Librarius Conclaves. That could have been avoided from day one if someone had written "Chapter Tactics" into DA, BA, and SW.
andysonic1 wrote: I think the biggest takeaway from this article is the fact that they didn't tease the next article for tomorrow. This makes me believe they will be announcing preorders tomorrow since they said very clearly at the start of these teasers that they will be releasing an article every day until release. If no article is teased or planned for tomorrow we may be on the eve of release or preorders.
The new battle forged armies are pretty sweet too. Looks like it will be much easier to take an "allied detachment" with just one HQ and Troop required. Also cultists get rhinos potentially.
They haven't been posting on the weekends, so no guarantee of anything tomorrow.
They just posted last weekend and the end of this post said they would have something tomorrow tho.
You're totally right. I don't know why I remember it wrong. I remember it wrong, so CLEARLY.
andysonic1 wrote: I think the biggest takeaway from this article is the fact that they didn't tease the next article for tomorrow. This makes me believe they will be announcing preorders tomorrow since they said very clearly at the start of these teasers that they will be releasing an article every day until release. If no article is teased or planned for tomorrow we may be on the eve of release or preorders.
The new battle forged armies are pretty sweet too. Looks like it will be much easier to take an "allied detachment" with just one HQ and Troop required. Also cultists get rhinos potentially.
They haven't been posting on the weekends, so no guarantee of anything tomorrow.
They have been posting on weekends, and the very last sentence says they'll be back tomorrow with more news.
I despise the "1 HQ 2 Troops" methodology. I loved Skitarii for not having an HQ.
I really dislike this change and think it is a huge step backwards.
Formations in 7th Ed that had been given to all armies and/or points costed would have potentially worked - instead they were flung out willy nilly to power dexes to boost them further and begrudgingly given out to any one else.
Now from those posts it looks like formations will still be there (its even in the first line!) just not called that.
100% agreed. Formations COULD have been awesome, but in practice created some massive power divides. I'm not a fan of free benefits with no downside. That downside could be a points cost (formations were free) or some other sort of restriction.
Putting it bluntly, the problem was very rarely the formations.
It was the way players utilized them.
Skyhammer, for example, could have been easily fixed by making it so that Independent Characters couldn't benefit from it. But people argued till they were blue in the face that it had to confer and GW caved.
Battle Demi-Company and the "free" Dedicated Transports?
Required Tactical Squad sizes of 10--boom, no freebie Razorbacks from the 6 Tactical Squads.
And let's not even start looking at the whole nonsense with "Superfriends" and Librarius Conclaves. That could have been avoided from day one if someone had written "Chapter Tactics" into DA, BA, and SW.
So, to summarize what you said... GW wrote extremely exploitable rules and it's the players' fault for exploiting them. I think my solution of having GW fix their exploitable rules (by getting rid of/toning down formations) is far more achievable than getting a LOT of players to self handicap.
I despise the "1 HQ 2 Troops" methodology. I loved Skitarii for not having an HQ.
These are three of a great many detachments to choose from though.
You cannot tell me that I can build a list using my Stealth Suits, Pathfinders, Piranhas, and Ghostkeels under the showcased Detachments.
Formations were far, far superior.
That's right. We can't tell you that. But nor can you claim it, because there's a boatload of detachments we're yet to see. So we're all flying blind.
Sure I can claim it.
Because right now, as of the information we got today, I can't do that. They gave us three that are just variations on the same thing.
That's a quarter of the "new detachments" already showcased where it's just adding in more Troops and HQs.
I can't ever think of a time in the past where I've said "Man, I really wish I had a way to take more HQs".
No. You can only postulate and whine.
We know there's more to come in terms of Detachments.
What we've seen today are likely the most basic structure - the one most familiar to 40k players, as they're riffs on the existing, bog standard FoC.
You however have decided that the sky falling, based on incomplete knowledge, and insist therefore you can't possibly field a formation you currently field. Why, I dunno.
They did say there are 14 formations in the main rules. That is kind of funny considering the main rules are 12 pages long. Those three will take up 1 page just in placement. So, we can surmise that 4 of those 12 pages are made up of the formation rules!
People should not freak out with the "Imperium faction" they have mention today.
If come to something like this:
You can cherrypick units of a great faction (For example, a Imperium army with Space marine elites, Imperial Guard troops, Sister of Battle, etc, etc...) but you sinergies between models will be near 0.
Or you can go with a smaller sample of units in a faction (Dark Angels, Sisters of Battle, etc...) where the sinergies between them allow to compete against the broad of a bigger and more generic faction.
Now, the tricky thing here is to balance the "Swiss army-knife" of a great faction vs the specialization of a smaller faction.
They need to give smaller factions enough bonus to compensate for don't cherrypiking the units they want, but not so big bonnus that is useless to pick armies of a bigger faction.
And at the inverse, if subfactions hare not good enough in their specializations, they can't compete with the bonnus of cherrypicking the best units in different factions.
One of the things I most love of AoS is that it allows me to make fluffy mixed armies without problems. My greenskin-ogre army for example. Or my chaos army with beastmen, demon and mortals, etc...
I'm totally gonna do a Imperium army with a core of Imperial Guard and some small elit squadrons of Nu-marines (that in my mind will be still normal marines) to make them stand more! Maybe even add some Cult Mechanicus stuff.
So long as they balance out the existing armies (i.e. they don't balance the tax of taking Fire Warriors against the boost of taking Eldar Jetbikes), this would go a long way towards evening the playing field and removing the worst of the formation abuses.
There will still be the Faction-specific detachments, if rumors/statements hold true, that might unbalance things one way or the other...
But yeah, I'm happy with this.
Provided Jetbikes remain Troops and don't shift back to Fast Attack.
That could be situational, e.g. "If all models in the detachment have the Sam Hain keyword, Jetbikes count as Troops."
Still allows fluffy get Jetbike armies, but also limits what you can combo them with.
Youn wrote: That technically allows you to take more dedicated Transports then before. The question is what is a dedicated transport?
For example: I assume in marines Rhino and Razorback are dedicated transports. Are landraiders? How about landspeeder storms?
It depends entirely upon the unit.
If a power armored unit(Devastators, Tacticals, Sternguard, Command Squad) is 6 models or less, they can take a Razorback as a DT.
10 PA models or less, Rhino or Drop Pod.
Scouts are the only ones who can take Land Speeder Storms.
Terminators and Centurions can take Land Raider variants.
Looking at Eldar. I assume Waveserpents are transports and Falcon tanks aren't or are they?
Wave Serpents are Dedicated Transports.
Falcons are bought like Stormravens are; they're an extra slot(Heavy Support) that can carry something.
So how long will it take GW to break the detachment system where some are clearly better than others and everyone takes them (just the same as formations). I would guess the initial free ones will be balanced, but once they start releasing codexes (or what amounts to codexes) and the initial test phase is over they will quickly climb the power creep scale.
I despise the "1 HQ 2 Troops" methodology. I loved Skitarii for not having an HQ.
I really dislike this change and think it is a huge step backwards.
Formations in 7th Ed that had been given to all armies and/or points costed would have potentially worked - instead they were flung out willy nilly to power dexes to boost them further and begrudgingly given out to any one else.
Now from those posts it looks like formations will still be there (its even in the first line!) just not called that.
100% agreed. Formations COULD have been awesome, but in practice created some massive power divides. I'm not a fan of free benefits with no downside. That downside could be a points cost (formations were free) or some other sort of restriction.
Putting it bluntly, the problem was very rarely the formations.
It was the way players utilized them.
Skyhammer, for example, could have been easily fixed by making it so that Independent Characters couldn't benefit from it. But people argued till they were blue in the face that it had to confer and GW caved.
Battle Demi-Company and the "free" Dedicated Transports?
Required Tactical Squad sizes of 10--boom, no freebie Razorbacks from the 6 Tactical Squads.
And let's not even start looking at the whole nonsense with "Superfriends" and Librarius Conclaves. That could have been avoided from day one if someone had written "Chapter Tactics" into DA, BA, and SW.
Wow, "blame the players" right off the back of "your argument is invalid, unlike mine, even though my opposite view is just as unsupported."
So long as they balance out the existing armies (i.e. they don't balance the tax of taking Fire Warriors against the boost of taking Eldar Jetbikes), this would go a long way towards evening the playing field and removing the worst of the formation abuses.
There will still be the Faction-specific detachments, if rumors/statements hold true, that might unbalance things one way or the other...
But yeah, I'm happy with this.
Provided Jetbikes remain Troops and don't shift back to Fast Attack.
That could be situational, e.g. "If all models in the detachment have the Sam Hain keyword, Jetbikes count as Troops."
Still allows fluffy get Jetbike armies, but also limits what you can combo them with.
Indeed. Though with wider slot availability, regardless of slightly increased minimum requirements, it may be we won't need so many 'if X then Y become Troops' exceptions, as you just choose the Detachment with the widest selection of FA/Elite/HS slots?
The doing away with Formations as we know them isn't unwelcome. They'd been dished out haphazardly after all.
But, I still expect to see army exclusive Detachment organisations, even if they ultimately match the above, but shifting what the minimums are (so for instance, Codex White Scars would hypothetically replace Troops with Fast Attack for minimum slots, but gain exactly the same benefits)
Hopefully not as as per fluff tac marines are core of white scars.
Youn wrote: I would assume stormravens are flyers. I doubt they will make Falcons into that same slot. Though fluff wise they actually can do more the hover.
Flyers isn't a Battlefield Role from what I'm seeing. It's a Unit Type/Keyword.
The reason I brought up Stormravens are, as mentioned, they are similar to Falcons. Neither one is a Dedicated Transport option for a unit--they are purchased separately and something can get into them.
Youn wrote: They did say there are 14 formations in the main rules. That is kind of funny considering the main rules are 12 pages long. Those three will take up 1 page just in placement. So, we can surmise that 4 of those 12 pages are made up of the formation rules!
Except they told us in the live QaA that they wont be.
So long as they balance out the existing armies (i.e. they don't balance the tax of taking Fire Warriors against the boost of taking Eldar Jetbikes), this would go a long way towards evening the playing field and removing the worst of the formation abuses.
There will still be the Faction-specific detachments, if rumors/statements hold true, that might unbalance things one way or the other...
But yeah, I'm happy with this.
Provided Jetbikes remain Troops and don't shift back to Fast Attack.
That could be situational, e.g. "If all models in the detachment have the Sam Hain keyword, Jetbikes count as Troops."
Still allows fluffy get Jetbike armies, but also limits what you can combo them with.
Indeed. Though with wider slot availability, regardless of slightly increased minimum requirements, it may be we won't need so many 'if X then Y become Troops' exceptions, as you just choose the Detachment with the widest selection of FA/Elite/HS slots?
This seems to be borrowing from 30K more than AOS, and that's pretty much what I see people do (and what I plan to do) with their 30K lists.
Allows for fluffy lists that don't need broken exceptions or to voluntarily hamstring themselves, and the benefits/restrictions thing can be a lot more interesting than same faction/more CPs, as can be seen in the 30K Rites Of War. One can even potentially take a super heavy in a small points game and not ruin everybody's day!
sturguard wrote: So how long will it take GW to break the detachment system where some are clearly better than others and everyone takes them (just the same as formations). I would guess the initial free ones will be balanced, but once they start releasing codexes (or what amounts to codexes) and the initial test phase is over they will quickly climb the power creep scale.
Detachments for specific armies will be more focused and have different perks. With these you can take anything in the Imperium. The Blood Angels codex won't be pulling from any other army and may find itself handicapped for certain selections.
The thing I see a lot of is people with op army choices/combinations are complaining that their armies and/or play styles are ruined. Your getting nerfed. Deal. It should have been done a long time ago when Dogstars and Chaos Rip Tides became a thing.
I personally LOVE the part about "well rounded" armies receiving benefits. This puts more of an emphasis on TAC armies thus making it more accessible to new players who most likely don't have tons of $$$ to invest in this little hobby of ours. Plus it's another step away from Unbound abomination.
Youn wrote: I would assume stormravens are flyers. I doubt they will make Falcons into that same slot. Though fluff wise they actually can do more the hover.
Flyers isn't a Battlefield Role from what I'm seeing. It's a Unit Type/Keyword.
The reason I brought up Stormravens are, as mentioned, they are similar to Falcons. Neither one is a Dedicated Transport option for a unit--they are purchased separately and something can get into them.
The article literally says Flyers is a battlefield role along with HQ/Troops/Elites/etc.
They did say they were doing main faction books (5 of them) at the beginning. Then they would do campaign books later. Did they say, if they were going to do dedicated codexes or if all of that type stuff would only come out in the campaign books?
The reason for that is assume the 14 basic formations are generic. And that campaign books will have more formations in them related to the Narrative play. It's very easy for tournament organizers to limit out the Campaign books as they do that now in AoS tournaments.
If they start making individual codex, you will get power creep. It happens inevitably . So, we will see where this goes over the next few years.
I despise the "1 HQ 2 Troops" methodology. I loved Skitarii for not having an HQ.
I really dislike this change and think it is a huge step backwards.
Formations in 7th Ed that had been given to all armies and/or points costed would have potentially worked - instead they were flung out willy nilly to power dexes to boost them further and begrudgingly given out to any one else.
Now from those posts it looks like formations will still be there (its even in the first line!) just not called that.
100% agreed. Formations COULD have been awesome, but in practice created some massive power divides. I'm not a fan of free benefits with no downside. That downside could be a points cost (formations were free) or some other sort of restriction.
Putting it bluntly, the problem was very rarely the formations.
It was the way players utilized them.
Skyhammer, for example, could have been easily fixed by making it so that Independent Characters couldn't benefit from it. But people argued till they were blue in the face that it had to confer and GW caved.
Battle Demi-Company and the "free" Dedicated Transports?
Required Tactical Squad sizes of 10--boom, no freebie Razorbacks from the 6 Tactical Squads.
And let's not even start looking at the whole nonsense with "Superfriends" and Librarius Conclaves. That could have been avoided from day one if someone had written "Chapter Tactics" into DA, BA, and SW.
Yeah skyhammer never conferred it's benefits to ICs and the faq confirmed that, anyone who said otherwise was just cheating you. Also white scars battle company didn't usually use razorbacks. In fact Frankie used a build focused around 10 man tac squads for quite a while. And chapter tactics wouldn't of changed much about the SW/DA superfriends star, the bonuses they would have lost were very nearly inconsiquential compared to psychic powers and Azrael.
Youn wrote: I would assume stormravens are flyers. I doubt they will make Falcons into that same slot. Though fluff wise they actually can do more the hover.
Flyers isn't a Battlefield Role from what I'm seeing. It's a Unit Type/Keyword.
The reason I brought up Stormravens are, as mentioned, they are similar to Falcons. Neither one is a Dedicated Transport option for a unit--they are purchased separately and something can get into them.
The article literally says Flyers is a battlefield role along with HQ/Troops/Elites/etc.
I flubbed my reading test today.
In any regards, it doesn't change my point. I gave the example of Stormraven as it was a unit that isn't a traditional Dedicated Transport.
Youn wrote: I would assume stormravens are flyers. I doubt they will make Falcons into that same slot. Though fluff wise they actually can do more the hover.
Flyers isn't a Battlefield Role from what I'm seeing. It's a Unit Type/Keyword.
The reason I brought up Stormravens are, as mentioned, they are similar to Falcons. Neither one is a Dedicated Transport option for a unit--they are purchased separately and something can get into them.
Maybe you should actually read the article first before spouting rubbish Kan, because this pic says Flyers are a battlefield role now.
v0iddrgn wrote: I personally LOVE the part about "well rounded" armies receiving benefits. This puts more of an emphasis on TAC armies thus making it more accessible to new players who most likely don't have tons of $$$ to invest in this little hobby of ours. Plus it's another step away from Unbound abomination.
You could make just as nasty lists using Battleforged for the powerful army books as you could in many cases for Unbound.
You can cherrypick units of a great faction (For example, a Imperium army with Space marine elites, Imperial Guard troops, Sister of Battle, etc, etc...) but you sinergies between models will be near 0.
Or you can go with a smaller sample of units in a faction (Dark Angels, Sisters of Battle, etc...) where the sinergies between them allow to compete against the broad of a bigger and more generic faction.
This is very true. On the other hand, in AoS you see armies like Beastclaws + Moonclan becoming entrenched in the meta. Units which stand well on their own don't necessarily need buffs, but I wonder if there will be generic faction traits similar to AoS' Grand Alliance traits.
But my only real concern is just the variety afforded to the Imperium as a faction. But that can really hardly be helped, as Space Marines, much less the Imperium as a whole, are easily the most popular faction. I'm quite happy with the detachments overall (especially as a Chaos Player).
On another note, I'm interested in the HQ requirements for the Battalion and Brigade detachments. 2-3 required HQs is an interesting choice, and I'm quite keen on seeing the Character datasheets once the rules hit.
