Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

That its better to fix things that needed work rather than ruining the whole system for the sake of nothing in particular?

thats only on the assumption that 7th was an ok game.

7th is an absolute dumpster fire of a game.

You are changing the subject, this argument was never about 7th edition as a whole.

We are talking about formations

a thing made for 7th. and again even if the specific formations that you want may be gone. there is no indication that all formations are gone. its going to probably be called something diffrent and maybe even cost points or have more restrictions but as of right now we dont know.

Armor values are also a thing in 7th yet we are not talking about them right now.
I am basing my opinion on currently avaliable information and that is 14 FOCs which won't even cover all factions unless some are merged together. GW may add more in the future. However GW may also not. Anything else is speculation.

So we are making an argument based on speculation. and from the base knowledge we have if its only 14 FOCs and all formations are gone then imho im fine with it as it added a nothing of real value outside of potential abuse and gaming of the system. exactly what happened in 7th.

if it was only for the fluff aspect then people still should be able to do that. if it was just for the bonuses then sucks to be them.

Why are you bothering to argue about 7th edition formations. That obviously isn't how they are doing it in 8th edition. They have refined their method of doing formations to give a bonus of Command points. Command points are a bonus given for building certain type armies.

They are designed to give you something during the game that isn't as strong as say Soul Burst. They are also designed that everyone can get them and use them not just the Eldar.

Now, in the command point section, we still don't actually know how powerful those will be as we have been told they can change the game, but we haven't seen a single example of what they are yet. We know we can use 1 per phase.

Since, it gives power to every army equally. It is exactly what you would call balanced.

As to the question about Harlequins. I am pretty sure they will break your troupes into a couple heroes plus a 10 man troupe.

Just because Solitaire, Death Jester and Shadowseer are normally part of a troupe doesn't mean they cannot go back to being Independent characters.

His problem seems to be lack of rules such as hey here is your army that consists of 2 assault squads and 2 devastator squads and 2 drop pods that you can still take as a space Marine army but it sucks compared to the skyhammer it use to be. And he wants skyhammer even if it was never balanced.

This way is much more simple and equal however I doubt we can all make the same army we use to and not have some of them suck on the playing field. I might be able to put 100orks on the battlefield and call it greentide but it would likely be 1 dimensional and Lot easier for my opponent to control. 8th is literally a different game and in 7th certain formation rules made your army playable I think gw is disengenuos to say your army will be fine. Even if you can field exery varient they all likely won't be good armies.

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

 kronk wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

That its better to fix things that needed work rather than ruining the whole system for the sake of nothing in particular?

Broken formations were a ruined system that needed to die a quick death. IMHO, YMMV, OMG, BBQ, WTF.

Ok.
So following your logic GW should have removed all wulfen, riptides, wraithknigts and so on because they were also aroken and needed to die?

That would not be a good following of my logic, so no.

AFTER you nuke formations, and having nuked all existing codecies, you may now properly assign point costs to Wolfen, Riptides, Wraithknights, Scatterlaster Jet Bikes, and so on. Riptides will still be strong, but they should cost more and eat into your supporting units.

I'm looking forward to it.

tneva82 wrote:

v0iddrgn wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
what is it that you want?

Free bonuses. Note how he doesn't even try to deny that or how he conveniently skips over that he can(likely) still use exact same formations just without free rules.

He wants GW to continue formations but "fix" them. Instead GW said 'here's how we're going to fix them, *poof* their gone!'
Liberal_Perturabo doesn't like that. A lot of us do sooooooo.....

And rather than gone it's more like they merged unit options into detachments and removed free bonuses. So really is he after unit combinations or free bonuses.

It's more than that really because if you'll notice, the Detachments/FOC's are only mandatory X number of unit type choices e.g. Elites, Fast Attack, etc... Whereas formations on the other hand mandated or cherry picked specific units e.g. Destroyers, Meganobz, etc... thus the free bonuses that cam from formations we're incentivizing players to buy specific models. The new detachments are much more open to various units in order to gain those Command Point bonuses. Much better for the game!

I hope imperium isn't one faction. More like blood angels, astra militarum etc.

They have said they were going to limit allies via keywords so who knows.

RULE #1 and RULE #2 are taking a beating in here - and it needs to stop.

Immediately.

 kronk wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

 kronk wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

That its better to fix things that needed work rather than ruining the whole system for the sake of nothing in particular?

Broken formations were a ruined system that needed to die a quick death. IMHO, YMMV, OMG, BBQ, WTF.

Ok.
So following your logic GW should have removed all wulfen, riptides, wraithknigts and so on because they were also aroken and needed to die?

That would not be a good following of my logic, so no.

AFTER you nuke formations, and having nuked all existing codecies, you may now properly assign point costs to Wolfen, Riptides, Wraithknights, Scatterlaster Jet Bikes, and so on. Riptides will still be strong, but they should cost more and eat into your supporting units.

I'm looking forward to it.

A-freaking-men. Stripping all the crap out of the game and taking just the units and building up from there should go a long way to giving us balance finally.

gungo wrote:
His problem seems to be lack of rules such as hey here is your army that consists of 2 assault squads and 2 devastator squads and 2 drop pods that you can still take as a space Marine army but it sucks compared to the skyhammer it use to be. And he wants skyhammer even if it was never balanced.

That just rewards laziness on the players part instead of having them find the synergy between units by themselves.

Earth127 wrote:
I hope imperium isn't one faction. More like blood angels, astra militarum etc.

They have said they were going to limit allies via keywords so who knows.

Imperium will probably be the general keyword for Humanity's non-traitor forces. Which mirrors AoS with factions like "Order" and "Destruction". It works at a high level by allowing you to mix an army together without needing alternate FOCs but restricts you by not sharing rules between the different sub-factions in the army. Which is great for balance.

 Vaktathi wrote:

why can this not be done at the unit level, where it can be both better controlled and put to use potentially anywhere the unit is used?

Because it ultimately will come to difference in points and rarely unit size. Sure, you can alter stats and special rules with wargear but you still have to pay for that. Formations can be balanced out by other means.

 Vaktathi wrote:

you're adding an additional layer of complexity not just to one unit but potentially multiple units, often with either indeterminate unit count or size (making assigning any specific cost pointless), and adding complexity to army construction to boot. It is fundamentally and inherently more complex than adding a new unit.

So, exactly like adding a character that confers certaint rules to his unit/in an aure/your whole army. Which is definitely not uncommon in 40k.

 Vaktathi wrote:

What do formations add that either couldnt be done at the unit level or that isn't wide open to immediate abuse, while also not adding more complexity?

Any system is wide open for immediate abuse if balanced poorly, nothing on a unit level is an exception.

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

 kronk wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

That its better to fix things that needed work rather than ruining the whole system for the sake of nothing in particular?

Broken formations were a ruined system that needed to die a quick death. IMHO, YMMV, OMG, BBQ, WTF.

Ok.
So following your logic GW should have removed all wulfen, riptides, wraithknigts and so on because they were also aroken and needed to die?

What was it that you liked so much about formations?

The rules or the fluff? Both?

I'm not clear on that.

Why is that a binary choice? Why do formation bonuses have to be free? Why can't points be used to balance the bonus rules an army gets for taking a specific selection of units that represent how one (fluffy) aspect of an army works together? I keep seeing how formations killed variety, but I see the opposite. FREE formations were a bad idea. Costed formations give the player another option for how to build their army. You give up one bonus (extra command points in 8th) in exchange for some extra rules for your army (which you should pay for like you do in AoS). I except that this is the direction GW has gone for 8th, and it's damn sure not a deal breaker for me, but it doesn't mean I have to be happy with losing one of my favorite aspects of army creation in 7th edition and AoS.

Youn wrote:
Just because Solitaire, Death Jester and Shadowseer are normally part of a troupe doesn't mean they cannot go back to being Independent characters.

Umm pretty sure they are. They just don't have HQ which prevented them using CAD and forced to use either faction specific detachment or formation.

But so far we have seen 3 detachments. 11 unseen. Doubtful all of them require HQ.

 kronk wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

 kronk wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

That its better to fix things that needed work rather than ruining the whole system for the sake of nothing in particular?

Broken formations were a ruined system that needed to die a quick death. IMHO, YMMV, OMG, BBQ, WTF.

Ok.
So following your logic GW should have removed all wulfen, riptides, wraithknigts and so on because they were also aroken and needed to die?

That would not be a good following of my logic, so no.

AFTER you nuke formations, and having nuked all existing codecies, you may now properly assign point costs to Wolfen, Riptides, Wraithknights, Scatterlaster Jet Bikes, and so on. Riptides will still be strong, but they should cost more and eat into your supporting units.

I'm looking forward to it.

So we can fix broken units but for some reason we can't fix broken formations and units. Would you care to explain why?

As someone who blames formations for turning 7e into the unsalvagable mess it became, all I can say is thank the Emprah.

I guess if you actually look at the wording of those formation and the website.

You choose a SIDE. Then select a FACTION.

So, Space Marine is a faction. Grey Knight is a faction on the side of the Imperium.

I am guessing your army can only consist of one Side and each detachment can only consist of 1 faction.

So,. Grey knights though they are are a type of Space Marine actually probably cannot be taken in the detachment belonging to Space Marines.