I despise the "1 HQ 2 Troops" methodology. I loved Skitarii for not having an HQ.
These are three of a great many detachments to choose from though.
You cannot tell me that I can build a list using my Stealth Suits, Pathfinders, Piranhas, and Ghostkeels under the showcased Detachments.
Formations were far, far superior.
Formations were far, far more open to abuse and wild swings of power with no extra points paid for abilities. If that is your definition of "superior", I'll have to disagree. In any case, your example doesn't fit into the 25% of the rumored 12 formations that will be included free in the rules. Luckily for you, you still have 75% more to look at before you can make a real determination. Or you can just fly off the handle jumping to conclusions and instead praise the worst (and fortunately outgoing!) army purchasing building mechanic the marketing department at GW ever came up with.
The real question is do you have to take the traditional types to actually qualify for the dedicated transport.
Do i need a unit of scouts to get a Land Speeder Storm? Or can I take a squad of tactical marines and buy a Landspeeder storm because it has the keyword DEDICATED TRANSPORT listed at the bottom?
Kirasu wrote: Seems fair, you can use all units in the Tyranid Faction or I can use all the units in the IMPERIUM faction to build my list! Why even have any other faction?? Maybe that just means stuff like Inquisition.
Yeah I'm a little skeptical here too.
Hopefully they mean more specific factions, I.E. Black Templars, Dark Angels, Imperial Guard/Astra Militarum, etc. rather than IMPERIUM or CHAOS.
And while I'm ok with formations going away, I still hope that there's some form of allies possible, as under a keyword system you can deal with the shenanigans which arise from Deathstars.
You want allies, ymu take second detachment with different faction. Nm need for formations.
v0iddrgn wrote: I personally LOVE the part about "well rounded" armies receiving benefits. This puts more of an emphasis on TAC armies thus making it more accessible to new players who most likely don't have tons of $$$ to invest in this little hobby of ours. Plus it's another step away from Unbound abomination.
You could make just as nasty lists using Battleforged for the powerful army books as you could in many cases for Unbound.
Thats why 7th wasn't nearly fun enough to waste time on for a lot of players. Formations going away plus benefits for TAC = big win IMHO.
Youn wrote: The real question is do you have to take the traditional types to actually qualify for the dedicated transport.
Do i need a unit of scouts to get a Land Speeder Storm? Or can I take a squad of tactical marines and buy a Landspeeder storm because it has the keyword DEDICATED TRANSPORT listed at the bottom?
How are we supposed to answer that until we see all the dataslates with the unit rules on?
I do at least hope that Dedicated Transports will be limited to Infantry units, it would be very strange for you to be able to take a Raider as a dedicated transport for a Ravager tank.
I would assume items like Rhino actually will say.
ASTARTES units may embark on these transports. Which means Black Templars could load up on a Dark Angels transport because they are both ASTARTES. While the ADEPTUS MILTARIUM unit would not be able to climb onto the Rhino because they aren't.
I also, would guess that their Chimera says ADEPTUS MILTARIUM units may embark and not IMPERIAL units may embark.
Kirasu wrote: Seems fair, you can use all units in the Tyranid Faction or I can use all the units in the IMPERIUM faction to build my list! Why even have any other faction?? Maybe that just means stuff like Inquisition.
Yeah I'm a little skeptical here too.
Hopefully they mean more specific factions, I.E. Black Templars, Dark Angels, Imperial Guard/Astra Militarum, etc. rather than IMPERIUM or CHAOS.
And while I'm ok with formations going away, I still hope that there's some form of allies possible, as under a keyword system you can deal with the shenanigans which arise from Deathstars.
You want allies, ymu take second detachment with different faction. Nm need for formations.
Kirasu wrote: Seems fair, you can use all units in the Tyranid Faction or I can use all the units in the IMPERIUM faction to build my list! Why even have any other faction?? Maybe that just means stuff like Inquisition.
Yeah I'm a little skeptical here too.
Hopefully they mean more specific factions, I.E. Black Templars, Dark Angels, Imperial Guard/Astra Militarum, etc. rather than IMPERIUM or CHAOS.
And while I'm ok with formations going away, I still hope that there's some form of allies possible, as under a keyword system you can deal with the shenanigans which arise from Deathstars.
You want allies, ymu take second detachment with different faction. Nm need for formations.
Just realized this, you're right.
Hopefully we get more tidbits on list construction throughout the month. It's probably one of the most important aspects 8th needs to address well, and I'm quite interested to see where everything goes.
I like this system, because there are likely to be very freeform, but not highly command-point heavy detachments out there.
This means that when a skewy list with, say, almost all vehicles faces off against a balanced TAC list with a mix of anti-vehicle and anti-infantry units, the TAC list can use command points to protect their anti tank assets and still stand a chance.
In theory, it's a very nice system that can make an important change over what we see now. But agin, at this point we have almost no info confirmed.
v0iddrgn wrote: I personally LOVE the part about "well rounded" armies receiving benefits. This puts more of an emphasis on TAC armies thus making it more accessible to new players who most likely don't have tons of $$$ to invest in this little hobby of ours. Plus it's another step away from Unbound abomination.
You could make just as nasty lists using Battleforged for the powerful army books as you could in many cases for Unbound.
Thats why 7th wasn't nearly fun enough to waste time on for a lot of players. Formations going away plus benefits for TAC = big win IMHO.
Isn't going to do a thing to make it cheaper though, cheap hobbies aren't easy to find.
I despise the "1 HQ 2 Troops" methodology. I loved Skitarii for not having an HQ.
These are three of a great many detachments to choose from though.
You cannot tell me that I can build a list using my Stealth Suits, Pathfinders, Piranhas, and Ghostkeels under the showcased Detachments.
Formations were far, far superior.
Formations were far, far more open to abuse and wild swings of power with no extra points paid for abilities. If that is your definition of "superior", I'll have to disagree. In any case, your example doesn't fit into the 25% of the rumored 12 formations that will be included free in the rules. Luckily for you, you still have 75% more to look at before you can make a real determination. Or you can just fly off the handle jumping to conclusions and instead praise the worst (and fortunately outgoing!) army purchasing building mechanic the marketing department at GW ever came up with.
It's only 21%. 3 out of 14. Less than 10 words of his last 3 posts have been factually accurate,
In case it hasn't been mentioned before, if you click on the "Imperium" link out of the keyword faction examples, EVERY single Imperium faction, including all the Marines, is pre-selected in the product filter.
But as Blood Angels are given as another example, I wonder how the differentiation for the organization chart will be between the Imperium keyword and the individual factions. There must be a benefit for picking e.g. fielding an IG or Space Wolves only army without any other Imperium picks, otherwise they wouldn't have given those two examples, as Blood Angels are included in the store filter as well. Of course with Marines likely getting their own "Grand Alliance" book the store link might not be an indication for the final rules after all. EDIT: Nevermind, posts higher up already explained how the keyword system will likely work (like the one in AoS).
Also regarding those three charts, no reason to panic yet considering we only have seen 3 out of 16 (I think) organization charts.
Also jumping on the "good riddance" train concerning formations as well, stuff like the Gladius Strike force shouldn't have existed in the first place, it was one of the main reasons balance in 7th edition was so fethed up. I think it also means I'll pick up two 'start collecting Tau' boxes when I come back home in two and a half weeks, I wouldn't be surprised if they pull those boxes from the market considering they all have formation sheets included.
I think it is also save to assume that "lords of war" are former Apocalypse stuff like Superheavies and gargantuan Creatures? If yes then I'll be super happy if those organization charts keep them out of snormal matches and confined to "pretty much 2500+ points matches because of minimum troop/HQ/other requiements" charts, considering there are zero slots for them in the three charts shown and the last one is pretty big pointswise.
v0iddrgn wrote: I personally LOVE the part about "well rounded" armies receiving benefits. This puts more of an emphasis on TAC armies thus making it more accessible to new players who most likely don't have tons of $$$ to invest in this little hobby of ours. Plus it's another step away from Unbound abomination.
You could make just as nasty lists using Battleforged for the powerful army books as you could in many cases for Unbound.
Thats why 7th wasn't nearly fun enough to waste time on for a lot of players. Formations going away plus benefits for TAC = big win IMHO.
Isn't going to do a thing to make it cheaper though, cheap hobbies aren't easy to find.
What I meant by that is simple. When I started this hobby I had very limited funds. I wanted to have a 2000 point army so I could play 40K at the concensus points level most everyone played and thus get in games more consistently. With my limited cash I was only able to hone my list into a TAC style since I didn't have a cache of models sitting around waiting for the right opponent or formation to come around. I bet a lot of new players have similar experiences with 40K as it IS very expensive.
*Edit* The TAC buff is nice also because I feel 7th has demolished casual play and TAC players typically play casually.
Ragnar Blackmane wrote: In case it hasn't been mentioned before, if you click on the "Imperium" link out of the keyword faction examples, EVERY single Imperium faction, including all the Marines, is pre-selected in the product filter.
But as Blood Angels are given as another example, I wonder how the differentiation for the organization chart will be between the Imperium keyword and the individual factions. There must be a benefit for picking e.g. fielding an IG or Space Wolves only army without any other Imperium picks, otherwise they wouldn't have given those two examples, as Blood Angels are included in the store filter as well. Of course with Marines likely getting their own "Grand Alliance" book the store link might not be an indication for the final rules after all.
Also regarding those three charts, no reason to panic yet considering we only have seen 3 out of 16 (I think) organization charts.
Also jumping on the "good riddance" train concerning formations as well, stuff like the Gladius Strike force shouldn't have existed in the first place, it was one of the main reasons balance in 7th edition was so fethed up. I think it also means I'll pick up two 'start collecting Tau' boxes when I come back home in two and a half weeks, I wouldn't be surprised if they pull those boxes from the market considering they all have formation sheets included.
I think it is also save to assume that "lords of war" are former Apocalypse stuff like Superheavies and gargantuan Creatures? If yes then I'll be super happy if those organization charts keep them out of snormal matches and confined to "pretty much 2500+ points matches because of minimum troop/HQ/other requiements" charts, considering there are zero slots for them in the three charts shown and the last one is pretty big pointswise.
Kirasu wrote: Seems fair, you can use all units in the Tyranid Faction or I can use all the units in the IMPERIUM faction to build my list! Why even have any other faction?? Maybe that just means stuff like Inquisition.
Command bonuses making up for it perhaps? Imperium having only the most generic and likely useless uses for command points, while Blood Angels had summon Sanguinis for 9 points or something? I doubt Imperium would have access to anything resembling chapter tactics.
I'm glad to see that the formations are gone. I grew to despise them. They became an annoying straitjacket that limited the army building. Instead of choosing the units I liked, I had to choose those specified in some silly OP formation if I wished to have any chance of winning.
I despise the "1 HQ 2 Troops" methodology. I loved Skitarii for not having an HQ.
These are three of a great many detachments to choose from though.
You cannot tell me that I can build a list using my Stealth Suits, Pathfinders, Piranhas, and Ghostkeels under the showcased Detachments.
Formations were far, far superior.
Formations were far, far more open to abuse and wild swings of power with no extra points paid for abilities. If that is your definition of "superior", I'll have to disagree. In any case, your example doesn't fit into the 25% of the rumored 12 formations that will be included free in the rules. Luckily for you, you still have 75% more to look at before you can make a real determination. Or you can just fly off the handle jumping to conclusions and instead praise the worst (and fortunately outgoing!) army purchasing building mechanic the marketing department at GW ever came up with.
It's only 21%. 3 out of 14. Less than 10 words of his last 3 posts have been factually accurate,
Warhammer Community wrote:
If your army is built using Formations right now, you’re going to be fine. In their place are a dozen new game-wide Detachments that are available to all factions. These are flexible enough that all of your current forces can be fit into them to form a Battle-forged army. The advantage of these is that all factions now have an even playing field of list building mechanics, rather than some having loads and some having to stick with the trusty Combined Arms option for every game.
Source Where has the "14 Detachments" been coming from?
v0iddrgn wrote: I personally LOVE the part about "well rounded" armies receiving benefits. This puts more of an emphasis on TAC armies thus making it more accessible to new players who most likely don't have tons of $$$ to invest in this little hobby of ours. Plus it's another step away from Unbound abomination.
You could make just as nasty lists using Battleforged for the powerful army books as you could in many cases for Unbound.
Thats why 7th wasn't nearly fun enough to waste time on for a lot of players. Formations going away plus benefits for TAC = big win IMHO.
You missed the point I was making.
It wasn't an issue with Unbound by itself. It was an issue with certain units. You didn't hear people saying "Oh god look at that cheese list of Scouts with no HQs".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Verviedi wrote: Source on the 14 detachments is the Q&A livestream.
I despise the "1 HQ 2 Troops" methodology. I loved Skitarii for not having an HQ.
These are three of a great many detachments to choose from though.
You cannot tell me that I can build a list using my Stealth Suits, Pathfinders, Piranhas, and Ghostkeels under the showcased Detachments.
Formations were far, far superior.
Formations were far, far more open to abuse and wild swings of power with no extra points paid for abilities. If that is your definition of "superior", I'll have to disagree. In any case, your example doesn't fit into the 25% of the rumored 12 formations that will be included free in the rules. Luckily for you, you still have 75% more to look at before you can make a real determination. Or you can just fly off the handle jumping to conclusions and instead praise the worst (and fortunately outgoing!) army purchasing building mechanic the marketing department at GW ever came up with.
It's only 21%. 3 out of 14. Less than 10 words of his last 3 posts have been factually accurate,
Warhammer Community wrote:
If your army is built using Formations right now, you’re going to be fine. In their place are a dozen new game-wide Detachments that are available to all factions. These are flexible enough that all of your current forces can be fit into them to form a Battle-forged army. The advantage of these is that all factions now have an even playing field of list building mechanics, rather than some having loads and some having to stick with the trusty Combined Arms option for every game.
Source Where has the "14 Detachments" been coming from?
From the streamed QnA session with Pete Foley and Andy Smilie where they specifically said there will be 14 FOC's.
I despise the "1 HQ 2 Troops" methodology. I loved Skitarii for not having an HQ.
These are three of a great many detachments to choose from though.
You cannot tell me that I can build a list using my Stealth Suits, Pathfinders, Piranhas, and Ghostkeels under the showcased Detachments.
Formations were far, far superior.
Formations were far, far more open to abuse and wild swings of power with no extra points paid for abilities. If that is your definition of "superior", I'll have to disagree. In any case, your example doesn't fit into the 25% of the rumored 12 formations that will be included free in the rules. Luckily for you, you still have 75% more to look at before you can make a real determination. Or you can just fly off the handle jumping to conclusions and instead praise the worst (and fortunately outgoing!) army purchasing building mechanic the marketing department at GW ever came up with.
It's only 21%. 3 out of 14. Less than 10 words of his last 3 posts have been factually accurate,
Warhammer Community wrote:
If your army is built using Formations right now, you’re going to be fine. In their place are a dozen new game-wide Detachments that are available to all factions. These are flexible enough that all of your current forces can be fit into them to form a Battle-forged army. The advantage of these is that all factions now have an even playing field of list building mechanics, rather than some having loads and some having to stick with the trusty Combined Arms option for every game.
Source Where has the "14 Detachments" been coming from?
From the streamed QnA session with Pete Foley and Andy Smilie where they specifically said there will be 14 FOC's.
And today says 12 new ones.
Maybe the Combined Arms Detachment and Allied Detachments are still in?
If you and I can see that gak in like 5 seconds do you really think frankie, reece, the adepticon guys or the Nova guys missed it? Do you really believe that players who are genuinely incredible at the game, who have gotten a chance to stress test these rules, who find breaking the system to be the most fun part of the game missed something that people on Dakka forums picked up?
Who says they missed it?
The fact that GW are using outside playtesters is in no way proof that everything the playtesters flag as an issue is acted upon.
There is no proof that the issues weren't resolved either. We're shooting in the dark when it comes to his and the most we can do is speculate. Assuming the new editon to be a paragon of design or a fustercluck of brokenness gets us nowhere and we need to take a step back anytime we start getting worked up in either direction.
v0iddrgn wrote: I personally LOVE the part about "well rounded" armies receiving benefits. This puts more of an emphasis on TAC armies thus making it more accessible to new players who most likely don't have tons of $$$ to invest in this little hobby of ours. Plus it's another step away from Unbound abomination.
You could make just as nasty lists using Battleforged for the powerful army books as you could in many cases for Unbound.
Thats why 7th wasn't nearly fun enough to waste time on for a lot of players. Formations going away plus benefits for TAC = big win IMHO.
You missed the point I was making.
It wasn't an issue with Unbound by itself. It was an issue with certain units. You didn't hear people saying "Oh god look at that cheese list of Scouts with no HQs".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Verviedi wrote: Source on the 14 detachments is the Q&A livestream.
Then that is contradicted by today's "dozen".
Who has more credibility, game designers or the PR guys? Unless 2 detachments were dummied out today, I'd say 14 is the correct amount.
Ragnar Blackmane wrote: In case it hasn't been mentioned before, if you click on the "Imperium" link out of the keyword faction examples, EVERY single Imperium faction, including all the Marines, is pre-selected in the product filter.
But as Blood Angels are given as another example, I wonder how the differentiation for the organization chart will be between the Imperium keyword and the individual factions. There must be a benefit for picking e.g. fielding an IG or Space Wolves only army without any other Imperium picks, otherwise they wouldn't have given those two examples, as Blood Angels are included in the store filter as well. Of course with Marines likely getting their own "Grand Alliance" book the store link might not be an indication for the final rules after all.
Also regarding those three charts, no reason to panic yet considering we only have seen 3 out of 16 (I think) organization charts.
Also jumping on the "good riddance" train concerning formations as well, stuff like the Gladius Strike force shouldn't have existed in the first place, it was one of the main reasons balance in 7th edition was so fethed up. I think it also means I'll pick up two 'start collecting Tau' boxes when I come back home in two and a half weeks, I wouldn't be surprised if they pull those boxes from the market considering they all have formation sheets included.
I think it is also save to assume that "lords of war" are former Apocalypse stuff like Superheavies and gargantuan Creatures? If yes then I'll be super happy if those organization charts keep them out of snormal matches and confined to "pretty much 2500+ points matches because of minimum troop/HQ/other requiements" charts, considering there are zero slots for them in the three charts shown and the last one is pretty big pointswise.
I wouldn't make this assumption. It's a valid theory for sure, but no more valid than: Superheavies are simply Heavy Support now. Or Superheavies are HS which use multiple slots.
Without more info, it's impossible to tell. Especially since they said there blurring (or removing) the distinction between Superheavies and non-superheavies.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: I will miss the more fluffy detachments.. But I can say this is for the better overall. So long as I keep my Legion benefits.
I'm 100% positive fluffy stuff will be available for those who want to play that way because there's now 3 different modes of play now plus campaign books to look forward to and stuff.
Youn wrote: I would assume items like Rhino actually will say.
ASTARTES units may embark on these transports. Which means Black Templars could load up on a Dark Angels transport because they are both ASTARTES. While the ADEPTUS MILTARIUM unit would not be able to climb onto the Rhino because they aren't.
I also, would guess that their Chimera says ADEPTUS MILTARIUM units may embark and not IMPERIAL units may embark.
Hmm slightly more complicated as other Imperial forces use various vehicles.
Sisters and Inquisitors use Rhinos - in the fluff so do Mechanicus
Chimera's used by Inquisition, Genestealer Cult,
v0iddrgn wrote: I personally LOVE the part about "well rounded" armies receiving benefits. This puts more of an emphasis on TAC armies thus making it more accessible to new players who most likely don't have tons of $$$ to invest in this little hobby of ours. Plus it's another step away from Unbound abomination.
You could make just as nasty lists using Battleforged for the powerful army books as you could in many cases for Unbound.
Thats why 7th wasn't nearly fun enough to waste time on for a lot of players. Formations going away plus benefits for TAC = big win IMHO.
You missed the point I was making.
It wasn't an issue with Unbound by itself. It was an issue with certain units. You didn't hear people saying "Oh god look at that cheese list of Scouts with no HQs".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Verviedi wrote: Source on the 14 detachments is the Q&A livestream.
Then that is contradicted by today's "dozen".
Who has more credibility, game designers or the PR guys? Unless 2 detachments were dummied out today, I'd say 14 is the correct amount.
This^. 'A dozen' just sounds good, doesn't necessarily mean anything.
Verviedi wrote: Source on the 14 detachments is the Q&A livestream.
Then that is contradicted by today's "dozen".
Who has more credibility, game designers or the PR guys?
Pete Foley:
Book & Box Games Manager at Games Workshop, I tweet about Warhammer 40,000 and Age of Sigmar... and nothing else!
Andy Smillie:
Head of Warhammer Community Team & Sometimes Black Library Author.
They are the PR guys.
They are game designers as well and are very clealy not the ones writing these posts. Keep digging that hole though, I'm working on monetizing fact checking you.
The thing is, if they are using the AOS prototype, you really aren't going to see armies with more than one faction in them in tournament play because 1) The incentives an army made from one faction gets are too powerful for a mixed army to deal with and, 2) You rarely have enough points to buy a second detachment. AOS works really well with 1 faction per army, and because the armies are smaller, people who like to play with different factions are probably going to have multiple armies.
So glad I didnt (literally) buy in to that whole Free Transports hype. I've been using a CAD for all 3 of my armies anyway, so there's not much shift in my composition which I'm happy about!
I think smaller armies are actually a good thing for tournament players. You can carry their bag onto the plane with you instead of checking it, which will help avoid all the broken models.
IG (in my completely over reactive opinion) may have been somewhat watered down in comparison to other factions (I know its still early blah, blah, blah, wait and see)
1. Command Points seem similar too guard orders which was a cool mechanic that separated us from other factions, will we get Command "Orders" as well as Army "Orders" dunno
2. Most HQ in codexes (codexi?) had really strong units, Guard...eh not so much (other than 7th ed Pask) if they are dis-allowed to join units it could mean a squishy unit just got squishier
2a. In our latest codex we had numerous independent characters (Psyker, priest, Engineer, Commisar, Yarrick, etc.) if they are left in the cold... yikes
3. my hope is that IG keeps their feel and can be just as viable as a blob hack and slash (Priest Commisar attached) or a gunline (HQ Orders) and even a combination of the 2
wait and see is the mantra, but still, glad there is a change, but hope it makes my army fun again
What I meant by that is simple. When I started this hobby I had limited funds. I wanted to have a 2000 point army so I could play 40K at the concensus points level most everyone played and thus get in games more consistently. With my limited cash I was only able to hone my list into a TAC style since I didn't have a cache of models sitting around waiting for the right opponent or formation to come around. I bet a lot of new players have similar experiences with 40K as it IS very expensive.
*Edit* The TAC buff is nice also because I feel 7th has demolished casual play and TAC players typically play casually.
You're certainly not the only one who feels that way or built armies up in that fashion. I built and painted roughly 30k pts of figs across 8 armies during 3rd -5th ed in that fashion. I started out with limited funds from a part time job then supplemented by an occasional student loan boost (I was in grad school) and then paid for with my first post grad paycheck. Regardless of my personal income, it was a viable way of building first a 1500pt TAC list then 2k one then a 2.5-3k list with some real variety in each slot to choose from. With the stupid formation mechanic, I was largely relegated the 2nd class citizen player CAD because I didn't double or triple up on individual units therefore lost out on free models and rules those players got for zero points. 40k went from being a game to being gamed by Gw into buying models like groceries with buy two get one free coupons/sales. I will shed no tears seeing the worst and greediest edition of 40k masquerading as player choice be tossed into the wastebin.
Oh nice, another moronic decision from GW. I wonder how far they will go in their idiocy? "Hey Dave, since we are completery rebalancing every unit in our game maybe we should do the same for all the formations and detachements so we won't lose on huge amount of variety while simultaneously fixing balance issues they caused? Nah, man, that would require actual effort on our part! Besides, fitiing your army into formation will make you spend more than 5 minutes on building a list and force strategical decisions and that's a no-go. And do I even need to tell you that all this will be too hard to play for lil Timmy who can barely tell left from right? I guess so. Yup. So just trow in in the pile, there is still some room left between armor values, proper melee and interesting setting. We'll make a nice campfire out of all of that once we are finished gutting our franchise into oblivion."
I also love GW's jolly attitude with all that. Like "Hey guys, check this out! We've made this super cool thing that we are going to show you right now! Ready? Ok, here it goes: all the books that we've released for several past months, the ones that you've been extremely exited about and spent your own money on ARE NOW COMPLETELY USELESS PIECES OF JUNK! Hahaha, amazing, right? Yeah, we are just a bunch of geniuses. Consumer friendly too! Also buy our models, you fething loser."
From the streamed QnA session with Pete Foley and Andy Smilie where they specifically said there will be 14 FOC's.
Thanks to you snd others for the clarification. I remembered around a dozen being thrown about in the initial rumors but I'm glad to see a few more. Hopefully they'll stick to mostly universal detachments instead of repeating the special snowflake bloat detachment schemes of the past few years.
BertBert wrote: Oh thank the throne formations are gone. Glad to see GW is stepping away from some of their shady marketing schemes.
it was a long time in coming, 7E's formation/detachment shennanigans were absurdly toxic both in terms of balance and trying to comprehend army construction.
Liberal_Perturabo wrote: Oh nice, another moronic decision from GW. I wonder how far they will go in their idiocy?
"Hey Dave, since we are completery rebalancing every unit in our game maybe we should do the same for all the formations and detachements so we won't lose on huge amount of variety while simultaneously fixing balance issues they caused?
Nah, man, that would require actual effort on our part! Besides, fitiing your army into formation will make you spend more than 5 minutes on building a list and force strategical decisions and that's a no-go. And do I even need to tell you that all this will be too hard to play for lil Timmy who can barely tell left from right?
I guess so.
Yup. So just trow in in the pile, there is still some room left between armor values, proper melee and interesting setting. We'll make a nice campfire out of all of that once we are finished gutting our franchise into oblivion."
I also love GW's jolly attitude with all that.
Like "Hey guys, check this out! We've made this super cool thing that we are going to show you right now! Ready? Ok, here it goes: all the books that we've released for several past months, the ones that you've been extremely exited about and spent your own money on ARE NOW COMPLETELY USELESS PIECES OF JUNK! Hahaha, amazing, right? Yeah, we are just a bunch of geniuses. Consumer friendly too!
Also buy our models, you fething loser."
One of the greatest sources of complaints about 7th ed was Formations - - specifically the power dex ones - are they the ones that you want kept in?
Many people will be very happy to see that exploit removed - of course it won't suit everyone.
Yeah the same company offering refunds on Codexes.
Liberal_Perturabo wrote: Oh nice, another moronic decision from GW. I wonder how far they will go in their idiocy?
"Hey Dave, since we are completery rebalancing every unit in our game maybe we should do the same for all the formations and detachements so we won't lose on huge amount of variety while simultaneously fixing balance issues they caused?
Nah, man, that would require actual effort on our part! Besides, fitiing your army into formation will make you spend more than 5 minutes on building a list and force strategical decisions and that's a no-go. And do I even need to tell you that all this will be too hard to play for lil Timmy who can barely tell left from right?
I guess so.
Yup. So just trow in in the pile, there is still some room left between armor values, proper melee and interesting setting. We'll make a nice campfire out of all of that once we are finished gutting our franchise into oblivion."
I also love GW's jolly attitude with all that.
Like "Hey guys, check this out! We've made this super cool thing that we are going to show you right now! Ready? Ok, here it goes: all the books that we've released for several past months, the ones that you've been extremely exited about and spent your own money on ARE NOW COMPLETELY USELESS PIECES OF JUNK! Hahaha, amazing, right? Yeah, we are just a bunch of geniuses. Consumer friendly too!
Also buy our models, you fething loser."
Lol, always one masochist in the bunch. The formations and the books that you're lamenting the passing of were too intertwined. 7th edition was the attempt at taking the flaws of 6th and doubling down on them; yet another tweak that kept the crap that Gw's marketing team threw at us intact would fix nothing and just be moisturizer applied to the rotting corpse gw's flagship golden line.
NamelessBard wrote:This is what you feel the need to not pick about? 12 or 14? Geez.
Kan was under pressure from having made some pretty difficult to defend to outright incorrect statements, going full pedant is kind of a defense mechanism.
Liberal_Perturabo wrote:Oh nice, another moronic decision from GW. I wonder how far they will go in their idiocy?
"Hey Dave, since we are completery rebalancing every unit in our game maybe we should do the same for all the formations and detachements so we won't lose on huge amount of variety while simultaneously fixing balance issues they caused?
Nah, man, that would require actual effort on our part! Besides, fitiing your army into formation will make you spend more than 5 minutes on building a list and force strategical decisions and that's a no-go. And do I even need to tell you that all this will be too hard to play for lil Timmy who can barely tell left from right?
I guess so.
Yup. So just trow in in the pile, there is still some room left between armor values, proper melee and interesting setting. We'll make a nice campfire out of all of that once we are finished gutting our franchise into oblivion."
I also love GW's jolly attitude with all that.
Like "Hey guys, check this out! We've made this super cool thing that we are going to show you right now! Ready? Ok, here it goes: all the books that we've released for several past months, the ones that you've been extremely exited about and spent your own money on ARE NOW COMPLETELY USELESS PIECES OF JUNK! Hahaha, amazing, right? Yeah, we are just a bunch of geniuses. Consumer friendly too!
Also buy our models, you fething loser."
I apologize, it's taken me a while to realize that this is like one of those parody twitter accounts. Good show on taking literally everything positive and complaining about it, while also praising the remnants of the old system that have remained, despite being less popular with almost everyone else.
v0iddrgn wrote: I personally LOVE the part about "well rounded" armies receiving benefits. This puts more of an emphasis on TAC armies thus making it more accessible to new players who most likely don't have tons of $$$ to invest in this little hobby of ours. Plus it's another step away from Unbound abomination.
You could make just as nasty lists using Battleforged for the powerful army books as you could in many cases for Unbound.
Thats why 7th wasn't nearly fun enough to waste time on for a lot of players. Formations going away plus benefits for TAC = big win IMHO.
Isn't going to do a thing to make it cheaper though, cheap hobbies aren't easy to find.
It is going to make it cheaper for people, because most of the factions are part of the Imperium (and I think the now 4 Eldar factions will work similarly as well as all the Chaos factions amongst themselves). That means if you are a newish player who only got 750 points of Space Marines and then says: "I want to start Sisters of Battle!", he can just get 750 points of Sisters and already has a working 1500 points army which, thanks to the way that all factions are limited to the same detachements, won't be hamstrung because you get awful formations that get roflstomped by that guy with the Gladius Strike Force and other OP formations, while the lack of command points and likely keyword dependant synergies and buffs will keep your list balanced even though you get to cherry pick from two factions.
Compare that to the 5.Edition where if you wanted to play 1500 points with sisters you had to built up an entire 1500 points army of them. Remember what a massive problem building up an Imperial Guard army was because everything was so cheap pointswise and you had to buy a massive number of vehicles and infantry boxes to even get to 1500 points, making it unaffordable for many? Now you can just toss 600 points or so into a Marines army and still enjoy playing them (which is actually the case for me). It also massively increases the value of the starter box: Sure you start with non-legal amounts of models of an army you might not necessarily want in the long run but as long as you want to build up any army from the same alliance you can use them to efficiently fill up points.
Liberal_Perturabo wrote: Oh nice, another moronic decision from GW. I wonder how far they will go in their idiocy?
"Hey Dave, since we are completery rebalancing every unit in our game maybe we should do the same for all the formations and detachements so we won't lose on huge amount of variety while simultaneously fixing balance issues they caused?
Nah, man, that would require actual effort on our part! Besides, fitiing your army into formation will make you spend more than 5 minutes on building a list and force strategical decisions and that's a no-go. And do I even need to tell you that all this will be too hard to play for lil Timmy who can barely tell left from right?
I guess so.
Yup. So just trow in in the pile, there is still some room left between armor values, proper melee and interesting setting. We'll make a nice campfire out of all of that once we are finished gutting our franchise into oblivion."
I also love GW's jolly attitude with all that.
Like "Hey guys, check this out! We've made this super cool thing that we are going to show you right now! Ready? Ok, here it goes: all the books that we've released for several past months, the ones that you've been extremely exited about and spent your own money on ARE NOW COMPLETELY USELESS PIECES OF JUNK! Hahaha, amazing, right? Yeah, we are just a bunch of geniuses. Consumer friendly too!
Also buy our models, you fething loser."
Liberal_Perturabo wrote: Oh nice, another moronic decision from GW. I wonder how far they will go in their idiocy?
"Hey Dave, since we are completery rebalancing every unit in our game maybe we should do the same for all the formations and detachements so we won't lose on huge amount of variety while simultaneously fixing balance issues they caused?
Nah, man, that would require actual effort on our part! Besides, fitiing your army into formation will make you spend more than 5 minutes on building a list and force strategical decisions and that's a no-go. And do I even need to tell you that all this will be too hard to play for lil Timmy who can barely tell left from right?
I guess so.
Yup. So just trow in in the pile, there is still some room left between armor values, proper melee and interesting setting. We'll make a nice campfire out of all of that once we are finished gutting our franchise into oblivion."
I also love GW's jolly attitude with all that.
Like "Hey guys, check this out! We've made this super cool thing that we are going to show you right now! Ready? Ok, here it goes: all the books that we've released for several past months, the ones that you've been extremely exited about and spent your own money on ARE NOW COMPLETELY USELESS PIECES OF JUNK! Hahaha, amazing, right? Yeah, we are just a bunch of geniuses. Consumer friendly too!
Also buy our models, you fething loser."