That is probably odd for Blood Angels not able to get equipment from the space marine section.

tneva82 wrote:

Youn wrote:
Just because Solitaire, Death Jester and Shadowseer are normally part of a troupe doesn't mean they cannot go back to being Independent characters.

Umm pretty sure they are. They just don't have HQ which prevented them using CAD and forced to use either faction specific detachment or formation.

But so far we have seen 3 detachments. 11 unseen. Doubtful all of them require HQ.

also assuming any models will retain there original FOC slots.

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:
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.

You're entitled obviously to your opinion but I think the response to that is basically summed up by an English internet idiom that says "You can't polish a turd." There is an addition to it that I saw here on dakka that adds "but you can roll it in glitter!". Those two joking phrases sum up my opinion of the formation system and, judging from the responses here, I'm likely not the only one who thinks so. For us, the obviously greed based marketing ploy masquerading as a game mechanic requested by players is just so bad that it harms the brand and no amount of fixing it will help. YMMV obviously.

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

So we can fix broken units but for some reason we can't fix broken formations and units. Would you care to explain why?

It sounds like they did.

Liking the sound of these new FOC so far. I assume there will be small, medium and large versions that are focused on FA, HS and Elites as well as a LOW and fortification based chart. Really interested to see how formation heavy/dependent armies like the Death watch are affected by these rules.

 Desubot wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

That its better to fix things that needed work rather than ruining the whole system for the sake of nothing in particular?

thats only on the assumption that 7th was an ok game.

7th is an absolute dumpster fire of a game.

You are changing the subject, this argument was never about 7th edition as a whole.

We are talking about formations

a thing made for 7th. and again even if the specific formations that you want may be gone. there is no indication that all formations are gone. its going to probably be called something diffrent and maybe even cost points or have more restrictions but as of right now we dont know.

Armor values are also a thing in 7th yet we are not talking about them right now.
I am basing my opinion on currently avaliable information and that is 14 FOCs which won't even cover all factions unless some are merged together. GW may add more in the future. However GW may also not. Anything else is speculation.

So we are making an argument based on speculation. and from the base knowledge we have if its only 14 FOCs and all formations are gone then imho im fine with it as it added a nothing of real value outside of potential abuse and gaming of the system. exactly what happened in 7th.

if it was only for the fluff aspect then people still should be able to do that. if it was just for the bonuses then sucks to be them.

I keep hearing many speak of formations like all of them were broken OP cheese. Which is not true at all. Some were broken, some were fine, some were trash, just like units. But as a system they provided more tactical options since the allowed for a different playstyle without the need to buy different units.
Naturally the broken ones were abused. Just like any broken part of any system would. It still doesn't prove anything.

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

why can this not be done at the unit level, where it can be both better controlled and put to use potentially anywhere the unit is used?

Because it ultimately will come to difference in points and rarely unit size. Sure, you can alter stats and special rules with wargear but you still have to pay for that.

yeah, thats why points exist, it's what they are there for, so you can get *some* sort of representation of the power level of an army. That's how things should be balanced. That's the entire purpose of having a points system.

Formations can be balanced out by other means.

Only by adding unnecessary complexity with dramatically more room for error as there's no gauge to measure anything by.

 Vaktathi wrote:

you're adding an additional layer of complexity not just to one unit but potentially multiple units, often with either indeterminate unit count or size (making assigning any specific cost pointless), and adding complexity to army construction to boot. It is fundamentally and inherently more complex than adding a new unit.

So, exactly like adding a character that confers certaint rules to his unit/in an aure/your whole army. Which is definitely not uncommon in 40k

HQ's that give blanket army wide buffs often have been sore points for balance and complained about routinely, Vulkan in 5th for example. I'm not a huge fan of them and would prefer to not see them, but thats also a much smaller issue in general however, and they do at least have a specific role, place, and cost within the army list.

Aura abilities are one thing, they require tactics to properly utilize and can be removed by removing the character, who typically has to put themselves in danger. Thats fine.

 Vaktathi wrote:

What do formations add that either couldnt be done at the unit level or that isn't wide open to immediate abuse, while also not adding more complexity?

Any system is wide open for immediate abuse if balanced poorly, nothing on a unit level is an exception.

while true, formations are just adding another layer that is open to such, and, more pointedly, this didnt answer my question

So question what about all those 1 off models gw sold for limited time in assuming no longer sold so no new rules.

And looks like sisters of battle finally get a real updated codex.

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:
So we can fix broken units but for some reason we can't fix broken formations and units. Would you care to explain why?

Because Formations were a broken combination of units, meaning twice the work for what? A marketing scheme that was lambasted by anyone who didn't fall for it?

Formations added NOTHING OF VALUE to the game. Anything they did for unit organization could be achieved through an Unbound list during 6th and 7th and even then it would have been MORE BALANCED as they wouldn't gain gakky rules to run all over their opponent's army's with.

Why not make formations cost points? Because you're adding more bookkeeping into a game that is trying to reduce it's initial complexity to play, not increase it. Likewise formations are a pointless increase in complexity that only benefited those with the biggest wallets.

There is no arguement in favor of formations that works. The ability to take certain units? We have FOURTEEN generic FOCs that will help with that, plus a generic FOC large enough to avoid needing multiple detachments for large games. We've been told we're getting army specific FOCs in the future as well. Lore and Flavor? Like we need GW's express permission to do such things with out army.

All formations brought to the game was extra paperwork, extra gak to keep track of, and a way for people with the most money to exploit the game.

Thank the God Emperor they're gone.

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:


I keep hearing many speak of formations like all of them were broken OP cheese. Which is not true at all. Some were broken, some were fine, some were trash, just like units. But as a system they provided more tactical options since the allowed for a different playstyle without the need to buy different units.
Naturally the broken ones were abused. Just like any broken part of any system would. It still doesn't prove anything.

Dunno about your group but 99% of the time all i see is the people taking the same broken formations or not bothering at all

at one point adding more options for tactical play just opens up more potential for abuse. we are likely to see it with command points but less options are far easier to fix than a bunch of interconnected interactions.

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

I keep hearing many speak of formations like all of them were broken OP cheese. Which is not true at all. Some were broken, some were fine, some were trash, just like units. But as a system they provided more tactical options since the allowed for a different playstyle without the need to buy different units.
Naturally the broken ones were abused. Just like any broken part of any system would. It still doesn't prove anything.

That's not 40k.

GW forgot that in 7e. It's too bad you got to like the non-40k version of 40k. Perhaps a different game would suit you better.

I'm more interested in how Deathwatch will work now with Formations gone, as the formations was really the crux of their killteam design, but if they're getting new rules they might just get units of "5 Veterans + optional Terminatiors, Vanguard, Bikers, Librarians" instead

 Vaktathi wrote:
yeah, thats why points exist, it's what they are there for, so you can get *some* sort of representation of the power level of an army. That's how things should be balanced. That's the entire purpose of having a points system.

Points are as vague system as any, since there is never a strict indication that X points = X strength for example. More than that points do flat increase or decrease in unit's power, while in a properly balanced formation you can stay on the same power level with increasing the unit's effectivness in one area and decreasing in in another - unit or army wide.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Only by adding unnecessary complexity with dramatically more room for error as there's no gauge to measure anything by.

How are thay adding more complexity than, say wargear that does the same thing?

 Vaktathi wrote:
HQ's that give blanket army wide buffs often have been sore points for balance and complained about routinely, Vulkan in 5th for example. I'm not a huge fan of them and would prefer to not see them, but thats also a much smaller issue in general however, and they do at least have a specific role, place, and cost within the army list.

Aura abilities are one thing, they require tactics to properly utilize and can be removed by removing the character, who typically has to put themselves in danger. Thats fine.

What stops formations from having their special rules activated only in cpecific circumstances or by specific units in that formation thus allowing the enemy to counter it?

 Deadshot wrote:
I'm more interested in how Deathwatch will work now with Formations gone, as the formations was really the crux of their killteam design, but if they're getting new rules they might just get units of "5 Veterans + optional Terminatiors, Vanguard, Bikers, Librarians" instead

I have a feeling it may become simpler in design, which would be good. Yes, it was instrumental to how they were built, but it was a lot of bookkeeping and I wasn't a fan to be honest.

 Desubot wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:


I keep hearing many speak of formations like all of them were broken OP cheese. Which is not true at all. Some were broken, some were fine, some were trash, just like units. But as a system they provided more tactical options since the allowed for a different playstyle without the need to buy different units.
Naturally the broken ones were abused. Just like any broken part of any system would. It still doesn't prove anything.

Dunno about your group but 99% of the time all i see is the people taking the same broken formations or not bothering at all

at one point adding more options for tactical play just opens up more potential for abuse. we are likely to see it with command points but less options are far easier to fix than a bunch of interconnected interactions.

More anything is more options for abuse, units included. And we've got a huge amount of units in 40k, but people don't seem to see any problems in that.

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
yeah, thats why points exist, it's what they are there for, so you can get *some* sort of representation of the power level of an army. That's how things should be balanced. That's the entire purpose of having a points system.