Liberal_Perturabo wrote: Oh nice, another moronic decision from GW. I wonder how far they will go in their idiocy?
"Hey Dave, since we are completery rebalancing every unit in our game maybe we should do the same for all the formations and detachements so we won't lose on huge amount of variety while simultaneously fixing balance issues they caused?
Nah, man, that would require actual effort on our part! Besides, fitiing your army into formation will make you spend more than 5 minutes on building a list and force strategical decisions and that's a no-go. And do I even need to tell you that all this will be too hard to play for lil Timmy who can barely tell left from right?
I guess so.
Yup. So just trow in in the pile, there is still some room left between armor values, proper melee and interesting setting. We'll make a nice campfire out of all of that once we are finished gutting our franchise into oblivion."
I also love GW's jolly attitude with all that.
Like "Hey guys, check this out! We've made this super cool thing that we are going to show you right now! Ready? Ok, here it goes: all the books that we've released for several past months, the ones that you've been extremely exited about and spent your own money on ARE NOW COMPLETELY USELESS PIECES OF JUNK! Hahaha, amazing, right? Yeah, we are just a bunch of geniuses. Consumer friendly too!
Also buy our models, you fething loser."
im going to assume some will have keywords like Imperium or Space marines or even more specific. hopefully some with costs or otherwise very light bonuses.
command points sound interesting. im hoping for some interesting mechanics.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: I will miss the more fluffy detachments.. But I can say this is for the better overall. So long as I keep my Legion benefits.
Chapter Tactics and Legion Traits were confirmed to still exist. And from a comment on Facebook today apparently more specific Legion Rules will be dropping too.
These Detachments are basically FOC's. They give benefits for following these FOC's because they want to curve the appeal of having the convoluted mess of 6 different detachments that were so prevalent in 7th. Feels more like going back to 5th edition, AKA Tournament edition.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: I will miss the more fluffy detachments.. But I can say this is for the better overall. So long as I keep my Legion benefits.
Chapter Tactics and Legion Traits were confirmed to still exist. And from a comment on Facebook today apparently more specific Legion Rules will be dropping too.
Oh? Is there anything specified? I would hate to lose Combat Drugs after finally getting them after so long.
JohnnyHell wrote: No formations... for now. Wait for the first Faction Codex. Bound to include exclusive Detachments.
Or at least some way to use your command points in a faction-specific way. I'm anticipating things like Waaagh! moves and the like to be triggered by a command point spend.
Liberal_Perturabo wrote: Oh nice, another moronic decision from GW. I wonder how far they will go in their idiocy?
"Hey Dave, since we are completery rebalancing every unit in our game maybe we should do the same for all the formations and detachements so we won't lose on huge amount of variety while simultaneously fixing balance issues they caused?
Nah, man, that would require actual effort on our part! Besides, fitiing your army into formation will make you spend more than 5 minutes on building a list and force strategical decisions and that's a no-go. And do I even need to tell you that all this will be too hard to play for lil Timmy who can barely tell left from right?
I guess so.
Yup. So just trow in in the pile, there is still some room left between armor values, proper melee and interesting setting. We'll make a nice campfire out of all of that once we are finished gutting our franchise into oblivion."
I also love GW's jolly attitude with all that.
Like "Hey guys, check this out! We've made this super cool thing that we are going to show you right now! Ready? Ok, here it goes: all the books that we've released for several past months, the ones that you've been extremely exited about and spent your own money on ARE NOW COMPLETELY USELESS PIECES OF JUNK! Hahaha, amazing, right? Yeah, we are just a bunch of geniuses. Consumer friendly too!
Also buy our models, you fething loser."
One of the greatest sources of complaints about 7th ed was Formations - - specifically the power dex ones - are they the ones that you want kept in?
Many people will be very happy to see that exploit removed - of course it won't suit everyone.
Yeah the same company offering refunds on Codexes.
They are the ones I want to be fixed. But it seems like it goes against modern GW's politics of rather not giving a damn and putting a large body of work and potential on fire, so they can dumb down and simplify things so that 40k would be more like glorified AoS.
Oh yeah, a refund for a codex bought up to two months prior. I mean who cares about gethering storm or traitor legions books (would your remind me how long were those books valid btw), right? It's not like those were hyped up at all. Really, if you've bought one of those you have only yourself to blame - you've been silly enough to expect consumer friendly politics and not being instantly screwed over in a blink of an eye.
Liberal_Perturabo wrote: Oh nice, another moronic decision from GW. I wonder how far they will go in their idiocy?
"Hey Dave, since we are completery rebalancing every unit in our game maybe we should do the same for all the formations and detachements so we won't lose on huge amount of variety while simultaneously fixing balance issues they caused?
Nah, man, that would require actual effort on our part! Besides, fitiing your army into formation will make you spend more than 5 minutes on building a list and force strategical decisions and that's a no-go. And do I even need to tell you that all this will be too hard to play for lil Timmy who can barely tell left from right?
I guess so.
Yup. So just trow in in the pile, there is still some room left between armor values, proper melee and interesting setting. We'll make a nice campfire out of all of that once we are finished gutting our franchise into oblivion."
I also love GW's jolly attitude with all that.
Like "Hey guys, check this out! We've made this super cool thing that we are going to show you right now! Ready? Ok, here it goes: all the books that we've released for several past months, the ones that you've been extremely exited about and spent your own money on ARE NOW COMPLETELY USELESS PIECES OF JUNK! Hahaha, amazing, right? Yeah, we are just a bunch of geniuses. Consumer friendly too!
Also buy our models, you fething loser."
One of the greatest sources of complaints about 7th ed was Formations - - specifically the power dex ones - are they the ones that you want kept in?
Many people will be very happy to see that exploit removed - of course it won't suit everyone.
Yeah the same company offering refunds on Codexes.
They are the ones I want to be fixed. But it seems like it goes against modern GW's politics of rather not giving a damn and putting a large body of work and potential on fire, so they can dumb down and simplify things so that 40k would be more like glorified AoS.
Oh yeah, a refund for a codex bought up to two months prior. I mean who cares about gethering storm or traitor legions books (would your remind me how long were those books valid btw), right? It's not like those were hyped up at all. Really, if you've bought one of those you have only yourself to blame - you've been silly enough to expect consumer friendly politics and not being instantly screwed over in a blink of an eye.
7E was broken, fundamentally so, and salvaging the books wasnt worth it. Breaking cleanly was the best way to go, particularly as so much 7E material was just marketing crap to push webstore bundles.
The blame should go on GW for creating the mess, not fixing it. A clean break had to happen.
Besides, it's hardly the first time they've invalidated large amounts of material in a short timespan
Liberal_Perturabo wrote: Oh nice, another moronic decision from GW. I wonder how far they will go in their idiocy?
"Hey Dave, since we are completery rebalancing every unit in our game maybe we should do the same for all the formations and detachements so we won't lose on huge amount of variety while simultaneously fixing balance issues they caused?
Nah, man, that would require actual effort on our part! Besides, fitiing your army into formation will make you spend more than 5 minutes on building a list and force strategical decisions and that's a no-go. And do I even need to tell you that all this will be too hard to play for lil Timmy who can barely tell left from right?
I guess so.
Yup. So just trow in in the pile, there is still some room left between armor values, proper melee and interesting setting. We'll make a nice campfire out of all of that once we are finished gutting our franchise into oblivion."
I also love GW's jolly attitude with all that.
Like "Hey guys, check this out! We've made this super cool thing that we are going to show you right now! Ready? Ok, here it goes: all the books that we've released for several past months, the ones that you've been extremely exited about and spent your own money on ARE NOW COMPLETELY USELESS PIECES OF JUNK! Hahaha, amazing, right? Yeah, we are just a bunch of geniuses. Consumer friendly too!
Also buy our models, you fething loser."
Lol, always one masochist in the bunch. The formations and the books that you're lamenting the passing of were too intertwined. 7th edition was the attempt at taking the flaws of 6th and doubling down on them; yet another tweak that kept the crap that Gw's marketing team threw at us intact would fix nothing and just be moisturizer applied to the rotting corpse gw's flagship golden line.
So, with the whole overhaul thing I assume you are expecting broken units to be fixed. You know, things like scatterbikes, riptides and what have you. You don't expect them to be deleted from the game because they were broken, you just expect their rules to change. And that would be ok, right?
But when the same thing is said about formation rules it's suddenly "moisturizer applied to the rotting corpse" and can never-ever be fixed and should only be whiped out from the game?
Would you please explain the logic in that?
Models are models, physical items that dont change often, rules change. I cant run Tank Hunting Autocannon havocs anymore either or run Obliterators as my elites for Iron Warriors, not the end of the world.
Formations, as they existed in 7E, were inherently broken, there was no fixing "buy X get free Y!"
Few armies survive edition changes intact in terms of rules.
Liberal_Perturabo wrote: Oh nice, another moronic decision from GW. I wonder how far they will go in their idiocy?
"Hey Dave, since we are completery rebalancing every unit in our game maybe we should do the same for all the formations and detachements so we won't lose on huge amount of variety while simultaneously fixing balance issues they caused?
Nah, man, that would require actual effort on our part! Besides, fitiing your army into formation will make you spend more than 5 minutes on building a list and force strategical decisions and that's a no-go. And do I even need to tell you that all this will be too hard to play for lil Timmy who can barely tell left from right?
I guess so.
Yup. So just trow in in the pile, there is still some room left between armor values, proper melee and interesting setting. We'll make a nice campfire out of all of that once we are finished gutting our franchise into oblivion."
I also love GW's jolly attitude with all that.
Like "Hey guys, check this out! We've made this super cool thing that we are going to show you right now! Ready? Ok, here it goes: all the books that we've released for several past months, the ones that you've been extremely exited about and spent your own money on ARE NOW COMPLETELY USELESS PIECES OF JUNK! Hahaha, amazing, right? Yeah, we are just a bunch of geniuses. Consumer friendly too!
Also buy our models, you fething loser."
Lol, always one masochist in the bunch. The formations and the books that you're lamenting the passing of were too intertwined. 7th edition was the attempt at taking the flaws of 6th and doubling down on them; yet another tweak that kept the crap that Gw's marketing team threw at us intact would fix nothing and just be moisturizer applied to the rotting corpse gw's flagship golden line.
So, with the whole overhaul thing I assume you are expecting broken units to be fixed. You know, things like scatterbikes, riptides and what have you. You don't expect them to be deleted from the game because they were broken, you just expect their rules to change. And that would be ok, right?
But when the same thing is said about formation rules it's suddenly "moisturizer applied to the rotting corpse" and can never-ever be fixed and should only be whiped out from the game?
Would you please explain the logic in that?
Because formations really don't add ANYTHING to the game. They are just another layer of rules for no real reason to exist. I despise that they still exist in AoS. At least there they have points.
Formations should only be something of Narrative games to create fluffy things.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: I will miss the more fluffy detachments.. But I can say this is for the better overall. So long as I keep my Legion benefits.
Chapter Tactics and Legion Traits were confirmed to still exist. And from a comment on Facebook today apparently more specific Legion Rules will be dropping too.
Oh? Is there anything specified? I would hate to lose Combat Drugs after finally getting them after so long.
Nothing specifically was mentioned but they were very clear that the rules that give different colored marines their flavor would still exist. Which is frankly a wonderful thing as it reduces mirror matches.
Besides, it's hardly the first time they've invalidated large amounts of material in a short timespan
It doesn't in any way make it an ok thing to do though. Not to mention it was being said that 8th was in the making for 2 years so it's not like they had to rush it out.
Because formations really don't add ANYTHING to the game. They are just another layer of rules for no real reason to exist. I despise that they still exist in AoS. At least there they have points. Formations should only be something of Narrative games to create fluffy things.
They add tactical depth. They create new playstiles. A good formation will have sensible restrictions while compensating for it with sensible benefits. It's only whoever writes the rules's fault for making insanely OP things run wild, not the system itself.
changemod wrote: Frankly I've found the attempts to shut down all negativity far more unpleasant to read than any ammount of the negativity itself.
-This is a discussion board, positive and negative views are all part of the discussion. -It is not unreasonable to comment on rules as they come out, or speculate on how they fit together. We'll get a fuller picture as we go, but there's no crime on commenting on the current picture. -The idea that one must have perfect information to have an informed view is -sometimes- correct, but is being overused here. To use a fairly non-inflammatory analogy: You need to have a lot of information about Indiana Jones 4 to definitively comment on it's quality, but hearing without seeing it that it uses aliens is enough to comment on the idea of introducing aliens to a franchise without them, and how you think that could impact things. -A lot is changing, and certain patterns are emerging. These are things which will inevitably cause a lot of negative feeling amongst many, and someone who lashes out at every detail has every bit as much right to discuss the new edition as someone who is hyped up to the point where they'll defend every single aspect of it.
Great post. This phenomenon of having some posters who are adament on always defending GW from all kind of criticism, is weird to say the least, and also very annoying. Only explanation that I can guess is that they are a bit like groupies that live vicariously through some celebrities, but they are doing it through a company.
I'm both surprised and a little disappointed to see formations go away. I was hoping they would take the AoS route like they have will so many other aspects of the game and give formations points costs and require the army still fit the FOC.
Liberal_Perturabo wrote: Oh nice, another moronic decision from GW. I wonder how far they will go in their idiocy?
"Hey Dave, since we are completery rebalancing every unit in our game maybe we should do the same for all the formations and detachements so we won't lose on huge amount of variety while simultaneously fixing balance issues they caused?
Nah, man, that would require actual effort on our part! Besides, fitiing your army into formation will make you spend more than 5 minutes on building a list and force strategical decisions and that's a no-go. And do I even need to tell you that all this will be too hard to play for lil Timmy who can barely tell left from right?
I guess so.
Yup. So just trow in in the pile, there is still some room left between armor values, proper melee and interesting setting. We'll make a nice campfire out of all of that once we are finished gutting our franchise into oblivion."
I also love GW's jolly attitude with all that.
Like "Hey guys, check this out! We've made this super cool thing that we are going to show you right now! Ready? Ok, here it goes: all the books that we've released for several past months, the ones that you've been extremely exited about and spent your own money on ARE NOW COMPLETELY USELESS PIECES OF JUNK! Hahaha, amazing, right? Yeah, we are just a bunch of geniuses. Consumer friendly too!
Also buy our models, you fething loser."
Lol, always one masochist in the bunch. The formations and the books that you're lamenting the passing of were too intertwined. 7th edition was the attempt at taking the flaws of 6th and doubling down on them; yet another tweak that kept the crap that Gw's marketing team threw at us intact would fix nothing and just be moisturizer applied to the rotting corpse gw's flagship golden line.
So, with the whole overhaul thing I assume you are expecting broken units to be fixed. You know, things like scatterbikes, riptides and what have you. You don't expect them to be deleted from the game because they were broken, you just expect their rules to change. And that would be ok, right?
But when the same thing is said about formation rules it's suddenly "moisturizer applied to the rotting corpse" and can never-ever be fixed and should only be whiped out from the game?
Would you please explain the logic in that?
Jervis stated on a Twitch Stream that all armies where worked on at the same time to better grind out the core mechanics of the game and balance everything. Some of the nonsense we know of now will likely change.
Heck, we already know weapon profiles are changing. It looks like if a ranged weapon isn't specifically anti-monster/vehicle it may not have a rend value.
EnTyme wrote: I'm both surprised and a little disappointed to see formations go away. I was hoping they would take the AoS route like they have will so many other aspects of the game and give formations points costs and require the army still fit the FOC.
As others have mentioned, these are the vanilla formations, we may well see something that looks more like Formations in the faction books or later down the line in Codexes, hopefully with better balance and costs as necessary.
changemod wrote: Frankly I've found the attempts to shut down all negativity far more unpleasant to read than any ammount of the negativity itself.
-This is a discussion board, positive and negative views are all part of the discussion.
-It is not unreasonable to comment on rules as they come out, or speculate on how they fit together. We'll get a fuller picture as we go, but there's no crime on commenting on the current picture.
-The idea that one must have perfect information to have an informed view is -sometimes- correct, but is being overused here. To use a fairly non-inflammatory analogy: You need to have a lot of information about Indiana Jones 4 to definitively comment on it's quality, but hearing without seeing it that it uses aliens is enough to comment on the idea of introducing aliens to a franchise without them, and how you think that could impact things.
-A lot is changing, and certain patterns are emerging. These are things which will inevitably cause a lot of negative feeling amongst many, and someone who lashes out at every detail has every bit as much right to discuss the new edition as someone who is hyped up to the point where they'll defend every single aspect of it.
Great post. This phenomenon of having some posters who are adament on always defending GW from all kind of criticism, is weird to say the least, and also very annoying. Only explanation that I can guess is that they are a bit like groupies that live vicariously through some celebrities, but they are doing it through a company.
I feel like it's less "defending GW" and more saying that it makes 0 sense to claim the sky is falling when there is less than half information and a month to go before we know everything.
It's one thing to say "Losing Formations is a bad change, I disagree with it", and another to say "By losing formations there is NO LONGER A WAY TO MAKE FLUFFY THEMED ARMIES BECAUSE THAT WAS THE ONLY WAY", when we haven't seen all the base Detachments nor any of the Faction Detachments. Similar with many of the other complaints, like the idea that we know everything about Morale from a post with 5 paragraphs and saying the sky is falling for X or Y army.
Sensationalist anger has no place. Neither does blind fanboyism, but just because you're arguing against one doesn't mean you exemplify the other.
The blame should go on GW for creating the mess, not fixing it. A clean break had to happen.
As I said, if they are capable of complete unit rebalance, what stoppes them from complete formation rebalance except the reasons I've pointed out?
because the fundamental concept was broken, inherently so. There was no fixing what ultimately was a sales mechanism pushing power creep for webstore bundles.
Besides, it's hardly the first time they've invalidated large amounts of material in a short timespan
It doesn't in any way make it an ok thing to do though.
It was a necessary thing, like it or not. Be mad at GW for pushing out garbage content in the first place, by all means. I am.
I'm not going to cry when they demolish the condemned ruins however.
More to the point, the quality of the material was so poor, and the prices so high, I quit buying new books two years ago. Dont support and incentivize garbage material and you wont be burned when it is invalidated
Not to mention it was being said that 8th was in the making for 2 years so it's not like they had to rush it out.
we have no idea whats true or not in that regard, but again, be mad at GW for pushing garbage in the first place by all means, but not for fixing it.
Liberal_Perturabo wrote: So, with the whole overhaul thing I assume you are expecting broken units to be fixed. You know, things like scatterbikes, riptides and what have you. You don't expect them to be deleted from the game because they were broken, you just expect their rules to change. And that would be ok, right?
But when the same thing is said about formation rules it's suddenly "moisturizer applied to the rotting corpse" and can never-ever be fixed and should only be whiped out from the game?
Would you please explain the logic in that?
Lol. Oy.
You can still take the models you took in the formation in a detachment. You just lose the OP bonus.
Liberal_Perturabo wrote: Oh nice, another moronic decision from GW. I wonder how far they will go in their idiocy? "Hey Dave, since we are completery rebalancing every unit in our game maybe we should do the same for all the formations and detachements so we won't lose on huge amount of variety while simultaneously fixing balance issues they caused? Nah, man, that would require actual effort on our part! Besides, fitiing your army into formation will make you spend more than 5 minutes on building a list and force strategical decisions and that's a no-go. And do I even need to tell you that all this will be too hard to play for lil Timmy who can barely tell left from right? I guess so. Yup. So just trow in in the pile, there is still some room left between armor values, proper melee and interesting setting. We'll make a nice campfire out of all of that once we are finished gutting our franchise into oblivion."
I also love GW's jolly attitude with all that. Like "Hey guys, check this out! We've made this super cool thing that we are going to show you right now! Ready? Ok, here it goes: all the books that we've released for several past months, the ones that you've been extremely exited about and spent your own money on ARE NOW COMPLETELY USELESS PIECES OF JUNK! Hahaha, amazing, right? Yeah, we are just a bunch of geniuses. Consumer friendly too! Also buy our models, you fething loser."
Lol, always one masochist in the bunch. The formations and the books that you're lamenting the passing of were too intertwined. 7th edition was the attempt at taking the flaws of 6th and doubling down on them; yet another tweak that kept the crap that Gw's marketing team threw at us intact would fix nothing and just be moisturizer applied to the rotting corpse gw's flagship golden line.
So, with the whole overhaul thing I assume you are expecting broken units to be fixed. You know, things like scatterbikes, riptides and what have you. You don't expect them to be deleted from the game because they were broken, you just expect their rules to change. And that would be ok, right? But when the same thing is said about formation rules it's suddenly "moisturizer applied to the rotting corpse" and can never-ever be fixed and should only be whiped out from the game? Would you please explain the logic in that?
Jervis stated on a Twitch Stream that all armies where worked on at the same time to better grind out the core mechanics of the game and balance everything. Some of the nonsense we know of now will likely change.
Heck, we already know weapon profiles are changing. It looks like if a ranged weapon isn't specifically anti-monster/vehicle it may not have a rend value.
But you need something to exist to apply changes to. Weapon profiles are still here. Formations are not. Also I'm expressing my opinion on the information GW gives us at the moment. Sure, things may change drastically in the future. Or they may not. That's not the point.
The blame should go on GW for creating the mess, not fixing it. A clean break had to happen.
As I said, if they are capable of complete unit rebalance, what stoppes them from complete formation rebalance except the reasons I've pointed out?
because the fundamental concept was broken, inherently so. There was no fixing what ultimately was a sales mechanism pushing power creep for webstore bundles.
What was so inherently broken about formations concept?
The blame should go on GW for creating the mess, not fixing it. A clean break had to happen.
As I said, if they are capable of complete unit rebalance, what stoppes them from complete formation rebalance except the reasons I've pointed out?
because the fundamental concept was broken, inherently so. There was no fixing what ultimately was a sales mechanism pushing power creep for webstore bundles.
Besides, it's hardly the first time they've invalidated large amounts of material in a short timespan
It doesn't in any way make it an ok thing to do though.
It was a necessary thing, like it or not. Be mad at GW for pushing out garbage content in the first place, by all means. I am.
I'm not going to cry when they demolish the condemned ruins however.
More to the point, the quality of the material was so poor, and the prices so high, I quit buying new books two years ago. Dont support and incentivize garbage material and you wont be burned when it is invalidated
Not to mention it was being said that 8th was in the making for 2 years so it's not like they had to rush it out.
we have no idea whats true or not in that regard, but again, be mad at GW for pushing garbage in the first place by all means, but not for fixing it.
We can make a reasonable extrapolation.
Sad Panda said some time ago that the Codex update cycle had been stopped until the new edition, and we'd only see mini Dexes and Campaign Supplements until after the update. That's been borne out, so one can reasonable assume 8th has been in development since a few months before the last Codex update for a full faction, which I think was Tau?
Not super precise, of course, but there is evidence to suggest at roughly what point 8th started development.
Almost like different people have different ideas, eh?
Barely. Formations were pretty universally hated on Dakka, in fact, this thread shows most of people calling 7th the "Formation Edition" or the "Free Edition".
Liberal_Perturabo wrote: Oh nice, another moronic decision from GW. I wonder how far they will go in their idiocy?
"Hey Dave, since we are completery rebalancing every unit in our game maybe we should do the same for all the formations and detachements so we won't lose on huge amount of variety while simultaneously fixing balance issues they caused?
Nah, man, that would require actual effort on our part! Besides, fitiing your army into formation will make you spend more than 5 minutes on building a list and force strategical decisions and that's a no-go. And do I even need to tell you that all this will be too hard to play for lil Timmy who can barely tell left from right?
I guess so.
Yup. So just trow in in the pile, there is still some room left between armor values, proper melee and interesting setting. We'll make a nice campfire out of all of that once we are finished gutting our franchise into oblivion."
I also love GW's jolly attitude with all that.
Like "Hey guys, check this out! We've made this super cool thing that we are going to show you right now! Ready? Ok, here it goes: all the books that we've released for several past months, the ones that you've been extremely exited about and spent your own money on ARE NOW COMPLETELY USELESS PIECES OF JUNK! Hahaha, amazing, right? Yeah, we are just a bunch of geniuses. Consumer friendly too!
Also buy our models, you fething loser."
Lol, always one masochist in the bunch. The formations and the books that you're lamenting the passing of were too intertwined. 7th edition was the attempt at taking the flaws of 6th and doubling down on them; yet another tweak that kept the crap that Gw's marketing team threw at us intact would fix nothing and just be moisturizer applied to the rotting corpse gw's flagship golden line.
So, with the whole overhaul thing I assume you are expecting broken units to be fixed. You know, things like scatterbikes, riptides and what have you. You don't expect them to be deleted from the game because they were broken, you just expect their rules to change. And that would be ok, right?
But when the same thing is said about formation rules it's suddenly "moisturizer applied to the rotting corpse" and can never-ever be fixed and should only be whiped out from the game?
Would you please explain the logic in that?
Jervis stated on a Twitch Stream that all armies where worked on at the same time to better grind out the core mechanics of the game and balance everything. Some of the nonsense we know of now will likely change.
Heck, we already know weapon profiles are changing. It looks like if a ranged weapon isn't specifically anti-monster/vehicle it may not have a rend value.
But you need something to exist to apply changes to. Weapon profiles are still here. Formations are not.
Also I'm expressing my opinion on the information GW gives us at the moment. Sure, things may change drastically in the future. Or they may not. That's not the point.
Dropping formations was a large change as it removed the free bonus rules gak that was ruining the game. The change is a full blown removal of free rules for formation builds and will likely be replaced by regular FOCs which can offer specific rules with unit taxes. Full on better change.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: I will miss the more fluffy detachments.. But I can say this is for the better overall. So long as I keep my Legion benefits.
Chapter Tactics and Legion Traits were confirmed to still exist. And from a comment on Facebook today apparently more specific Legion Rules will be dropping too.
Hopefully toned down to reduce amount of codex hopping going around. Telling that many cite ability to switch between chapter as reason to paint custom chapter colour...
But colour me positively surprised overall regarding army construction. I was expecting more AOS style with point costed formations etc but this is even better. Albeit the formations shown so far are bit bland(take more minimums, get more extra and command points) which is boring compared to HH rites of war but maybe there are some more interesting ones. And compared to HH much more scalable(HH literally has maximum size army you can build...) which is nice. I hate all non-scalable rules like FB 5th ed magic, 0-1 units, AOS style army general command ability etc. Unscalable rites of war is also the one thing I don't like about HH rules.
changemod wrote: Frankly I've found the attempts to shut down all negativity far more unpleasant to read than any ammount of the negativity itself.
-This is a discussion board, positive and negative views are all part of the discussion.
-It is not unreasonable to comment on rules as they come out, or speculate on how they fit together. We'll get a fuller picture as we go, but there's no crime on commenting on the current picture.
-The idea that one must have perfect information to have an informed view is -sometimes- correct, but is being overused here. To use a fairly non-inflammatory analogy: You need to have a lot of information about Indiana Jones 4 to definitively comment on it's quality, but hearing without seeing it that it uses aliens is enough to comment on the idea of introducing aliens to a franchise without them, and how you think that could impact things.
-A lot is changing, and certain patterns are emerging. These are things which will inevitably cause a lot of negative feeling amongst many, and someone who lashes out at every detail has every bit as much right to discuss the new edition as someone who is hyped up to the point where they'll defend every single aspect of it.
Great post. This phenomenon of having some posters who are adament on always defending GW from all kind of criticism, is weird to say the least, and also very annoying. Only explanation that I can guess is that they are a bit like groupies that live vicariously through some celebrities, but they are doing it through a company.
I feel like it's less "defending GW" and more saying that it makes 0 sense to claim the sky is falling when there is less than half information and a month to go before we know everything.
It's one thing to say "Losing Formations is a bad change, I disagree with it", and another to say "By losing formations there is NO LONGER A WAY TO MAKE FLUFFY THEMED ARMIES BECAUSE THAT WAS THE ONLY WAY", when we haven't seen all the base Detachments nor any of the Faction Detachments. Similar with many of the other complaints, like the idea that we know everything about Morale from a post with 5 paragraphs and saying the sky is falling for X or Y army.
Sensationalist anger has no place. Neither does blind fanboyism, but just because you're arguing against one doesn't mean you exemplify the other.
Not really. Not liking a game or a rules is pretty much a completely subjective thing. If someone think a certain rule ruins the game for him, it is the case, and no amount of posters telling him he is wrong will make him change his mind.
At the very least, I could understand if someone made a post or two defending the new rules, but it is the same poster who are continuously coming to GW rescue.
Because formations really don't add ANYTHING to the game. They are just another layer of rules for no real reason to exist. I despise that they still exist in AoS. At least there they have points.
Formations should only be something of Narrative games to create fluffy things.
They add tactical depth. They create new playstiles. A good formation will have sensible restrictions while compensating for it with sensible benefits. It's only whoever writes the rules's fault for making insanely OP things run wild, not the system itself.
the thing is some mechanics are much easier to find a balance with than others, especially in a game which already has so many complex interactions. In theory every unit in the game could have a "win condition" where if they achieved that you just win the game, if it was tailored properly and made sufficiently difficult in theory that could be balanced, but may god have mercy on the writers asked to do that. With general formations and command points I feel it will be easier.
Formations were bad for the game because they were so inconsistent across factions as to who had them, what types they had, the level of cool rules they provided and what the tax was to take them.
Now everyone has the same access. I can theoretically make an all terminator army with any chapter, not just Dark Angels. I can now make a moster mash/dread army with any army, not just the ones lucky enough to get a formation or detachment that allowed it. And I have the ability to take general command abilities or faction ones and give my army specific flavor? Awesome.
Still a lot we don't know but so far I am very optimistic so far.
Liberal_Perturabo wrote: Oh nice, another moronic decision from GW. I wonder how far they will go in their idiocy?
"Hey Dave, since we are completery rebalancing every unit in our game maybe we should do the same for all the formations and detachements so we won't lose on huge amount of variety while simultaneously fixing balance issues they caused?
Nah, man, that would require actual effort on our part! Besides, fitiing your army into formation will make you spend more than 5 minutes on building a list and force strategical decisions and that's a no-go. And do I even need to tell you that all this will be too hard to play for lil Timmy who can barely tell left from right?
I guess so.
Yup. So just trow in in the pile, there is still some room left between armor values, proper melee and interesting setting. We'll make a nice campfire out of all of that once we are finished gutting our franchise into oblivion."
I also love GW's jolly attitude with all that.
Like "Hey guys, check this out! We've made this super cool thing that we are going to show you right now! Ready? Ok, here it goes: all the books that we've released for several past months, the ones that you've been extremely exited about and spent your own money on ARE NOW COMPLETELY USELESS PIECES OF JUNK! Hahaha, amazing, right? Yeah, we are just a bunch of geniuses. Consumer friendly too!
Also buy our models, you fething loser."
Lol, always one masochist in the bunch. The formations and the books that you're lamenting the passing of were too intertwined. 7th edition was the attempt at taking the flaws of 6th and doubling down on them; yet another tweak that kept the crap that Gw's marketing team threw at us intact would fix nothing and just be moisturizer applied to the rotting corpse gw's flagship golden line.
So, with the whole overhaul thing I assume you are expecting broken units to be fixed. You know, things like scatterbikes, riptides and what have you. You don't expect them to be deleted from the game because they were broken, you just expect their rules to change. And that would be ok, right?
But when the same thing is said about formation rules it's suddenly "moisturizer applied to the rotting corpse" and can never-ever be fixed and should only be whiped out from the game?
Would you please explain the logic in that?
Jervis stated on a Twitch Stream that all armies where worked on at the same time to better grind out the core mechanics of the game and balance everything. Some of the nonsense we know of now will likely change.
Heck, we already know weapon profiles are changing. It looks like if a ranged weapon isn't specifically anti-monster/vehicle it may not have a rend value.
But you need something to exist to apply changes to. Weapon profiles are still here. Formations are not.
Also I'm expressing my opinion on the information GW gives us at the moment. Sure, things may change drastically in the future. Or they may not. That's not the point.
Dropping formations was a large change as it removed the free bonus rules gak that was ruining the game. The change is a full blown removal of free rules for formation builds and will likely be replaced by regular FOCs which can offer specific rules with unit taxes. Full on better change.
Why not just rewrite the rules that add bonus units/points/upgrades/whatever? Heck, they could have just removed those alone and it would have been fine. There are dosens of formations in 40k and only a part of them are broken. Removing the whole system kills a huge chunk of variety.
Liberal_Perturabo wrote: Oh nice, another moronic decision from GW. I wonder how far they will go in their idiocy? "Hey Dave, since we are completery rebalancing every unit in our game maybe we should do the same for all the formations and detachements so we won't lose on huge amount of variety while simultaneously fixing balance issues they caused? Nah, man, that would require actual effort on our part! Besides, fitiing your army into formation will make you spend more than 5 minutes on building a list and force strategical decisions and that's a no-go. And do I even need to tell you that all this will be too hard to play for lil Timmy who can barely tell left from right? I guess so. Yup. So just trow in in the pile, there is still some room left between armor values, proper melee and interesting setting. We'll make a nice campfire out of all of that once we are finished gutting our franchise into oblivion."
I also love GW's jolly attitude with all that. Like "Hey guys, check this out! We've made this super cool thing that we are going to show you right now! Ready? Ok, here it goes: all the books that we've released for several past months, the ones that you've been extremely exited about and spent your own money on ARE NOW COMPLETELY USELESS PIECES OF JUNK! Hahaha, amazing, right? Yeah, we are just a bunch of geniuses. Consumer friendly too! Also buy our models, you fething loser."