Points are as vague system as any, since there is never a strict indication that X points = X strength for example. More than that points do flat increase or decrease in unit's power, while in a properly balanced formation you can stay on the same power level with increasing the unit's effectivness in one area and decreasing in in another - unit or army wide.

There wasn't before, that doesn't mean there can't be now. The game has been rebooted from the ground up with EVERY ARMY being worked on AT THE SAME TIME to ensure better balance. Points costs really do look like they'll be tied into actual strength going forward.

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Only by adding unnecessary complexity with dramatically more room for error as there's no gauge to measure anything by.

How are thay adding more complexity than, say wargear that does the same thing?

Wargear costs points, formations don't. Seriously, stop comparing FREE UPGRADES TO UNITS to something that COSTS POINTS. It's a false equivalency fallacy. Just because both increase complexity in a game doesn't mean that both share the same root problems.

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
HQ's that give blanket army wide buffs often have been sore points for balance and complained about routinely, Vulkan in 5th for example. I'm not a huge fan of them and would prefer to not see them, but thats also a much smaller issue in general however, and they do at least have a specific role, place, and cost within the army list.

Aura abilities are one thing, they require tactics to properly utilize and can be removed by removing the character, who typically has to put themselves in danger. Thats fine.

What stops formations from having their special rules activated only in cpecific circumstances or by specific units in that formation thus allowing the enemy to counter it?

Well, poor game design for one did just that.

Seriously though, any formation we have can fit inside of an army's FOC, or be played as unbound. What EXACTLY do they give the game other than broken rules? It sure isn't lore or fluff as we don't need datasheets just for some fluff.

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:


I keep hearing many speak of formations like all of them were broken OP cheese. Which is not true at all. Some were broken, some were fine, some were trash, just like units. But as a system they provided more tactical options since the allowed for a different playstyle without the need to buy different units.
Naturally the broken ones were abused. Just like any broken part of any system would. It still doesn't prove anything.

Dunno about your group but 99% of the time all i see is the people taking the same broken formations or not bothering at all

at one point adding more options for tactical play just opens up more potential for abuse. we are likely to see it with command points but less options are far easier to fix than a bunch of interconnected interactions.

More anything is more options for abuse, units included. And we've got a huge amount of units in 40k, but people don't seem to see any problems in that.

Why do you think they are starting from scratch and removing those options in the first place.

its less abuse than 7th (so far) which is a good thing.. and people DO have a problem with certain units in 40k which is also why are are redoing it from scratch rather than tweaking it. its why im absolutly over the moon that vehicles are on the T and save system. its easier to balance things that are all on the same system.

Look, far be it from me to tell anyone what to discuss and who to discuss with, but when a poster has, every day for a week, come online and assumed a contrary position to whatever the prevailing mood seems to be, and proceeded to make the discussion all about them (and the argument that basically boils down to "they shouldn't rewrite the rules, well, ok, they should rewrite rules, but in a different way that I like") then any time you spend wasting time arguing with them is all on you.

People, please. If you want to discuss this extensively and ad nauseam about formations, in 40k general discussion you have like 2 threads about that.

Don't derail the topic more, you are in a circullar discussion now.


EDIT: Azrael13 said it better.

 Alpharius wrote:
RULE #1 and RULE #2 are taking a beating in here - and it needs to stop.

Immediately.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Look, far be it from me to tell anyone what to discuss and who to discuss with, but when a poster has, every day for a week, come online and assumed a contrary position to whatever the prevailing mood seems to be, and proceeded to make the discussion all about them (and the argument that basically boils down to "they shouldn't rewrite the rules, well, ok, they should rewrite rules, but in a different way that I like") then any time you spend wasting time arguing with them is all on you.

So you're saying that they're just vomitting gak like a River Troll?



Fair enough. I didn't pay that much attention to the individual postings before this, but the formation thing had caught my attention and was just about as crazy as the person at my FLGS who is fine with pulling models from the back if he's playing a rank-and-file game but can't stand it in 40k despite the logic of someone stepping up being the same.

Some people just have "different" tastes and I guess I should just accept it instead of beating my head against a brick wall.

GUYS you're going the get the thread locked again. Stop insulting people.

I liked the basic idea of formations but without points costs associated with them (or FOC for that matter ) they're an impossible nightmare to balance.

Earth127 wrote:
GUYS you're going the get the thread locked again. Stop insulting people.

I liked the basic idea of formations but without points costs associated with them (or FOC for that matter ) they're an impossible nightmare to balance.

yup, and with points costs they would need to be very restrictive to balance. So like if you take 3 vindicators and then pay x points they all get +1 S, can be balanced. If you take 3 tanks and then pay x points and they all change damage to D6 wounds is much more difficult to balance.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Look, far be it from me to tell anyone what to discuss and who to discuss with, but when a poster has, every day for a week, come online and assumed a contrary position to whatever the prevailing mood seems to be, and proceeded to make the discussion all about them (and the argument that basically boils down to "they shouldn't rewrite the rules, well, ok, they should rewrite rules, but in a different way that I like") then any time you spend wasting time arguing with them is all on you.

So you're saying that they're just vomitting gak like a River Troll?

No, I'm saying recognising patterns is important, in many ways it's irrelevant whether an unusual opinion is sincerely held or offered purely to provoke, nothing is going to change that opinion, and if the same individual is doing it repeatedly, it's important to assess whether it is going to be productive engaging with them.

The T word is thrown around too readily, I'm happy to accept that arguments are offered in good faith unless there's little room for doubt, but there comes a point where discussion starts to become counterproductive, and it is starting to feel that way.

I am more interested in the command benefits. Right now it says +3 or +9. Does that mean their are other ways to get command benefits? Could there be a way to purchase command benefits for points?

Earth127 wrote:
GUYS you're going the get the thread locked again. Stop insulting people.

I liked the basic idea of formations but without points costs associated with them (or FOC for that matter ) they're an impossible nightmare to balance.

Many of them are impossible to give points though and in some points even run counter to idea of benefit being free points. Add point cost and whoops. Formation loses entire point...

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
yeah, thats why points exist, it's what they are there for, so you can get *some* sort of representation of the power level of an army. That's how things should be balanced. That's the entire purpose of having a points system.

Points are as vague system as any, since there is never a strict indication that X points = X strength for example. More than that points do flat increase or decrease in unit's power, while in a properly balanced formation you can stay on the same power level with increasing the unit's effectivness in one area and decreasing in in another - unit or army wide.

Points arent perfect, they cant be. I will 100% grant that.

But they're as close as anything we're going to get, and they act as the central balancing mechanism.

Formations never worked the way you were proposing, with crappy stuff balancing out great stuff, people designated some units as "taxes" post facto as some sort of balance mechanism, but really they were thrown in because it fit whatever theme or business need GW wanted to push. Even in the couple places one might make the case for such, it just ended up being minmax'd to irrelevance.

The concept of balancing formations as you describe is much more difficult, was never done in practice, and doesnt add anything the game doesnt already have mechanisms for.

You want to boost the power of one unit and decrease another? Fine, take a smaller number of models with fewer upgrades on the latter and bigger units with all the gubbins on the former. Bam, done, no need for a formation.


Formation balance of the type you are proposing just doesnt work unless you specify *everything* beforehand, and at that point you lose any flexibility and could still accomplish the same thing with points.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Only by adding unnecessary complexity with dramatically more room for error as there's no gauge to measure anything by.

How are thay adding more complexity than, say wargear that does the same thing?

because wargear you're buying in explicit quantities for an explicit unit at an explicit cost, whereas with formations not only are you adding complexity to the units involved at no cost (and typically at a hamfisted level where there is no controlling for things like unit size or often unit count) you're also adding complexity to army construction that doesnt need to be there.

 Vaktathi wrote:
HQ's that give blanket army wide buffs often have been sore points for balance and complained about routinely, Vulkan in 5th for example. I'm not a huge fan of them and would prefer to not see them, but thats also a much smaller issue in general however, and they do at least have a specific role, place, and cost within the army list.

Aura abilities are one thing, they require tactics to properly utilize and can be removed by removing the character, who typically has to put themselves in danger. Thats fine.

What stops formations from having their special rules activated only in cpecific circumstances or by specific units in that formation thus allowing the enemy to counter it?

the fact that almost none of them have any abilities that act in such a manner, and that such could be added just as easily at the unit level if needed?

Again it goes back to "what do formations do that cant be handled at the unit level"?

Even if we accept there are some places where formations could work as you desire them to, you could get the same result without opening up the space for abuse that Formations are known for, and without the added army construction messiness.

I'm curious how ATSKNF will carry over in regards to Battleschock. D3+Wounded vs LD or Wounded vs Ld alone perhaps?

It feels like the Leadership will matter more often, but I can't see a fluff rule like that going away completely, so I've been mulling over how they'll do it.

That said, Fearless is likely going to remain. I just hope it's not on over half of the units in the game anymore.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Howscat wrote:
I am more interested in the command benefits. Right now it says +3 or +9. Does that mean their are other ways to get command benefits? Could there be a way to purchase command benefits for points?

What little we were told is that they were going to be tied into the FOC. Some Warlord traits might add a point or two as well (assuming we still have WT).

Anyone else find it odd that in the detachments they revealed, there aren't any LoW/fortification slots?