Lol, always one masochist in the bunch. The formations and the books that you're lamenting the passing of were too intertwined. 7th edition was the attempt at taking the flaws of 6th and doubling down on them; yet another tweak that kept the crap that Gw's marketing team threw at us intact would fix nothing and just be moisturizer applied to the rotting corpse gw's flagship golden line.
So, with the whole overhaul thing I assume you are expecting broken units to be fixed. You know, things like scatterbikes, riptides and what have you. You don't expect them to be deleted from the game because they were broken, you just expect their rules to change. And that would be ok, right? But when the same thing is said about formation rules it's suddenly "moisturizer applied to the rotting corpse" and can never-ever be fixed and should only be whiped out from the game? Would you please explain the logic in that?
Jervis stated on a Twitch Stream that all armies where worked on at the same time to better grind out the core mechanics of the game and balance everything. Some of the nonsense we know of now will likely change.
Heck, we already know weapon profiles are changing. It looks like if a ranged weapon isn't specifically anti-monster/vehicle it may not have a rend value.
But you need something to exist to apply changes to. Weapon profiles are still here. Formations are not. Also I'm expressing my opinion on the information GW gives us at the moment. Sure, things may change drastically in the future. Or they may not. That's not the point.
Dropping formations was a large change as it removed the free bonus rules gak that was ruining the game. The change is a full blown removal of free rules for formation builds and will likely be replaced by regular FOCs which can offer specific rules with unit taxes. Full on better change.
Why not just rewrite the rules that add bonus units/points/upgrades/whatever? Heck, they could have just removed those alone and it would have been fine. There are dosens of formations in 40k and only a part of them are broken. Removing the whole system kills a huge chunk of variety.
There is also a LOT of formations and for all we know some of them might end up breaking with the army updates. it would be easier to nuke everything and start from scratch than taking a scalpel to it. 99% sure some of the formations will be coming back as book specific detachments.
Great post. This phenomenon of having some posters who are adament on always defending GW from all kind of criticism, is weird to say the least, and also very annoying. Only explanation that I can guess is that they are a bit like groupies that live vicariously through some celebrities, but they are doing it through a company.
Yea that isn't the issue at hand at all. And you can easily see this problem demonstrated mere posts from yours
1) GW is perfect
2) I am happy with what I've heard so far and want to hear more.
3) I like most things, but I really need to know more before I can judge.
4) This all sounds terrible and I don't care to listen.
5) THIS IS THE WORST THING EVER. I QUIT.
People think #2 is the same as #1. When the real problem in my opinion involves #4 and #5.including several of your own posts.
Theres a point where one game designer has to ask hitself.
"Did my game really gain something for adding more rules?"
I have coming to this doing my own games. Like, not adding racial bonuses because really they didn't add that much to the game experience, or because then the rule system begin to be much bigger that I want.
Is not about making formations viable or not, is about...Did formations bring really that much to the game, to merit all the balancing effort? I don't think so. But obviously, people look for different things in their games.
Kriswall wrote: 100% agreed. Formations COULD have been awesome, but in practice created some massive power divides. I'm not a fan of free benefits with no downside. That downside could be a points cost (formations were free) or some other sort of restriction.
At first I thought formations were created to encourage people to bring more themematic armies. If you take this crap unit, you get X benefit to encourage you to take it. Alternativly, it could have been a "If you want to get this really good ruleset, you need to take this crap unit too"
In practice, there were formations released that had no drawback to taking them, nor gave a thematic drawback. They were simply better ways of taking units. Given the lack of playtesting, it lead for some seriously unbalanced formations.
"If your army is built using Formations right now, you’re going to be fine. In their place are a dozen new game-wide Detachments that are available to all factions."
I wait eagerly to see how they're going to make a generic Battle Forged layout that lets me replicate what the Infernal Tetrad allows (ie: 5 Demon Princes in 1850).
I'm a bit sad that formations will go. Granted, there are some that were definitely overpowered and abused to no end like the riptide wing too though so I'm happy I won't face that anymore.
I found the formations gave me more variety in list-building contrary to what some celebrants are saying. For example, I have a Tau Star Wars Themed Army and I wanted Astra Militarum Sentinels to be the AT-ST's and that wouldn't be possible with this system since they're different factions or I'd have to invest in other troops and hq's that don't match the rest of the theme.
I also had fun playing very different lists from week to week like using an absurd number of Alpha Legion's resurrecting cultists one game and then playing a maulerfiend heavy khorne match the next. I found that most of the formations led to using units I rarely fielded without them. Lots of people complain about the demi-company, for example, but how often did you see tacticals and razorbacks before it?
I'll be a little sad with them all leaving, but I'm still excited for 8th. I think I just wish they had gone the route of balancing them better or adding costs to make them less overpowered.
I'm also curious how an army of imperial knights, for example, will work now since a detachment that is only lords of war slots sounds unlikely.
Liberal_Perturabo wrote: Oh nice, another moronic decision from GW. I wonder how far they will go in their idiocy?
"Hey Dave, since we are completery rebalancing every unit in our game maybe we should do the same for all the formations and detachements so we won't lose on huge amount of variety while simultaneously fixing balance issues they caused?
Nah, man, that would require actual effort on our part! Besides, fitiing your army into formation will make you spend more than 5 minutes on building a list and force strategical decisions and that's a no-go. And do I even need to tell you that all this will be too hard to play for lil Timmy who can barely tell left from right?
I guess so.
Yup. So just trow in in the pile, there is still some room left between armor values, proper melee and interesting setting. We'll make a nice campfire out of all of that once we are finished gutting our franchise into oblivion."
I also love GW's jolly attitude with all that.
Like "Hey guys, check this out! We've made this super cool thing that we are going to show you right now! Ready? Ok, here it goes: all the books that we've released for several past months, the ones that you've been extremely exited about and spent your own money on ARE NOW COMPLETELY USELESS PIECES OF JUNK! Hahaha, amazing, right? Yeah, we are just a bunch of geniuses. Consumer friendly too!
Also buy our models, you fething loser."
Lol, always one masochist in the bunch. The formations and the books that you're lamenting the passing of were too intertwined. 7th edition was the attempt at taking the flaws of 6th and doubling down on them; yet another tweak that kept the crap that Gw's marketing team threw at us intact would fix nothing and just be moisturizer applied to the rotting corpse gw's flagship golden line.
So, with the whole overhaul thing I assume you are expecting broken units to be fixed. You know, things like scatterbikes, riptides and what have you. You don't expect them to be deleted from the game because they were broken, you just expect their rules to change. And that would be ok, right?
But when the same thing is said about formation rules it's suddenly "moisturizer applied to the rotting corpse" and can never-ever be fixed and should only be whiped out from the game?
Would you please explain the logic in that?
Jervis stated on a Twitch Stream that all armies where worked on at the same time to better grind out the core mechanics of the game and balance everything. Some of the nonsense we know of now will likely change.
Heck, we already know weapon profiles are changing. It looks like if a ranged weapon isn't specifically anti-monster/vehicle it may not have a rend value.
But you need something to exist to apply changes to. Weapon profiles are still here. Formations are not.
Also I'm expressing my opinion on the information GW gives us at the moment. Sure, things may change drastically in the future. Or they may not. That's not the point.
Dropping formations was a large change as it removed the free bonus rules gak that was ruining the game. The change is a full blown removal of free rules for formation builds and will likely be replaced by regular FOCs which can offer specific rules with unit taxes. Full on better change.
Why not just rewrite the rules that add bonus units/points/upgrades/whatever? Heck, they could have just removed those alone and it would have been fine. There are dosens of formations in 40k and only a part of them are broken. Removing the whole system kills a huge chunk of variety.
Which is honestly easier to balance:
A. A couple of dozen of FOCs between the generic ones and the ones given to each faction
OR
B. Over three dozen unique formations that range from useless to utterly broken?
Because frankly A looks like what we got because B would take so long that 8th would come out in 2019.
Great post. This phenomenon of having some posters who are adament on always defending GW from all kind of criticism, is weird to say the least, and also very annoying. Only explanation that I can guess is that they are a bit like groupies that live vicariously through some celebrities, but they are doing it through a company.
Yea that isn't the issue at hand at all. And you can easily see this problem demonstrated mere posts from yours
1) GW is perfect 2) I am happy with what I've heard so far and want to hear more. 3) I like most things, but I really need to know more before I can judge. 4) This all sounds terrible and I don't care to listen. 5) THIS IS THE WORST THING EVER. I QUIT.
People think #2 is the same as #1. When the real problem in my opinion involves #4 and #5.including several of your own posts.
Well, if you think some of my posts fall in nb 4 or nb 5 you clearly have some major reading comprehension deficiencies, since I've said numerous times that I'm happy with most of the change so far, and I have been generally positive toward 8th edition
What was so inherently broken about formations concept?
Aside from "buy specific X get Y tailored freebies" (e.g. "buy our webstore bundle of devastator and assault marines and drop pods and they get to come in turn 1, shoot as Relentless and assault from deesptrike!") being terrible game design in and of itself, when coupled with allies, multiple detachment rules, formations/detachments made up of other formations, etc promoted lots of spam (and did little for army variety at events) and exacerbated issues with unintended syngergies between things that weren't really intended to work together or made them dramatically more powerful than they were originally designed to be.
They're also just an unnecessary layer of complexity that has to be separately managed, balanced and updated in addition to everything else.
Liberal_Perturabo wrote: Oh nice, another moronic decision from GW. I wonder how far they will go in their idiocy?
"Hey Dave, since we are completery rebalancing every unit in our game maybe we should do the same for all the formations and detachements so we won't lose on huge amount of variety while simultaneously fixing balance issues they caused?
Nah, man, that would require actual effort on our part! Besides, fitiing your army into formation will make you spend more than 5 minutes on building a list and force strategical decisions and that's a no-go. And do I even need to tell you that all this will be too hard to play for lil Timmy who can barely tell left from right?
I guess so.
Yup. So just trow in in the pile, there is still some room left between armor values, proper melee and interesting setting. We'll make a nice campfire out of all of that once we are finished gutting our franchise into oblivion."
I also love GW's jolly attitude with all that.
Like "Hey guys, check this out! We've made this super cool thing that we are going to show you right now! Ready? Ok, here it goes: all the books that we've released for several past months, the ones that you've been extremely exited about and spent your own money on ARE NOW COMPLETELY USELESS PIECES OF JUNK! Hahaha, amazing, right? Yeah, we are just a bunch of geniuses. Consumer friendly too!
Also buy our models, you fething loser."
Lol, always one masochist in the bunch. The formations and the books that you're lamenting the passing of were too intertwined. 7th edition was the attempt at taking the flaws of 6th and doubling down on them; yet another tweak that kept the crap that Gw's marketing team threw at us intact would fix nothing and just be moisturizer applied to the rotting corpse gw's flagship golden line.
So, with the whole overhaul thing I assume you are expecting broken units to be fixed. You know, things like scatterbikes, riptides and what have you. You don't expect them to be deleted from the game because they were broken, you just expect their rules to change. And that would be ok, right?
But when the same thing is said about formation rules it's suddenly "moisturizer applied to the rotting corpse" and can never-ever be fixed and should only be whiped out from the game?
Would you please explain the logic in that?
Jervis stated on a Twitch Stream that all armies where worked on at the same time to better grind out the core mechanics of the game and balance everything. Some of the nonsense we know of now will likely change.
Heck, we already know weapon profiles are changing. It looks like if a ranged weapon isn't specifically anti-monster/vehicle it may not have a rend value.
But you need something to exist to apply changes to. Weapon profiles are still here. Formations are not.
Also I'm expressing my opinion on the information GW gives us at the moment. Sure, things may change drastically in the future. Or they may not. That's not the point.
Dropping formations was a large change as it removed the free bonus rules gak that was ruining the game. The change is a full blown removal of free rules for formation builds and will likely be replaced by regular FOCs which can offer specific rules with unit taxes. Full on better change.
Why not just rewrite the rules that add bonus units/points/upgrades/whatever? Heck, they could have just removed those alone and it would have been fine. There are dosens of formations in 40k and only a part of them are broken. Removing the whole system kills a huge chunk of variety.
There is also a LOT of formations and for all we know some of them might end up breaking with the army updates.
it would be easier to nuke everything and start from scratch than taking a scalpel to it. 99% sure some of the formations will be coming back as book specific detachments.
There are several times more units in the game than formations. Each with their own special rules, wargear and so on. Many of them broken too.
Even still GW decided to rebalance the whole thing and not just nuke everything, since people are not particularly fond of their models suddenely becoming invalid.
Yes, making a good game is hard. Balancing is hard. It doesn't mean we should excuse developers for not doing so.
Well, if you think some of my posts fall in nb 4 or nb 5 you clearly have some major reading comprehension problems, since I've said numerous times that I'm happy with most of the change so far, and I have been generally positive toward 8th edition
You know what you're right on that. I've unjustly mis-characterized your posts. I apologize for lashing out from frustration.
Well, if you think some of my posts fall in nb 4 or nb 5 you clearly have some major reading comprehension problems, since I've said numerous times that I'm happy with most of the change so far, and I have been generally positive toward 8th edition
You know what you're right on that. I've unjustly mis-characterized your posts. I apologize for lashing out from frustration.
Liberal_Perturabo wrote: Oh nice, another moronic decision from GW. I wonder how far they will go in their idiocy?
"Hey Dave, since we are completery rebalancing every unit in our game maybe we should do the same for all the formations and detachements so we won't lose on huge amount of variety while simultaneously fixing balance issues they caused?
Nah, man, that would require actual effort on our part! Besides, fitiing your army into formation will make you spend more than 5 minutes on building a list and force strategical decisions and that's a no-go. And do I even need to tell you that all this will be too hard to play for lil Timmy who can barely tell left from right?
I guess so.
Yup. So just trow in in the pile, there is still some room left between armor values, proper melee and interesting setting. We'll make a nice campfire out of all of that once we are finished gutting our franchise into oblivion."
I also love GW's jolly attitude with all that.
Like "Hey guys, check this out! We've made this super cool thing that we are going to show you right now! Ready? Ok, here it goes: all the books that we've released for several past months, the ones that you've been extremely exited about and spent your own money on ARE NOW COMPLETELY USELESS PIECES OF JUNK! Hahaha, amazing, right? Yeah, we are just a bunch of geniuses. Consumer friendly too!
Also buy our models, you fething loser."
Lol, always one masochist in the bunch. The formations and the books that you're lamenting the passing of were too intertwined. 7th edition was the attempt at taking the flaws of 6th and doubling down on them; yet another tweak that kept the crap that Gw's marketing team threw at us intact would fix nothing and just be moisturizer applied to the rotting corpse gw's flagship golden line.
So, with the whole overhaul thing I assume you are expecting broken units to be fixed. You know, things like scatterbikes, riptides and what have you. You don't expect them to be deleted from the game because they were broken, you just expect their rules to change. And that would be ok, right?
But when the same thing is said about formation rules it's suddenly "moisturizer applied to the rotting corpse" and can never-ever be fixed and should only be whiped out from the game?
Would you please explain the logic in that?
Jervis stated on a Twitch Stream that all armies where worked on at the same time to better grind out the core mechanics of the game and balance everything. Some of the nonsense we know of now will likely change.
Heck, we already know weapon profiles are changing. It looks like if a ranged weapon isn't specifically anti-monster/vehicle it may not have a rend value.
But you need something to exist to apply changes to. Weapon profiles are still here. Formations are not.
Also I'm expressing my opinion on the information GW gives us at the moment. Sure, things may change drastically in the future. Or they may not. That's not the point.
Dropping formations was a large change as it removed the free bonus rules gak that was ruining the game. The change is a full blown removal of free rules for formation builds and will likely be replaced by regular FOCs which can offer specific rules with unit taxes. Full on better change.
Why not just rewrite the rules that add bonus units/points/upgrades/whatever? Heck, they could have just removed those alone and it would have been fine. There are dosens of formations in 40k and only a part of them are broken. Removing the whole system kills a huge chunk of variety.
There is also a LOT of formations and for all we know some of them might end up breaking with the army updates.
it would be easier to nuke everything and start from scratch than taking a scalpel to it. 99% sure some of the formations will be coming back as book specific detachments.
There are several times more units in the game than formations. Each with their own special rules, wargear and so on. Many of them broken too.
Even still GW decided to rebalance the whole thing and not just nuke everything, since people are not particularly fond of their models suddenely becoming invalid.
Yes, making a good game is hard. Balancing is hard. It doesn't mean we should excuse developers for not doing so.
I dont understand how is nuking everything suddenly invalidating models that people have? they are redoing everything from the ground up. everyone and everything starts off at equal footing. there was way too much imbalance between ALL armies and even all units within those armies and between.
During the FAQ he held up a piece of paper and said he thought there were 14 formation in the book. He may have mis-remembered and gone back and counted to find there were 12. What does it really matter between 12 and 14? Simply put, there are a number of formation in the book. They generally give command points.
It's up to the player to figure out the best balance of formations to command points.
Since, we know you can spend a command point per phase. And I would guess a game will be between 5 and 7 turns. The most command points you could spend is 50-70 command points. I have a feeling that number would be near impossible to get in a 2000 point game or less. So, they really are a tactical item to be used when needed.
Do you like to have extra things to use? Build armies that take advantage of the command points. If not build armies that don't have alot of command points.
Tournament organizers will probably start applying more rules to those as we go along. I would bet at the very beginning though this will be a near free for all of army building.
I wouldn't be surprised if the first few tournaments are bring a battle-forged 1500pt army. Follow the rulebook.
What was so inherently broken about formations concept?
Aside from "buy specific X get Y tailored freebies" (e.g. "buy our webstore bundle of devastator and assault marines and drop pods and they get to come in turn 1, shoot as Relentless and assault from deesptrike!") being terrible game design in and of itself, when coupled with allies, multiple detachment rules, formations/detachments made up of other formations, etc promoted lots of spam (and did little for army variety at events) and exacerbated issues with unintended syngergies between things that weren't really intended to work together or made them dramatically more powerful than they were originally designed to be.
They're also just an unnecessary layer of complexity that has to be separately managed, balanced and updated in addition to everything else.
Nothing you've mentioned couldn't be fixed with a rewrite and a proper restriction as a requirement for you having a formation. Formations consisting of formations I can agree with, but just removing those would fix that problem.
Also, I do not belive that more playstyle variety is something unnecessary for a game to have.
Liberal_Perturabo wrote: Why not just rewrite the rules that add bonus units/points/upgrades/whatever? Heck, they could have just removed those alone and it would have been fine. There are dosens of formations in 40k and only a part of them are broken. Removing the whole system kills a huge chunk of variety.
By variety guess you mean free bonus rules since apart from those what it differs if you can take same units anyway_
Great post. This phenomenon of having some posters who are adament on always defending GW from all kind of criticism, is weird to say the least, and also very annoying. Only explanation that I can guess is that they are a bit like groupies that live vicariously through some celebrities, but they are doing it through a company.
Yea that isn't the issue at hand at all. And you can easily see this problem demonstrated mere posts from yours
1) GW is perfect
2) I am happy with what I've heard so far and want to hear more.
3) I like most things, but I really need to know more before I can judge.
4) This all sounds terrible and I don't care to listen.
5) THIS IS THE WORST THING EVER. I QUIT.
People think #2 is the same as #1. When the real problem in my opinion involves #4 and #5.including several of your own posts.
You forgot "This sounds bad. Hopefully GW has some ace in sleeve but with GW's track record I'm not going to stick my head in sand and pretend everything is fine" which is more accurate of the complains.
Almost like different people have different ideas, eh?
Barely. Formations were pretty universally hated on Dakka, in fact, this thread shows most of people calling 7th the "Formation Edition" or the "Free Edition".
Liberal_Perturabo wrote: Oh nice, another moronic decision from GW. I wonder how far they will go in their idiocy?
"Hey Dave, since we are completery rebalancing every unit in our game maybe we should do the same for all the formations and detachements so we won't lose on huge amount of variety while simultaneously fixing balance issues they caused?
Nah, man, that would require actual effort on our part! Besides, fitiing your army into formation will make you spend more than 5 minutes on building a list and force strategical decisions and that's a no-go. And do I even need to tell you that all this will be too hard to play for lil Timmy who can barely tell left from right?
I guess so.
Yup. So just trow in in the pile, there is still some room left between armor values, proper melee and interesting setting. We'll make a nice campfire out of all of that once we are finished gutting our franchise into oblivion."
I also love GW's jolly attitude with all that.
Like "Hey guys, check this out! We've made this super cool thing that we are going to show you right now! Ready? Ok, here it goes: all the books that we've released for several past months, the ones that you've been extremely exited about and spent your own money on ARE NOW COMPLETELY USELESS PIECES OF JUNK! Hahaha, amazing, right? Yeah, we are just a bunch of geniuses. Consumer friendly too!
Also buy our models, you fething loser."
Lol, always one masochist in the bunch. The formations and the books that you're lamenting the passing of were too intertwined. 7th edition was the attempt at taking the flaws of 6th and doubling down on them; yet another tweak that kept the crap that Gw's marketing team threw at us intact would fix nothing and just be moisturizer applied to the rotting corpse gw's flagship golden line.
So, with the whole overhaul thing I assume you are expecting broken units to be fixed. You know, things like scatterbikes, riptides and what have you. You don't expect them to be deleted from the game because they were broken, you just expect their rules to change. And that would be ok, right?
But when the same thing is said about formation rules it's suddenly "moisturizer applied to the rotting corpse" and can never-ever be fixed and should only be whiped out from the game?
Would you please explain the logic in that?
Jervis stated on a Twitch Stream that all armies where worked on at the same time to better grind out the core mechanics of the game and balance everything. Some of the nonsense we know of now will likely change.
Heck, we already know weapon profiles are changing. It looks like if a ranged weapon isn't specifically anti-monster/vehicle it may not have a rend value.
But you need something to exist to apply changes to. Weapon profiles are still here. Formations are not.
Also I'm expressing my opinion on the information GW gives us at the moment. Sure, things may change drastically in the future. Or they may not. That's not the point.
Dropping formations was a large change as it removed the free bonus rules gak that was ruining the game. The change is a full blown removal of free rules for formation builds and will likely be replaced by regular FOCs which can offer specific rules with unit taxes. Full on better change.
Why not just rewrite the rules that add bonus units/points/upgrades/whatever? Heck, they could have just removed those alone and it would have been fine. There are dosens of formations in 40k and only a part of them are broken. Removing the whole system kills a huge chunk of variety.
There is also a LOT of formations and for all we know some of them might end up breaking with the army updates.
it would be easier to nuke everything and start from scratch than taking a scalpel to it. 99% sure some of the formations will be coming back as book specific detachments.
There are several times more units in the game than formations. Each with their own special rules, wargear and so on. Many of them broken too.
Even still GW decided to rebalance the whole thing and not just nuke everything, since people are not particularly fond of their models suddenely becoming invalid.
Yes, making a good game is hard. Balancing is hard. It doesn't mean we should excuse developers for not doing so.
Formations were buffs to units on top of any broken rules they may have already had.
Balancing units is easier than balancing formations as the first can be done through points costs and rules tweaks, formations on the other hand can only be adjusted via rules tweaks. Formations could have been good if there were unit taxes built in, but then they might as well just been FOC bonuses for specific builds.
Liberal_Perturabo wrote: Oh nice, another moronic decision from GW. I wonder how far they will go in their idiocy?
"Hey Dave, since we are completery rebalancing every unit in our game maybe we should do the same for all the formations and detachements so we won't lose on huge amount of variety while simultaneously fixing balance issues they caused?
Nah, man, that would require actual effort on our part! Besides, fitiing your army into formation will make you spend more than 5 minutes on building a list and force strategical decisions and that's a no-go. And do I even need to tell you that all this will be too hard to play for lil Timmy who can barely tell left from right?
I guess so.
Yup. So just trow in in the pile, there is still some room left between armor values, proper melee and interesting setting. We'll make a nice campfire out of all of that once we are finished gutting our franchise into oblivion."
I also love GW's jolly attitude with all that.
Like "Hey guys, check this out! We've made this super cool thing that we are going to show you right now! Ready? Ok, here it goes: all the books that we've released for several past months, the ones that you've been extremely exited about and spent your own money on ARE NOW COMPLETELY USELESS PIECES OF JUNK! Hahaha, amazing, right? Yeah, we are just a bunch of geniuses. Consumer friendly too!
Also buy our models, you fething loser."
Lol, always one masochist in the bunch. The formations and the books that you're lamenting the passing of were too intertwined. 7th edition was the attempt at taking the flaws of 6th and doubling down on them; yet another tweak that kept the crap that Gw's marketing team threw at us intact would fix nothing and just be moisturizer applied to the rotting corpse gw's flagship golden line.
So, with the whole overhaul thing I assume you are expecting broken units to be fixed. You know, things like scatterbikes, riptides and what have you. You don't expect them to be deleted from the game because they were broken, you just expect their rules to change. And that would be ok, right?
But when the same thing is said about formation rules it's suddenly "moisturizer applied to the rotting corpse" and can never-ever be fixed and should only be whiped out from the game?
Would you please explain the logic in that?
Jervis stated on a Twitch Stream that all armies where worked on at the same time to better grind out the core mechanics of the game and balance everything. Some of the nonsense we know of now will likely change.
Heck, we already know weapon profiles are changing. It looks like if a ranged weapon isn't specifically anti-monster/vehicle it may not have a rend value.
But you need something to exist to apply changes to. Weapon profiles are still here. Formations are not.
Also I'm expressing my opinion on the information GW gives us at the moment. Sure, things may change drastically in the future. Or they may not. That's not the point.
Dropping formations was a large change as it removed the free bonus rules gak that was ruining the game. The change is a full blown removal of free rules for formation builds and will likely be replaced by regular FOCs which can offer specific rules with unit taxes. Full on better change.
Why not just rewrite the rules that add bonus units/points/upgrades/whatever? Heck, they could have just removed those alone and it would have been fine. There are dosens of formations in 40k and only a part of them are broken. Removing the whole system kills a huge chunk of variety.
There is also a LOT of formations and for all we know some of them might end up breaking with the army updates.
it would be easier to nuke everything and start from scratch than taking a scalpel to it. 99% sure some of the formations will be coming back as book specific detachments.
There are several times more units in the game than formations. Each with their own special rules, wargear and so on. Many of them broken too.
Even still GW decided to rebalance the whole thing and not just nuke everything, since people are not particularly fond of their models suddenely becoming invalid.
Yes, making a good game is hard. Balancing is hard. It doesn't mean we should excuse developers for not doing so.
I do not and will not let GW off the hook for the 7th edition disaster. There, now you see that I'm not a GW Fanboi. Removing free rules (AKA formations) for buying SPECIFIC models is the right way to go because they couldn't figure out how to balance them correctly. I know, I know, they should have called you first but they didn't. Time to move on.
Liberal_Perturabo wrote: Oh nice, another moronic decision from GW. I wonder how far they will go in their idiocy?
"Hey Dave, since we are completery rebalancing every unit in our game maybe we should do the same for all the formations and detachements so we won't lose on huge amount of variety while simultaneously fixing balance issues they caused?
Nah, man, that would require actual effort on our part! Besides, fitiing your army into formation will make you spend more than 5 minutes on building a list and force strategical decisions and that's a no-go. And do I even need to tell you that all this will be too hard to play for lil Timmy who can barely tell left from right?
I guess so.
Yup. So just trow in in the pile, there is still some room left between armor values, proper melee and interesting setting. We'll make a nice campfire out of all of that once we are finished gutting our franchise into oblivion."
I also love GW's jolly attitude with all that.
Like "Hey guys, check this out! We've made this super cool thing that we are going to show you right now! Ready? Ok, here it goes: all the books that we've released for several past months, the ones that you've been extremely exited about and spent your own money on ARE NOW COMPLETELY USELESS PIECES OF JUNK! Hahaha, amazing, right? Yeah, we are just a bunch of geniuses. Consumer friendly too!
Also buy our models, you fething loser."
Lol, always one masochist in the bunch. The formations and the books that you're lamenting the passing of were too intertwined. 7th edition was the attempt at taking the flaws of 6th and doubling down on them; yet another tweak that kept the crap that Gw's marketing team threw at us intact would fix nothing and just be moisturizer applied to the rotting corpse gw's flagship golden line.
So, with the whole overhaul thing I assume you are expecting broken units to be fixed. You know, things like scatterbikes, riptides and what have you. You don't expect them to be deleted from the game because they were broken, you just expect their rules to change. And that would be ok, right?
But when the same thing is said about formation rules it's suddenly "moisturizer applied to the rotting corpse" and can never-ever be fixed and should only be whiped out from the game?
Would you please explain the logic in that?
Jervis stated on a Twitch Stream that all armies where worked on at the same time to better grind out the core mechanics of the game and balance everything. Some of the nonsense we know of now will likely change.
Heck, we already know weapon profiles are changing. It looks like if a ranged weapon isn't specifically anti-monster/vehicle it may not have a rend value.
But you need something to exist to apply changes to. Weapon profiles are still here. Formations are not.
Also I'm expressing my opinion on the information GW gives us at the moment. Sure, things may change drastically in the future. Or they may not. That's not the point.
Dropping formations was a large change as it removed the free bonus rules gak that was ruining the game. The change is a full blown removal of free rules for formation builds and will likely be replaced by regular FOCs which can offer specific rules with unit taxes. Full on better change.
Why not just rewrite the rules that add bonus units/points/upgrades/whatever? Heck, they could have just removed those alone and it would have been fine. There are dosens of formations in 40k and only a part of them are broken. Removing the whole system kills a huge chunk of variety.
There is also a LOT of formations and for all we know some of them might end up breaking with the army updates.
it would be easier to nuke everything and start from scratch than taking a scalpel to it. 99% sure some of the formations will be coming back as book specific detachments.
There are several times more units in the game than formations. Each with their own special rules, wargear and so on. Many of them broken too.
Even still GW decided to rebalance the whole thing and not just nuke everything, since people are not particularly fond of their models suddenely becoming invalid.
Yes, making a good game is hard. Balancing is hard. It doesn't mean we should excuse developers for not doing so.
I dont understand how is nuking everything suddenly invalidating models that people have? they are redoing everything from the ground up. everyone and everything starts off at equal footing. there was way too much imbalance between ALL armies and even all units within those armies and between.
Nuking as in completely removing from the game like they did with formations. GW oblosly wouldn't do that to something like a wraithknight.
Liberal_Perturabo wrote: Nuking as in completely removing from the game like they did with formations. GW oblosly wouldn't do that to something like a wraithknight.
Yea. They aren't nuking models. They can nuke rules though. They nuked LD8 from space marines as well.
What matters more is that you can still use your models. So far all you have lost is free bonus rules.
v0iddrgn wrote: I personally LOVE the part about "well rounded" armies receiving benefits. This puts more of an emphasis on TAC armies thus making it more accessible to new players who most likely don't have tons of $$$ to invest in this little hobby of ours. Plus it's another step away from Unbound abomination.
You could make just as nasty lists using Battleforged for the powerful army books as you could in many cases for Unbound.
Thats why 7th wasn't nearly fun enough to waste time on for a lot of players. Formations going away plus benefits for TAC = big win IMHO.
Isn't going to do a thing to make it cheaper though, cheap hobbies aren't easy to find.
It is going to make it cheaper for people, because most of the factions are part of the Imperium (and I think the now 4 Eldar factions will work similarly as well as all the Chaos factions amongst themselves). That means if you are a newish player who only got 750 points of Space Marines and then says: "I want to start Sisters of Battle!", he can just get 750 points of Sisters and already has a working 1500 points army which, thanks to the way that all factions are limited to the same detachements, won't be hamstrung because you get awful formations that get roflstomped by that guy with the Gladius Strike Force and other OP formations, while the lack of command points and likely keyword dependant synergies and buffs will keep your list balanced even though you get to cherry pick from two factions.
Compare that to the 5.Edition where if you wanted to play 1500 points with sisters you had to built up an entire 1500 points army of them. Remember what a massive problem building up an Imperial Guard army was because everything was so cheap pointswise and you had to buy a massive number of vehicles and infantry boxes to even get to 1500 points, making it unaffordable for many? Now you can just toss 600 points or so into a Marines army and still enjoy playing them (which is actually the case for me). It also massively increases the value of the starter box: Sure you start with non-legal amounts of models of an army you might not necessarily want in the long run but as long as you want to build up any army from the same alliance you can use them to efficiently fill up points.
So, completely unchanged from 7th then. And it absolutely wont make it cheaper. It doesn't matter whether your making a single faction army or pick and mixing from various factions you're still looking at roughly £500 for a 2000pt army (assuming army sizes will remain roughly the same in 8th, I doubt they'll get smaller). And a mixed faction army is probably the worst way to go about things, if Sigmar is any indication then most abilities wont work against IMPERIUM but against Sisters of Battle, or Blood Angels etc, making mixed armies horribly ineffective.
Kirasu wrote: Great choice for GW to nuke formations and put people back to using battle forged without unlikely allies. Hopefully this brings sanity back to the game,
HOWEVER, as usual.. there is a bizarre decision.
The most common restriction is that all units in a single Detachment must share a faction keyword (Tyranid, Blood Angels or Imperium for example).
Seems fair, you can use all units in the Tyranid Faction or I can use all the units in the IMPERIUM faction to build my list! Why even have any other faction?? Maybe that just means stuff like Inquisition.