I mean, I think there are at least a dozen more to be released, but these seem like the basic ones, and it's strange they don't allow for LoWs. I think almost all current detachment FoC charts allow for at least one LoW.

 Howscat wrote:
I am more interested in the command benefits. Right now it says +3 or +9. Does that mean their are other ways to get command benefits? Could there be a way to purchase command benefits for points?

Well certainly possible but I suspect no.

Well it could be some quick&rough balance mechanism for open games I suspect like smaller army on model count gets some(like in AOS smaller army gets sudden death win condition) or some scenarios could offer. We'll see.

 Howscat wrote:
I am more interested in the command benefits. Right now it says +3 or +9. Does that mean their are other ways to get command benefits? Could there be a way to purchase command benefits for points?

Dunno about purchasing but i have a feeling its going to involve things like bringing in a reserve unit without rolling, or possible even a simple reroll any dice at the cost of a C point.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
Anyone else find it odd that in the detachments they revealed, there aren't any LoW/fortification slots?

I mean, I think there are at least a dozen more to be released, but these seem like the basic ones, and it's strange they don't allow for LoWs. I think almost all current detachment FoC charts allow for at least one LoW.

those 3 seem like the very basic scaling FOC. im guessing there will be cool FOCs for mission/narrative type games like defense, offence, that involve LOW or Forts. there will probably be other generic ones too like kill teams that are like a few elites troops and FA for the sake of smaller point games. just spit balling

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
Anyone else find it odd that in the detachments they revealed, there aren't any LoW/fortification slots?

I mean, I think there are at least a dozen more to be released, but these seem like the basic ones, and it's strange they don't allow for LoWs. I think almost all current detachment FoC charts allow for at least one LoW.

Not really. I suspect they want to restrict them in detachments that give command points so are in detachments that offer less of those.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
Anyone else find it odd that in the detachments they revealed, there aren't any LoW/fortification slots?

I mean, I think there are at least a dozen more to be released, but these seem like the basic ones, and it's strange they don't allow for LoWs. I think almost all current detachment FoC charts allow for at least one LoW.

I feel like LoW and Fortifications will likely have their own FoCs you take in addition to your standard detachment choice. I have a feeling this may have been done to give more tools to tournament organizers by allowing them to ban or restrict certain detachment choices instead of needing to alter the FoC itself.

 Howscat wrote:
I am more interested in the command benefits. Right now it says +3 or +9. Does that mean their are other ways to get command benefits? Could there be a way to purchase command benefits for points?

Is this not just because you can take multiple detachments which each give command points? I can't imagine they'll be purchasable for points as that kinda defeats the point of them as a balance tool.

Eyjio wrote:

 Howscat wrote:
I am more interested in the command benefits. Right now it says +3 or +9. Does that mean their are other ways to get command benefits? Could there be a way to purchase command benefits for points?

Is this not just because you can take multiple detachments which each give command points? I can't imagine they'll be purchasable for points as that kinda defeats the point of them as a balance tool.

Probably why the patrol gives 0 of them.

There is a tax involved in spamming FoCs for command points. I mean if you want 6 you need 4 HQs and 6 Troop choices before you get anything else in your list. Just for 3 more points? Seems like a balanced trade off (unless your opponent runs an all Crusader Squad Black Tide or something I guess).

I'm sure there will be ways to unlock extra points without needing to stack your detachments, but the bonuses will likely be small (+1 here, maybe a +2 there).

Definitely interested in what the remaining BRB detachments look like. As was stated earlier a Deathwing style detachment is very likely, which makes me want to try a Deff'wing list full of MANZ missiles.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Probably why the patrol gives 0 of them.

There is a tax involved in spamming FoCs for command points. I mean if you want 6 you need 4 HQs and 6 Troop choices before you get anything else in your list. Just for 3 more points? Seems like a balanced trade off (unless your opponent runs an all Crusader Squad Black Tide or something I guess).

I'm sure there will be ways to unlock extra points without needing to stack your detachments, but the bonuses will likely be small (+1 here, maybe a +2 there).

I noticed that too. At first I was a little bothered by it, but then it occurred to me that, since we really don't even know what the uses for the points are yet, it's probably going to be okay. Part of me wonders if they'll be like the points from old 5th ed planetstrike (and then kind of hopes not).

I'm really worried about it from the perspective of IG though. Unless they change platoons, you can basically stack an entire army worth of infantry into a single troop slot if you wanted to. Six troop slots is 130 guardsmen, minimum, unless you're taking veterans. I think in most of my games at 1500-2000 points previously, I took about 50-60 (including HQ and vets) tops. That's a lot of padding to get the hip new points.

 Howscat wrote:
I am more interested in the command benefits. Right now it says +3 or +9. Does that mean their are other ways to get command benefits? Could there be a way to purchase command benefits for points?

We've also learned that we will be able to "bet" command benefits for things like deploying or going first. I also wonder if we will be able to use command benefits for army wide strategems - like better deep strike, or other strategic choices like infiltrate, etc.

 jreilly89 wrote:

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".

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/725126.page

Yeah, I'm not sure that 4 people out of more than a hundred thousand registered users mentioning that formations are a thing in a thread listing the defining features of each edition is really much of an indicator that formations are universally hated by this community...



Having said that, IMO formations were another of those 'good idea, badly implemented' things that have been so prevalent in 6th/7th edition, so I'm not sorry to see them go.

As a player hat has never once had an interest in WHFantasy or it's reincarnation as AoS I am troubled by the very sudden and abrupt coming changes.

That being said, What GW has released so far actually seems to be mostly in line with they claim to be aiming for. They are speaking a lot about adding greater emphasis to melee and adding value to previously under-utilized models. The new rules (so far) reflect this and I think will actually help to realize those goals. But I think it will come at a cost. Because the 'streamlined' new rules are so radically different, I can already smell a new meta developing.

It's just my opinion, but 40k has been slowing losing steam over the past few editions for a number of reasons and completely retooling the ruleset never occurred to me as a solution to any of the game's problems.

40k's success was due in no small part to it's amazing background and lore - the stuff meta-gamers and min-maxers lovelessly refer to as 'fluff'. But it's the 'fluff' that sets it apart (IMO above) the competition. I'd much rather play WH40k than say Flames of War for the same reason that I'd rather play Relic's Space Marine than Battlefield, Call of Duty, or Medal of Honor. It's not they are bad games, but they all effectively just different shades of the same color. By comparison WH40k and it's related games - all based on the same 'fluff' has the added value of being characterful. For my part, the 'fluff' is the greatest value - and GW has been slowly chipping away at that value for the last several editions. I think it was in 4th edition that Space Marines stopped being referred to as 'warrior monks'. And I haven't heard the Adeptus Astartes referred to as the 'cult of the Emperor' in years. All of that 'grim-dark' lore faded until Space Marines are all just... ultramarines... pseudo-roman soldiers in space. It is so bland now that they are only marginally distinguishable from the 'marines' of any other game.

There's a point here I promise (I'm long-winded, sorry).

I am ... reluctantly excited by these new changes. I have my doubts because very historical example GW has given for the last decade indicates to me that they will just continue to diminish the 40k's unique flavor as they pine for greater mass appeal. However, the way these rules are looking - and it's just an early look - seems to be the beginning of something good. By eschewing USRs in favor of the bespoke rules everyone is having so much fun repeating, they are opening the door to a revitalization of that unique character. Hopefully the Chaos factions will get some quality treatment and they can add some blood and gore back into the franchise. I only hope that the Space Marines don't get too washed out by the boys in blue. These new rules are perfect opportunity to give factions like the Black Templars and Imperial Fists a little time in the spotlight. Factions like the Dark Angels and Blood Angels will also see some real gains here as they will have renewed value on the table, which will hopefully carry over into other things.

The devil will be in the details. I'm curious to see what parts of the various factions really do get 'bespoke' rules. Since armor is no loner a thing for vehicles Wraithlords just took a huge hit in value and these new rules could very likely make them less appealing. I can see the same happening for a few other units as well so all I can do now is wait for the full rules to come out...

Change is scary! I never linked Tzeentch!

 daedalus wrote:
I'm really worried about it from the perspective of IG though. Unless they change platoons, you can basically stack an entire army worth of infantry into a single troop slot if you wanted to. Six troop slots is 130 guardsmen, minimum, unless you're taking veterans. I think in most of my games at 1500-2000 points previously, I took about 50-60 (including HQ and vets) tops. That's a lot of padding to get the hip new points.

That is bit scary thought. Wonder how they handle IG. If they drop platoon idea that kinda runs against IG's idea of getting lots of infantry but with platoons those minimum troops would be real hassle to fill.

Veterans are there but required to use those to avoid 130 guardsmen...And still haven't figured good way to separate veterans and non veterans easily.

tneva82 wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
I'm really worried about it from the perspective of IG though. Unless they change platoons, you can basically stack an entire army worth of infantry into a single troop slot if you wanted to. Six troop slots is 130 guardsmen, minimum, unless you're taking veterans. I think in most of my games at 1500-2000 points previously, I took about 50-60 (including HQ and vets) tops. That's a lot of padding to get the hip new points.

That is bit scary thought. Wonder how they handle IG. If they drop platoon idea that kinda runs against IG's idea of getting lots of infantry but with platoons those minimum troops would be real hassle to fill.

Veterans are there but required to use those to avoid 130 guardsmen...And still haven't figured good way to separate veterans and non veterans easily.

I did some custom heads and backpacks and a different paintjob. The downside being that they're no longer interchangable.

Pics (spoiled for OT) :

 Galef wrote:

Something I liked about Formations when done right was when they had certain fluffy "tax" units. Like the Vyper unit for the Windrider formation. That is the only thing i'll really miss about formations.

I disagree. Points only purpose in the game is to maintain some semblance of balance but charging players $$$ to unlock the full utility of their units with no accompanying pts costs for the benefits is a huge leap too far. It's the tabletop equivalent of videogame dlc cut from the main game yet integral to it that is sold as an additional purchase day 1. If they had continued charging actual points for formations then Id have grudgingly accepted it but by making vehicles, upgrades, and multiple rules free it became blatant pay to win.

I like a lot of what I hear however I feel gw is putting to much into the command point basket. It should be useful like reroll a single die, deploy a unit from reserves, however it sounds like gw is throwing a ton of options for it and really feels like they are taking away from the army with it.

I like the sounds of the new system. It will still depend heavily on getting the costs/abilities/FOC slot waaaay closer than they were though. (Scatbike etc)

tneva82 wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
I'm really worried about it from the perspective of IG though. Unless they change platoons, you can basically stack an entire army worth of infantry into a single troop slot if you wanted to. Six troop slots is 130 guardsmen, minimum, unless you're taking veterans. I think in most of my games at 1500-2000 points previously, I took about 50-60 (including HQ and vets) tops. That's a lot of padding to get the hip new points.

That is bit scary thought. Wonder how they handle IG. If they drop platoon idea that kinda runs against IG's idea of getting lots of infantry but with platoons those minimum troops would be real hassle to fill.

Veterans are there but required to use those to avoid 130 guardsmen...And still haven't figured good way to separate veterans and non veterans easily.

They've already said that Platoons are still in.

No more individual formations/detatchements?

Ive been waiting for them to AoS 40k since AoS dropped(and I switched over to it),but now that its actually happening,im not sure if I want to come back to 40k..ive been playing the new ruleset for almost 2 years now,its awesome for fantasy but with 40k I was expecting vehicle facings to remain,,and now,,there wont be individual army formations?

The Battalions in AoS are what makes the armies so different and they work great even for balance...take that out of the game and it gets lame pretty fast.

 Kanluwen wrote:

They've already said that Platoons are still in.

In the traditional form? Like, 25-man minimum?

Guess I'll have to start painting.

 En Excelsis wrote:
40k's success was due in no small part to it's amazing background and lore - the stuff meta-gamers and min-maxers lovelessly refer to as 'fluff'. But it's the 'fluff' that sets it apart (IMO above) the competition. I'd much rather play WH40k than say Flames of War for the same reason that I'd rather play Relic's Space Marine than Battlefield, Call of Duty, or Medal of Honor. It's not they are bad games, but they all effectively just different shades of the same color. By comparison WH40k and it's related games - all based on the same 'fluff' has the added value of being characterful. For my part, the 'fluff' is the greatest value - and GW has been slowly chipping away at that value for the last several editions.

Given that sub-factions like Harlequins, Genestealer Cults, Deathwatch, etc., have recently returned to the game and universe, I think you're FAR off base here. The 40K universe contracted quite a bit in 3rd through 5th edition, but depth and breadth have been on the upswing both in 6th and in 7th especially.

 insaniak wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

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".

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/725126.page

Yeah, I'm not sure that 4 people out of more than a hundred thousand registered users mentioning that formations are a thing in a thread listing the defining features of each edition is really much of an indicator that formations are universally hated by this community...



Having said that, IMO formations were another of those 'good idea, badly implemented' things that have been so prevalent in 6th/7th edition, so I'm not sorry to see them go.

How about the one entitled "FORMATIONS ARE GONE!"?

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/725140.page

 Kanluwen wrote:
They've already said that Platoons are still in.

Time to start converting veterans then...That or accept no command points! I think I might just baaaaaarely have enough for battalion at least if I paint the 3rd platoon but literally zero options for troops...

 Desubot wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Youn wrote:
Just because Solitaire, Death Jester and Shadowseer are normally part of a troupe doesn't mean they cannot go back to being Independent characters.

Umm pretty sure they are. They just don't have HQ which prevented them using CAD and forced to use either faction specific detachment or formation.

But so far we have seen 3 detachments. 11 unseen. Doubtful all of them require HQ.

also assuming any models will retain there original FOC slots.

With 14 different potential FOC options, I imagine at least one would involve taking so many troops, elites and no HQs. This also makes skitarii work elegantly.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

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".

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/725126.page

Yeah, I'm not sure that 4 people out of more than a hundred thousand registered users mentioning that formations are a thing in a thread listing the defining features of each edition is really much of an indicator that formations are universally hated by this community...



Having said that, IMO formations were another of those 'good idea, badly implemented' things that have been so prevalent in 6th/7th edition, so I'm not sorry to see them go.

How about the one entitled "FORMATIONS ARE GONE!"?

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/725140.page

An opinion being louder doesn't make it more prevalent. Every poll I've ever seen about formations on this forum has been pretty close to a 50/50 split.

 daedalus wrote:

Spoiler:

tneva82 wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
I'm really worried about it from the perspective of IG though. Unless they change platoons, you can basically stack an entire army worth of infantry into a single troop slot if you wanted to. Six troop slots is 130 guardsmen, minimum, unless you're taking veterans. I think in most of my games at 1500-2000 points previously, I took about 50-60 (including HQ and vets) tops. That's a lot of padding to get the hip new points.

That is bit scary thought. Wonder how they handle IG. If they drop platoon idea that kinda runs against IG's idea of getting lots of infantry but with platoons those minimum troops would be real hassle to fill.

Veterans are there but required to use those to avoid 130 guardsmen...And still haven't figured good way to separate veterans and non veterans easily.

I did some custom heads and backpacks and a different paintjob. The downside being that they're no longer interchangable.

Pics (spoiled for OT) :
[spoiler]
Vet example (not fully painted)

Default paint scheme (on an Al-rahem counts-as)

If nothing else, I'm still a big fan of the forgeworld upgrade. I was too lazy to make my own and found them to be good to use as vets.

A lack of LoWs makes sense to try and get rid of super heavy spam. But they seem to be forgetting that we have single infantry models in the LoW slot (at least for now).

 jreilly89 wrote:

How about the one entitled "FORMATIONS ARE GONE!"?

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/725140.page

What about it?

tneva82 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
They've already said that Platoons are still in.

Time to start converting veterans then...That or accept no command points! I think I might just baaaaaarely have enough for battalion at least if I paint the 3rd platoon but literally zero options for troops...

Veterans are currently Troops. I'd be surprised to see them get moved but who knows.

I can, theoretically, run a Brigade depending on how things shake out.
It won't be pleasant for me carrying everything, but c'est la vie I guess...I built towards that for the Cadian Detachment. Sadly I won't get to use my Shadowsword...

 NivlacSupreme wrote:
A lack of LoWs makes sense to try and get rid of super heavy spam. But they seem to be forgetting that we have single infantry models in the LoW slot (at least for now).

For AdMech, won't IKTs just be Troops?

At this point I really just want to see a few full unit cards. Seeing full statlines, point costs, special rules and upgrade options for a few units will give me a better feel for where this game is going than anything else would.

Well, looks like I will be adding a third Tactical Squad to my Crimson Fists and some BP/CCW Scouts to my Blood Angels. My Skitarii have no HQ, so who knows how that will work. Hopefully the alternate detachments will have a lower Troop or HQ requirement, but required amounts of other roles.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Well, looks like I will be adding a third Tactical Squad to my Crimson Fists and some BP/CCW Scouts to my Blood Angels. My Skitarii have no HQ, so who knows how that will work. Hopefully the alternate detachments will have a lower Troop or HQ requirement, but required amounts of other roles.

I really hope not.

I have zero Fast Attacks for my AdMech. I dislike Dragoons on an aesthetic level.

gungo wrote:
I like a lot of what I hear however I feel gw is putting to much into the command point basket. It should be useful like reroll a single die, deploy a unit from reserves, however it sounds like gw is throwing a ton of options for it and really feels like they are taking away from the army with it.

Hopefully there are faction-specific command point functions, so something like calling a WAAAGH! for Orks or possibly allowing a hit and run move for Dark Eldar or the like.

That being said, there are other ways for GW to focus on army feel, including different types of detachments for factions. Or we might see different warlord traits/relics and they may just leave it at that, which I hope not. AoS has been doing a great job with the most recent factions having cool, unique mechanics (Kharadron code, Destiny Dice, Blood Tithe and Stormcast Deep-Strike) and I'd be surprised if this wasn't mirrored in 40k some way.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Well, looks like I will be adding a third Tactical Squad to my Crimson Fists and some BP/CCW Scouts to my Blood Angels. My Skitarii have no HQ, so who knows how that will work. Hopefully the alternate detachments will have a lower Troop or HQ requirement, but required amounts of other roles.

I really hope not.

I have zero Fast Attacks for my AdMech. I dislike Dragoons on an aesthetic level.

Sorry, that was directed at my SM armies, who all run with one HQ (and a LOW for my BA). I am hoping for a high Elites or Heavy Support requirement for an alternate to use with my CF (but fewer Troops), and a high Elites or Fast Attack alternate for my BA. Skitarii need more choices for the different roles. I like Dragoons (I hope the Sniper version is buffed though), but I can see why they aren't for everyone. They might just add Techpriest Dominus and Enginseers to Skitarii as available HQs. They really should add a Skitarii Alpha Primus model anyway. Oh well. I strongly suspect Skitarii and Ad Mech will be made into one army.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Hopefully the alternate detachments will have a lower Troop or HQ requirement, but required amounts of other roles.

Oh, noes, the AdMech can only take 1-4 Troops, but must take 1-6 Lords of War...

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Hopefully the alternate detachments will have a lower Troop or HQ requirement, but required amounts of other roles.

Oh, noes, the AdMech can only take 1-4 Troops, but must take 1-6 Lords of War...

Heh. Yeah, I definitely can see how there is abuse potential.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Hopefully the alternate detachments will have a lower Troop or HQ requirement, but required amounts of other roles.

Oh, noes, the AdMech can only take 1-4 Troops, but must take 1-6 Lords of War...

Heh. Yeah, I definitely can see how there is abuse potential.

Yeah nothing is absolute so its all going to come down to wait and see

unless we can get our hands on them play testers and "persuade" them

*watches as the 6th/7th Ed Formation pyre burns into the night*

And nothing of any value, whatsoever, was lost.

Good riddance to one of the dumbest ideas to ever infest this game. Formations should have:

1. Cost points.
2. Stayed in Apoc.
3. Never, ever given free transports/upgrades to units. Ever!

 Desubot wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Hopefully the alternate detachments will have a lower Troop or HQ requirement, but required amounts of other roles.

Oh, noes, the AdMech can only take 1-4 Troops, but must take 1-6 Lords of War...

Heh. Yeah, I definitely can see how there is abuse potential.

Yeah nothing is absolute so its all going to come down to wait and see

unless we can get our hands on them play testers and "persuade" them

I am just looking at my armies and seeing that I will need to remove some stuff in order to make room for that second HQ in the Battalion. I really don't want to have to use the Patrol since it lacks the amount of HS for my Crimson Fists and the amount of Elites for my Blood Angels. And my Crimson Fists don't fit because I added the Lascannon Devastators back in after have had them gone for a year. My BA have a Furioso, but if Cassor the Damned remains a Troops choice, I might take the Furioso out and put Cassor in Troops instead of the Scouts I currently shoved in.

I wouldn't mind an all Elites and HQ required detachment. It would be good for the Archangels and Deathwing, and even work for the Farsight Enclaves.

Skitarii no longer exist. The only faction in the new 40k page is Adeptus Mechanicus, so Skitarii will have HQ. The ones of the Adeptus Mechanicus, as always should have been. Then, the Start Collecting! Will make sense.

 Galas wrote:
Skitarii no longer exist. The only faction in the new 40k page is Adeptus Mechanicus, so Skitarii will have HQ. The ones of the Adeptus Mechanicus, as always should have been.

They said those lists were from a narrative standpoint and not to use them as a gauge of what factions are or are not in the game.

Having Ad Mech as one faction does solve the HQ problem, but it does also muck the fluff up since Techpriests are in orbit controlling the Skitarii, not PlanetSide.

The question is does this new system allow for variant lists, or do they make new FOCs?

For instance, do they make a Deathwing FOC that has nothing but Elite and HS slots, and put a limit on Dreads (so you have to take Deathwing squads), or do they just say 'Deathwing Terminators count as Troops in a Deathwing army'?

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Skitarii no longer exist. The only faction in the new 40k page is Adeptus Mechanicus, so Skitarii will have HQ. The ones of the Adeptus Mechanicus, as always should have been.

They said those lists were from a narrative standpoint and not to use them as a gauge of what factions are or are not in the game.

Having Ad Mech as one faction does solve the HQ problem, but it does also muck the fluff up since Techpriests are in orbit controlling the Skitarii, not PlanetSide.

I know that. But to me is just a confirmation of the unification of the two factions that have no reason to be cut in half. I totally expect them to do it, and maybe them I will do the Cult Mechanicus Army I always wanted.

And the fluff has no problem really. I doubt Creed will be in the front line fighting with his soldiers but there you have it. If a Techpriest need to go to make ground-job, he will do it.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Skitarii no longer exist. The only faction in the new 40k page is Adeptus Mechanicus, so Skitarii will have HQ. The ones of the Adeptus Mechanicus, as always should have been.

They said those lists were from a narrative standpoint and not to use them as a gauge of what factions are or are not in the game.

Having Ad Mech as one faction does solve the HQ problem, but it does also muck the fluff up since Techpriests are in orbit controlling the Skitarii, not PlanetSide.

Well it seems like they are pushing the story along to 1 second to midnight now so maybe they are getting desperate?

fluffwise i dunno but rules wise it makes sense. they are all technomancers in red (generally)

H.B.M.C. wrote:The question is does this new system allow for variant lists, or do they make new FOCs?

For instance, do they make a Deathwing FOC that has nothing but Elite and HS slots, and put a limit on Dreads (so you have to take Deathwing squads), or do they just say 'Deathwing Terminators count as Troops in a Deathwing army'?

I am envisioning an alternate detachment with no Troops required, only HQ and Elite. That way Deathwing don't need a special rule to bypass their role.

Galas wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Skitarii no longer exist. The only faction in the new 40k page is Adeptus Mechanicus, so Skitarii will have HQ. The ones of the Adeptus Mechanicus, as always should have been.

They said those lists were from a narrative standpoint and not to use them as a gauge of what factions are or are not in the game.

Having Ad Mech as one faction does solve the HQ problem, but it does also muck the fluff up since Techpriests are in orbit controlling the Skitarii, not PlanetSide.

I know that. But to me is just a confirmation of the unification of the two factions that have no reason to be cut in half.

I wouldn't be bothered by it at all if they did combine them. I have a Techpriest Dominus and Belasarius Cawl, so I am set in the HQ department.

There was no good reason for Skitarii and Cult Mechanicus to be separate factions in the first place other than to encourage people to buy two books instead of one. I would expect there to be an Adeptus Mechanicus keyword,with a Skitarii keyword, a Cult Mechanicus keyword and a Knight Household keyword within it or something.

 Desubot wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Skitarii no longer exist. The only faction in the new 40k page is Adeptus Mechanicus, so Skitarii will have HQ. The ones of the Adeptus Mechanicus, as always should have been.

They said those lists were from a narrative standpoint and not to use them as a gauge of what factions are or are not in the game.

Having Ad Mech as one faction does solve the HQ problem, but it does also muck the fluff up since Techpriests are in orbit controlling the Skitarii, not PlanetSide.

Well it seems like they are pushing the story along to 1 second to midnight now so maybe they are getting desperate?

fluffwise i dunno but rules wise it makes sense. they are all technomancers in red (generally)

Oh, absolutely. They can definitely come up with a good explanation quite easily. And I would be totally fine with that, as long as they don't try to say this is how it always has been.

And my Skitarii are technomancers in GREEN, TYVM!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The question is does this new system allow for variant lists, or do they make new FOCs?

For instance, do they make a Deathwing FOC that has nothing but Elite and HS slots, and put a limit on Dreads (so you have to take Deathwing squads), or do they just say 'Deathwing Terminators count as Troops in a Deathwing army'?

It's likely to be the latter, since that's the way AoS handles it. Usually you have to take a specific HQ choice or have that choice be your general/warlord. So for example for Bloodcrushers to become troops you need a Skullmaster (The weird-rebrand for a Khorne Herald on Juggernaut) to be your general. That's not to say you can't include Bloodthirsters or other heroes.

As long as it's not Special Character-based.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
As long as it's not Special Character-based.

That's why I would rather they just skipped the whole role-changing ability and made detachments that allowed the roles to be used more instead of Troops. BA and White Scars spamming Fast Attack over Troops, Deathwing and Farsight Enclaves spamming Elites over Troops, and the like. Obviously they wouldn't get as many command points, if at all.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
That's why I would rather they just skipped the whole role-changing ability and made detachments that allowed the roles to be used more instead of Troops. BA and White Scars spamming Fast Attack over Troops, Deathwing and Farsight Enclaves spamming Elites over Troops, and the like. Obviously they wouldn't get as many command points, if at all.

That, to me, does seem like a better idea.

I'm sure they'll mess it up somehow.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
*watches as the 6th/7th Ed Formation pyre burns into the night*

And nothing of any value, whatsoever, was lost.

Good riddance to one of the dumbest ideas to ever infest this game. Formations should have:

1. Cost points.
2. Stayed in Apoc.
3. Never, ever given free transports/upgrades to units. Ever!

Yup. Don't forget to roast any remaining finecast marshmellows while you're there along with the rest of Kirby's legacy as CEO.

Don't be silly, finecast marshmallows melt and fall off the stick 15ft from the fire, there's no way you can roast them!

(But at least they already have a hole for the stick, if you insist on trying.)

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
That's why I would rather they just skipped the whole role-changing ability and made detachments that allowed the roles to be used more instead of Troops. BA and White Scars spamming Fast Attack over Troops, Deathwing and Farsight Enclaves spamming Elites over Troops, and the like. Obviously they wouldn't get as many command points, if at all.

That, to me, does seem like a better idea.

I'm sure they'll mess it up somehow.

Fingers crossed for something decent. I wouldn't mind being able to ignore Tactical Marines in either of my SM armies. I still think they should have a Troops slot in those special detachments, but they wouldn't be the required units. And spamming Elites stacks up on points, so there is already a built in drawback.

Don't be cruel. Krell, Lord of Undead, had no choice in the material they made him with

And, try to fry THE MIGHTY SLAMBO, I wan't to see how that goes

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
As long as it's not Special Character-based.

That's why I would rather they just skipped the whole role-changing ability and made detachments that allowed the roles to be used more instead of Troops. BA and White Scars spamming Fast Attack over Troops, Deathwing and Farsight Enclaves spamming Elites over Troops, and the like. Obviously they wouldn't get as many command points, if at all.

They mentioned in one of the earlier previews that they will do exactly this. That there will be detachments that focus on Heavy Supports, etc.

 rollawaythestone wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
As long as it's not Special Character-based.

That's why I would rather they just skipped the whole role-changing ability and made detachments that allowed the roles to be used more instead of Troops. BA and White Scars spamming Fast Attack over Troops, Deathwing and Farsight Enclaves spamming Elites over Troops, and the like. Obviously they wouldn't get as many command points, if at all.

They mentioned in one of the earlier previews that they will do exactly this. That there will be detachments that focus on Heavy Supports, etc.

I know that, but I suspect they will just be something like 1HQ, 2T, 2HS required. I want some that have NO Troops required.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 rollawaythestone wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
As long as it's not Special Character-based.

That's why I would rather they just skipped the whole role-changing ability and made detachments that allowed the roles to be used more instead of Troops. BA and White Scars spamming Fast Attack over Troops, Deathwing and Farsight Enclaves spamming Elites over Troops, and the like. Obviously they wouldn't get as many command points, if at all.

They mentioned in one of the earlier previews that they will do exactly this. That there will be detachments that focus on Heavy Supports, etc.

I know that, but I suspect they will just be something like 1HQ, 2T, 2HS required. I want some that have NO Troops required.

If you want that, you can always, you know...

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 rollawaythestone wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
As long as it's not Special Character-based.

That's why I would rather they just skipped the whole role-changing ability and made detachments that allowed the roles to be used more instead of Troops. BA and White Scars spamming Fast Attack over Troops, Deathwing and Farsight Enclaves spamming Elites over Troops, and the like. Obviously they wouldn't get as many command points, if at all.

They mentioned in one of the earlier previews that they will do exactly this. That there will be detachments that focus on Heavy Supports, etc.

I know that, but I suspect they will just be something like 1HQ, 2T, 2HS required. I want some that have NO Troops required.

Lets wait and see

 rollawaythestone wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 rollawaythestone wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
As long as it's not Special Character-based.

That's why I would rather they just skipped the whole role-changing ability and made detachments that allowed the roles to be used more instead of Troops. BA and White Scars spamming Fast Attack over Troops, Deathwing and Farsight Enclaves spamming Elites over Troops, and the like. Obviously they wouldn't get as many command points, if at all.

They mentioned in one of the earlier previews that they will do exactly this. That there will be detachments that focus on Heavy Supports, etc.

I know that, but I suspect they will just be something like 1HQ, 2T, 2HS required. I want some that have NO Troops required.

Lets wait and see

I know. I am just speculating. It is quite easy to see how a FoC with required slots instead of Troops can help numerous armies out. No need to special rules on special characters allowing role changes. If objective secured is still a thing, that would be another trade off.

An FOC with all HS required could represent a tank company. All of these make a fair amount of sense.

It also lets them help balance things by giving our more/less command benefits.

I'm hoping so something similar as well. My Tau have always been Farsight Enclaves. Plus I have the complete Dark Angels first and second companies.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
That's why I would rather they just skipped the whole role-changing ability and made detachments that allowed the roles to be used more instead of Troops. BA and White Scars spamming Fast Attack over Troops, Deathwing and Farsight Enclaves spamming Elites over Troops, and the like. Obviously they wouldn't get as many command points, if at all.

That, to me, does seem like a better idea.

I'm sure they'll mess it up somehow.

If there's no generic Elite-focused Detachment, I could see there being one down the line for Deathwing with a Restriction saying "All units in this Detachment (excluding Dedicated Transports) must have the DEATHWING keyword."

Then have it be something like 1-3 HQ, 2-12 Elites, 1 DT per other Selection, 0-X Heavy Support (in case Land Raiders aren't DTs) and maybe give a small number of Command Points.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
That's why I would rather they just skipped the whole role-changing ability and made detachments that allowed the roles to be used more instead of Troops. BA and White Scars spamming Fast Attack over Troops, Deathwing and Farsight Enclaves spamming Elites over Troops, and the like. Obviously they wouldn't get as many command points, if at all.

That, to me, does seem like a better idea.

I'm sure they'll mess it up somehow.

If there's no generic Elite-focused Detachment, I could see there being one down the line for Deathwing with a Restriction saying "All units in this Detachment (excluding Dedicated Transports) must have the DEATHWING keyword."

Then have it be something like 1-3 HQ, 2-12 Elites, 1 DT per other Selection, 0-X Heavy Support (in case Land Raiders aren't DTs) and maybe give a small number of Command Points.

That would work, but it seems like a generic one would cover more bases without needlessly creating a ton of Detachments for several armies. The ability to run an army with all Elites covers so many armies (Deathwing, Death Company, Farsight Enclaves, among others), that it would be silly to not do it.

...so...GW probably won't...

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
...so...GW probably won't...

And they'll make the amount of command points you get a random 2D6 roll while they're at it.

My daughter has gastro, not going to be able to keep up with the thread, if anyone has info to be added to the OP, please PM me (I am about 8 pages behind ATM.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
That's why I would rather they just skipped the whole role-changing ability and made detachments that allowed the roles to be used more instead of Troops. BA and White Scars spamming Fast Attack over Troops, Deathwing and Farsight Enclaves spamming Elites over Troops, and the like. Obviously they wouldn't get as many command points, if at all.

That, to me, does seem like a better idea.

I'm sure they'll mess it up somehow.

If there's no generic Elite-focused Detachment, I could see there being one down the line for Deathwing with a Restriction saying "All units in this Detachment (excluding Dedicated Transports) must have the DEATHWING keyword."

Then have it be something like 1-3 HQ, 2-12 Elites, 1 DT per other Selection, 0-X Heavy Support (in case Land Raiders aren't DTs) and maybe give a small number of Command Points.

That would work, but it seems like a generic one would cover more bases without needlessly creating a ton of Detachments for several armies. The ability to run an army with all Elites covers so many armies (Deathwing, Death Company, Farsight Enclaves, among others), that it would be silly to not do it.

...so...GW probably won't...

Oh for sure a generic one is preferred. Blood Angels should be able to field the Archangels, Salamander the Firedrakes etc as well. Deathwing should have all the fun!
Plus it would allow people to field Storm Trooper armies so that the 5 people that currently have pure Millitarum Tempestus armies can still field them without getting their own separate army book from the Guard.

Natfka has a rumor posted about FoCs going forward from the intial release: Decurion style bonuses for specific builds will apparently be a thing.

Not a shock and something many of us were guessing I believe. Time will tell on how balanced these end up actually being though.

At least we can file complaints with the insistance of someone sold a dead parrot if these turn out to be utter game breaking gak...

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Natfka has a rumor posted about FoCs going forward from the intial release: Decurion style bonuses for specific builds will apparently be a thing.

Not a shock and something many of us were guessing I believe. Time will tell on how balanced these end up actually being though.

At least we can file complaints with the insistance of someone sold a dead parrot if these turn out to be utter game breaking gak...

I think you want to say:

"Natfka has just invented something and say that it is a rumor to give it some credibility"

Not that I don't see posible GW making again the same errors. Is just that Natfka is full of

EDIT: Maybe this comment sounds more abrut against you that intendet, ClockworkZion. Please, this is not agains't you, only again'st Natfka!

 EnTyme wrote:

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

 kronk wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

That its better to fix things that needed work rather than ruining the whole system for the sake of nothing in particular?

Broken formations were a ruined system that needed to die a quick death. IMHO, YMMV, OMG, BBQ, WTF.

Ok.
So following your logic GW should have removed all wulfen, riptides, wraithknigts and so on because they were also aroken and needed to die?

What was it that you liked so much about formations?

The rules or the fluff? Both?

I'm not clear on that.

Why is that a binary choice? Why do formation bonuses have to be free? Why can't points be used to balance the bonus rules an army gets for taking a specific selection of units that represent how one (fluffy) aspect of an army works together? I keep seeing how formations killed variety, but I see the opposite. FREE formations were a bad idea. Costed formations give the player another option for how to build their army. You give up one bonus (extra command points in 8th) in exchange for some extra rules for your army (which you should pay for like you do in AoS). I except that this is the direction GW has gone for 8th, and it's damn sure not a deal breaker for me, but it doesn't mean I have to be happy with losing one of my favorite aspects of army creation in 7th edition and AoS.

You're going to have to explain how you're losing anything except imbalanced rules.

Assuming the remaining FoC's allow for all the various combinations of units allowed by the old formations(they almost certainly will) and assuming GW actually have managed to hit on something approaching balance in terms of individual units and on the army scale(dubious, but it can hardly be worse than it is now where some units literally only function with a hideously OP buff formation to boost them), then where is the loss?

The intent here seems to be to standardise and generalise Formations using these new FoC and Command Points that let you do variuous things rather than specific "five of this unit is passable now, and if you take twenty they become UNSTOPPABRU!" cheesemongery. I'm sure we'll get some (hopefully very, very, very, extremely)specific FoC later for individual armies that might involve special boosts in exchange for a direct point cost or some other tradeoff, but right now GW are trying to take perhaps the most bloated and shoddily balanced wargame ever made and streamline it to hell, and Formations are both an easy and entirely rational way to contribute to that process.

We'll see if the final result is any good later, but this specific aspect of the new system seems great and entirely sensible to me.

 Galas wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Natfka has a rumor posted about FoCs going forward from the intial release: Decurion style bonuses for specific builds will apparently be a thing.

Not a shock and something many of us were guessing I believe. Time will tell on how balanced these end up actually being though.

At least we can file complaints with the insistance of someone sold a dead parrot if these turn out to be utter game breaking gak...

I think you want to say:

"Natfka has just invented something and say that it is a rumor to give it some credibility"

Not that I don't see posible GW making again the same errors. Is just that Natfka is full of

He doesn't make up stuff to posts but rather runs a very loose filter over any rumors submitted. At least the last batch of rumors got a proper looking at and were rejected by third party sources which lead to a proper retraction. If these are fake then I can see the same happening here.

Decurion style FOCs I think could work as long as they can't also get Command Points to spend from the FOC. If that's our big balancing factor between different FOCs and even taking multiples of the same FOCs then it shouldn't be a bonus for armies who are gaining other formation bonuses.

Regardless we'll see. So much is still up in the air and it's not like we can't see fast changes going forward if something slipped the net in testing.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Skitarii no longer exist. The only faction in the new 40k page is Adeptus Mechanicus, so Skitarii will have HQ. The ones of the Adeptus Mechanicus, as always should have been.

They said those lists were from a narrative standpoint and not to use them as a gauge of what factions are or are not in the game.

Having Ad Mech as one faction does solve the HQ problem, but it does also muck the fluff up since Techpriests are in orbit controlling the Skitarii, not PlanetSide.

That might be the fluff they wrote to justify releasing Skitarii solo with no HQ to try and double-dip the Mechanicus fanbase with two books, but it's directly contradicted by almost every bit of fluff that previously existed about the Mechanicus, and logically contradicted by the CultMech release since the Techpriests in that are perfectly willing to go planetside and the idea Skitarii and Robot Maniples never see combat together is silly. Explorators, Cybernetica Magi, Ordo Reductor Magi, Myrmidons, and Magisterium Magi would all, regularly, be leading Skitarii forces planetside. And before the Skitarii book, it had always been that way, so they're not rewriting the fluff by combining Skitarii & Cultmech, they're fixing it.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The question is does this new system allow for variant lists, or do they make new FOCs?

For instance, do they make a Deathwing FOC that has nothing but Elite and HS slots, and put a limit on Dreads (so you have to take Deathwing squads), or do they just say 'Deathwing Terminators count as Troops in a Deathwing army'?

I'm expecting there to be a core-FoC that uses Elites & HQ as its required choices and has a large upper number of Elites, rather than Troops & HQ and a focus on Troops as the basic ones do. I would then expect the Deathwing-specific rules to be on the actual Deathwing unit Datasheets. So, rather than picking a Deathwing formation that lets you take a selection of units you normally couldn't and makes them better, they'll just let everyone take that selection of units if they like using the appropriate FoC and the Deathwing will be inherently good at what they're supposed to do.

Assuming I've sussed their intent correctly ofc, and assuming they pull off the balance side of things fairly well.

Elite, Fast Attack, Horde and Tank Heavy FOCs I can see and understand being open to everyone (save non-GSC Nids on that last one) but some armies have traditionally been a little weirder in terms of composition (Harlequins, Inquisition) and I wonder if they'll be our first faction specific FOC releases.

I frankly wouldn't mind if they approached it by giving those armies access to unique detachments at the start of the new addition just to round them out without stuffing them into their respective higher factions (Imperium, Xenos, Eldar) to "fix" the problem until they get around to giving them a new FOC later.

That said it is possible this will become a non-issue by making said units change FOC slots to better fit the new detachements.

Also, anyone else hoping Inqusition gets a rule that shares the "Inquisition" keyword with units from the Imperium faction to sow how they take resources as needed for their various missions? I mean it doesn't even need to do anything rules wise, I just think it'd make for good flavor.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The question is does this new system allow for variant lists, or do they make new FOCs?

For instance, do they make a Deathwing FOC that has nothing but Elite and HS slots, and put a limit on Dreads (so you have to take Deathwing squads), or do they just say 'Deathwing Terminators count as Troops in a Deathwing army'?

I imagine it will follow the precedent of being a bit like AoS, the keywords will tie your army to an allegiance and if all your units have the 'Deathwing' keyword then the Termies will count as troops (Battleline in AoS).

This way you can use any FOC but the keywords and allegiance free up more options as to exactly how you can build your army.

eg: In my Lizardmen AoS army if all my units have the keyword 'Seraphon' then I can take Temple Guard or Cold one Cav as Battleline rather than just Skinks or regular Saurus warriors.

So let's see what we got in terms of broken formations, or "broken" formations:
1. Canoptek Harvest
2. Gladius/Lions Blade (I'm counting this as one because it's the same bloody thing)
3. Aspect Host
4. Riptide Wing
5. War Convocation

To say Formations were broken is NOT a fair assessment and honestly just incorrect. They aren't going to be necessary hopefully with the better balance and multiple CAD's of different varieties. However, you guys ain't being honest with yourselves when you say Formations are broken. There were simply problem formations. Simple as that.
Granted Liberal_Pert is overreacting a LOT, but things like Raptor Talon, TAF, Bully Boyz, Judicator Battalion, 1st Company, and things like that should definitely be missed.

I have a little bit of fear about my Militarum Tempestus army in a FOC. We have 2 HQs, 1 Troop, and now what would be 1 Flyer. We will more than likely need a specialized FOC for us to earn any command benefits.

 Howscat wrote:
I have a little bit of fear about my Militarum Tempestus army in a FOC. We have 2 HQs, 1 Troop, and now what would be 1 Flyer. We will more than likely need a specialized FOC for us to earn any command benefits.

You could run the battalion (or multiple battalions) for 3 cp each.

I am really hoping for a specialized infantry FOC that gives plenty of command benefits. I can easily see the number of detachments being very limited at a tournament for balance. All I can do is wait and see what will happen to my army in 8th.

There was a formation that let you show up with several hundred more points worth of stuff than your opponent in any game for basically no penalty.

That alone should tell you why Formations were a badly implemented idea that should have forever stayed in Apoc where they belonged.

Having just read the article on battle forged, I could imagine it'd be pretty easy for Orks to get that 9 cp brigade filled out using Grotz/Trukk Boyz for troops, Mek Guns/Walkers for heavy, Bikes/Koptas for FA, and Warbosses + a Painboy or even a Weirdboy as HQ. Elites are the only tricky part IMO. MANZ if you've got the points, or even some min size normal Nobs?

I do hope that this new system allows for asymmetrical battles. Not necessarily different points values per side, but vastly different organisational structures.

I also hope that not every variant army and his dog gets a special FoC.

 KommissarKiln wrote:
Having just read the article on battle forged, I could imagine it'd be pretty easy for Orks to get that 9 cp brigade filled out using Grotz/Trukk Boyz for troops, Mek Guns/Walkers for heavy, Bikes/Koptas for FA, and Warbosses + a Painboy or even a Weirdboy as HQ. Elites are the only tricky part IMO. MANZ if you've got the points, or even some min size normal Nobs?

Given we don't know what slot each unit will occupy (Grots might be Lords of War... you never know!!!), it might be somewhat premature to start planning out your army.

The inquisitors could just have bonuses that affect all imperium unit, or at least ones without the astartes keyword.

As for the harlequin, skitarii, and tempestus you c o old easily have a chart lacking HQ options, more fast attack options, or they could be given units they currently have in different battlefield roles.

I am excited at the possibility of a detachment granting no command points but allowing a pile of lords of war and/or fortifications as well as the elites/HQ/heavy support detachment for a wraith heavy armies in addition to the aforementioned space marine armies.

This is going to be FUN!

If the formations are fluffy, and don't add free stuff, then I can understand taking them. And that is what it looks like they are doing which is awesome.
An example would be Death Guard taking no vehicles (as it is stated they pretty much have none), but get +1 to saves for foot slogging troops.

Man, I hope they bring back Wraithsight for Wraith constructs again. What? It's fluffy!

 