I imagine it will work like AoS, in that the benefits you get from your chosen Detachment get stronger the more specific you are with your Keyword adherence. So using total asspull numbers, a Patrol Detachment with only Astartes keyworded units might get 10 Command Points, whereas one containing Astartes, Guard, Skitarii, and SoB could only claim the reward of the Imperium keyword of say, 7 Command Points. They could even have a scaling system, where each additional army keyword reduces the reward you get from the metafaction keyword.
Frankly this is one of the few changes we've seen so far I have almost no reservations about at all. If they distribute the Detachment rewards properly and in tandem with the various anti-Deathstar changes being made, this seems like it will give even more flexibility than the Allies system with few or no downsides, and without the unit selection anarchy that characterised early AoS.
Liberal_Perturabo wrote: Oh nice, another moronic decision from GW. I wonder how far they will go in their idiocy?
"Hey Dave, since we are completery rebalancing every unit in our game maybe we should do the same for all the formations and detachements so we won't lose on huge amount of variety while simultaneously fixing balance issues they caused?
Nah, man, that would require actual effort on our part! Besides, fitiing your army into formation will make you spend more than 5 minutes on building a list and force strategical decisions and that's a no-go. And do I even need to tell you that all this will be too hard to play for lil Timmy who can barely tell left from right?
I guess so.
Yup. So just trow in in the pile, there is still some room left between armor values, proper melee and interesting setting. We'll make a nice campfire out of all of that once we are finished gutting our franchise into oblivion."
I also love GW's jolly attitude with all that.
Like "Hey guys, check this out! We've made this super cool thing that we are going to show you right now! Ready? Ok, here it goes: all the books that we've released for several past months, the ones that you've been extremely exited about and spent your own money on ARE NOW COMPLETELY USELESS PIECES OF JUNK! Hahaha, amazing, right? Yeah, we are just a bunch of geniuses. Consumer friendly too!
Also buy our models, you fething loser."
Lol, always one masochist in the bunch. The formations and the books that you're lamenting the passing of were too intertwined. 7th edition was the attempt at taking the flaws of 6th and doubling down on them; yet another tweak that kept the crap that Gw's marketing team threw at us intact would fix nothing and just be moisturizer applied to the rotting corpse gw's flagship golden line.
So, with the whole overhaul thing I assume you are expecting broken units to be fixed. You know, things like scatterbikes, riptides and what have you. You don't expect them to be deleted from the game because they were broken, you just expect their rules to change. And that would be ok, right?
But when the same thing is said about formation rules it's suddenly "moisturizer applied to the rotting corpse" and can never-ever be fixed and should only be whiped out from the game?
Would you please explain the logic in that?
Jervis stated on a Twitch Stream that all armies where worked on at the same time to better grind out the core mechanics of the game and balance everything. Some of the nonsense we know of now will likely change.
Heck, we already know weapon profiles are changing. It looks like if a ranged weapon isn't specifically anti-monster/vehicle it may not have a rend value.
But you need something to exist to apply changes to. Weapon profiles are still here. Formations are not.
Also I'm expressing my opinion on the information GW gives us at the moment. Sure, things may change drastically in the future. Or they may not. That's not the point.
Dropping formations was a large change as it removed the free bonus rules gak that was ruining the game. The change is a full blown removal of free rules for formation builds and will likely be replaced by regular FOCs which can offer specific rules with unit taxes. Full on better change.
Why not just rewrite the rules that add bonus units/points/upgrades/whatever? Heck, they could have just removed those alone and it would have been fine. There are dosens of formations in 40k and only a part of them are broken. Removing the whole system kills a huge chunk of variety.
There is also a LOT of formations and for all we know some of them might end up breaking with the army updates.
it would be easier to nuke everything and start from scratch than taking a scalpel to it. 99% sure some of the formations will be coming back as book specific detachments.
There are several times more units in the game than formations. Each with their own special rules, wargear and so on. Many of them broken too.
Even still GW decided to rebalance the whole thing and not just nuke everything, since people are not particularly fond of their models suddenely becoming invalid.
Yes, making a good game is hard. Balancing is hard. It doesn't mean we should excuse developers for not doing so.
Formations were buffs to units on top of any broken rules they may have already had.
Balancing units is easier than balancing formations as the first can be done through points costs and rules tweaks, formations on the other hand can only be adjusted via rules tweaks. Formations could have been good if there were unit taxes built in, but then they might as well just been FOC bonuses for specific builds.
What's wrong with removing certain special rules from a unit in a formation to balance it out? What's wrong with formations putting limitations on the rest of your army or the formation itself? Heck, what's wrong with adding point costs for them?
"If your army is built using Formations right now, you’re going to be fine. In their place are a dozen new game-wide Detachments that are available to all factions."
I wait eagerly to see how they're going to make a generic Battle Forged layout that lets me replicate what the Infernal Tetrad allows (ie: 5 Demon Princes in 1850).
That seems to be possible using JUST whats been spoiled today, did you look?
Liberal_Perturabo wrote: What's wrong with removing certain special rules from a unit in a formation to balance it out? What's wrong with formations putting limitations on the rest of your army or the formation itself? Heck, what's wrong with adding point costs for them?
What is wrong with simply fielding same units without free bonus rules_
Being able to play a 'legal'/battle-forged army straight out of a start collecting box does make things cheaper, especially for new players.
Will it matter to the guys that have invested 100's into models? Not that much, but for newer players or people expanding into another faction it totally does.
Models aren't going away, wargear options aren't going away, even unit options aren't changing. What is changing is how we field those very same models, the way the weapons work and what they'll cost us to field.
Frankly this is all GOOD as they've gone forward with keeping armies legal while (hopefully) changing the things that made them broken.
Great post. This phenomenon of having some posters who are adament on always defending GW from all kind of criticism, is weird to say the least, and also very annoying. Only explanation that I can guess is that they are a bit like groupies that live vicariously through some celebrities, but they are doing it through a company.
Yea that isn't the issue at hand at all. And you can easily see this problem demonstrated mere posts from yours
1) GW is perfect
2) I am happy with what I've heard so far and want to hear more.
3) I like most things, but I really need to know more before I can judge.
4) This all sounds terrible and I don't care to listen.
5) THIS IS THE WORST THING EVER. I QUIT.
People think #2 is the same as #1. When the real problem in my opinion involves #4 and #5.including several of your own posts.
That you've missed out "I dislike most things I've heard, and am leery of the direction this is taking." indicates a bias against negativity.
And frankly, 1 and 5 are perfectly viable to express as long as they aren't trying to shut one another down. Perhaps more reactionary than a simple stance of like or dislike open to rational discussion, but not a problem compared to -either- side getting hostile and trying to quash dissent.
Liberal_Perturabo wrote: There are several times more units in the game than formations. Each with their own special rules, wargear and so on. Many of them broken too.
Even still GW decided to rebalance the whole thing and not just nuke everything, since people are not particularly fond of their models suddenely becoming invalid.
Yes, making a good game is hard. Balancing is hard. It doesn't mean we should excuse developers for not doing so.
My main army is a Tzeench army with a Warpflame host and Burning Skyhost.
This change will invalidate most of those units. I won't be able to field an army of flamers and screamers.
I'm OK with that. Better balance to the game is well worth having to bring a few horrors. I can still bring a ton of screamers and flamers, I just need to add some horrors as well.
Your army is likely the same way. You can probably still bring everything you have now, just in more balanced numbers.
Daedalus81 wrote: 1) GW is perfect
2) I am happy with what I've heard so far and want to hear more.
3) I like most things, but I really need to know more before I can judge.
4) This all sounds terrible and I don't care to listen.
5) THIS IS THE WORST THING EVER. I QUIT.
I would love to see a poll where people rank these values and then add how often they play.
The number of people on this forum who say things like "I've not played since 5th edition" is staggering.
labmouse42 wrote: My main army is a Tzeench army with a Warpflame host and Burning Skyhost.
This change will invalidate most of those units. I won't be able to field an army of flamers and screamers.
You don't? Where does it say? So far best we can say we don't know for SURE you can but...There's 11 detachments to be seen plus whatever they come up in future.
Nuking as in completely removing from the game like they did with formations. GW oblosly wouldn't do that to something like a wraithknight.
I think you and i have completely different ideas of what nuking means.
They are completely redoing the game.
it makes no sense to bring something in from basically a whole another game as is
and for all we know formations will be in but in a completely different shape and form.
My whole argument is about them not bringing formations as is, but rather fixing them for 8th.
They are talking 14 and we've already seen 3 of them. There are more factions in 40k than this, so basically glorified FOCs, maybe one or two xenos/chaos/imperium specific. That's a huge downgrade from what was already in 40k and only needed, not gonna lie, sometimes significant improvements, but still.
Wonder what they are going to do with the Harlequins. Either they are stuck with a army-specific detachment, or they are going to have to give them an HQ unit.
labmouse42 wrote: My main army is a Tzeench army with a Warpflame host and Burning Skyhost.
This change will invalidate most of those units. I won't be able to field an army of flamers and screamers.
You don't? Where does it say? So far best we can say we don't know for SURE you can but...There's 11 detachments to be seen plus whatever they come up in future.
There are also faction specific FOCs coming too (though likely not until well after the initial release).
Nothing you've mentioned couldn't be fixed with a rewrite and a proper restriction as a requirement for you having a formation. Formations consisting of formations I can agree with, but just removing those would fix that problem.
The issue is that there is no good way to appropriately cost many if not most of these things.
How are you going to balance those bonuses? Especially in formations that dont have fixed freebies or unit counts? How would you appropriately cost something like a War Convocation with no Gets Hot and synergizing with free plasma and wargear across multiple units and BS enhancing abilities to boot? How would you cost something like Aspect Warriors getting Bs5 or Ws5 with no fixed unit types or sizes? Is BS5 something that should be easily available for the entire duration of a game to something like Fire Dragons in the first place?
If bonuses of certain types are warranted, why not just build it as a fundamental unit upgrade? Why add the extra layer of Formations on top?
Also, I do not belive that more playstyle variety is something unnecessary for a game to have.
The issue is that they didnt add playstylr variety, we got different armies than we did before, but the variety amongst them wasnt any better. Go to any event and cookie cutter would reign just as hard, or harder, than in previous editions.
I mean...how many non Decurion Necron armies have you seen of late? I havent seen a single one on a table in over two years.
"If your army is built using Formations right now, you’re going to be fine. In their place are a dozen new game-wide Detachments that are available to all factions."
I wait eagerly to see how they're going to make a generic Battle Forged layout that lets me replicate what the Infernal Tetrad allows (ie: 5 Demon Princes in 1850).
That seems to be possible using JUST whats been spoiled today, did you look?
Based on the examples, to get 5 HQ it would require 6 troops choices, 3 elite, 3 fast attack, and 3 heavy support. That's not going to fit in 1850 unless point values are all kinds of crazy.
There are several times more units in the game than formations. Each with their own special rules, wargear and so on. Many of them broken too.
Even still GW decided to rebalance the whole thing and not just nuke everything, since people are not particularly fond of their models suddenely becoming invalid.
Yes, making a good game is hard. Balancing is hard. It doesn't mean we should excuse developers for not doing so.
Is my army still valid? Yes, it certainly is! You’ll still be able to use your army in the new edition of Warhammer 40,000. All current armies will be supported with new rules.
Can I still use all my models? Yes. Every Warhammer 40,000 miniature we sell today will be usable in the new edition of Warhammer 40,000. What’s more, they’ll be supported with new rules, which will be available from the get go in handy, low-cost books.
Even Forge World models? Yes, even all of your Warhammer 40,000 Forge World models**.
Anyhow my opinion is that formations as a list building tool were rarely a problem, just the free rules given out by them.
The concept of formations minus extra rules is excellent for structuring themed armies such as ravenwing, deathwing, a necron destroyer cult etcetera.
I sincerely hope that the other force organisation charts include ones where elites, fast attack and heavy support consist the tax units rather than troops, as that'd much more readily allow for creative theme building where you don't have to explain why your deathwing have 5 tactical marines hanging out with them for no apparent reason.
rollawaythestone wrote: Wonder what they are going to do with the Harlequins. Either they are stuck with a army-specific detachment, or they are going to have to give them an HQ unit.
Or some of the 14 detachments don't have minimum HQ...
I mean you don't think all 14 are same except bigger? What 14th would look like? minimum 30 troops, 10 HS, 10 FA, 15 HQ with 50 command points?-)
Nuking as in completely removing from the game like they did with formations. GW oblosly wouldn't do that to something like a wraithknight.
I think you and i have completely different ideas of what nuking means.
They are completely redoing the game.
it makes no sense to bring something in from basically a whole another game as is
and for all we know formations will be in but in a completely different shape and form.
My whole argument is about them not bringing formations as is, but rather fixing them for 8th.
They are talking 14 and we've already seen 3 of them. There are more factions in 40k than this, so basically glorified FOCs, maybe one or two xenos/chaos/imperium specific. That's a huge downgrade from what was already in 40k and only needed, not gonna lie, sometimes significant improvements, but still.
All we have are speculations. but its probably only 14 for the base rules probably specific things for general play. anywhere from kill teams to apoc sized games. attack and defend that add fortifications to FOC. very much 100% sure that they will add faction specific ones for all the armies. like a FOC designed for a drop pod army. or one that is nothing but foot soldiers for guards.
tneva82 wrote: You don't? Where does it say? So far best we can say we don't know for SURE you can but...There's 11 detachments to be seen plus whatever they come up in future.
There are also faction specific FOCs coming too (though likely not until well after the initial release).
Yep No doubt. That's why I specified whatever they come up in future as one thing we can be pretty damn sure is that it won't stop in first 14.
"If your army is built using Formations right now, you’re going to be fine. In their place are a dozen new game-wide Detachments that are available to all factions."
I wait eagerly to see how they're going to make a generic Battle Forged layout that lets me replicate what the Infernal Tetrad allows (ie: 5 Demon Princes in 1850).
That seems to be possible using JUST whats been spoiled today, did you look?
Based on the examples, to get 5 HQ it would require 6 troops choices, 3 elite, 3 fast attack, and 3 heavy support. That's not going to fit in 1850 unless point values are all kinds of crazy.
Assuming the same points, and that you can take multiple detachments:
2 HQ +1 troop
2 HQ + 1 troop
1 HQ + 1 troop
Possible.
You just don't get any command benefits. Or your old formation benefits.
skarsol wrote: Based on the examples, to get 5 HQ it would require 6 troops choices, 3 elite, 3 fast attack, and 3 heavy support. That's not going to fit in 1850 unless point values are all kinds of crazy.
Or just 6 troops.
But again 3 out of 14. 4-14 are unlikely to be just same but bigger.
edit: Or just 3 troops as above poster noticed. So it's 3 extra troop and 3 command points or minimum troops and no command points.
Is my army still valid? Yes, it certainly is! You’ll still be able to use your army in the new edition of Warhammer 40,000. All current armies will be supported with new rules.
Can I still use all my models? Yes. Every Warhammer 40,000 miniature we sell today will be usable in the new edition of Warhammer 40,000. What’s more, they’ll be supported with new rules, which will be available from the get go in handy, low-cost books.
Even Forge World models? Yes, even all of your Warhammer 40,000 Forge World models**.
Key words - CURRENT & TODAY
So, all current armies & all models we sell today. Nice and ambiguous so that if they change it tomorrow it still holds true! Watch how many models on their web store become "out of stock" and/or "discontinued."
"If your army is built using Formations right now, you’re going to be fine. In their place are a dozen new game-wide Detachments that are available to all factions."
I wait eagerly to see how they're going to make a generic Battle Forged layout that lets me replicate what the Infernal Tetrad allows (ie: 5 Demon Princes in 1850).
That seems to be possible using JUST whats been spoiled today, did you look?
Based on the examples, to get 5 HQ it would require 6 troops choices, 3 elite, 3 fast attack, and 3 heavy support. That's not going to fit in 1850 unless point values are all kinds of crazy.
I dont play demons granted, but I can do it easilly with my orks, passably with my marines and comfortably with my tau
Liberal_Perturabo wrote: There are several times more units in the game than formations. Each with their own special rules, wargear and so on. Many of them broken too.
Even still GW decided to rebalance the whole thing and not just nuke everything, since people are not particularly fond of their models suddenely becoming invalid.
Yes, making a good game is hard. Balancing is hard. It doesn't mean we should excuse developers for not doing so.
My main army is a Tzeench army with a Warpflame host and Burning Skyhost.
This change will invalidate most of those units. I won't be able to field an army of flamers and screamers.
I'm OK with that. Better balance to the game is well worth having to bring a few horrors. I can still bring a ton of screamers and flamers, I just need to add some horrors as well.
Your army is likely the same way. You can probably still bring everything you have now, just in more balanced numbers.
It's not about the fact whether you can play or not. Of course you can play, I fully expect GW to have at least that covered. You will totally be able to get by in 8th.
The problem lies in the fact that if in 7th you usually had a nice variety of options if you wanted something really different with your models or try something new now you won't have that at all. Sure, some of those options were broken, some useless but it only begged the question to rebalance them, not straight up remove.
'ed
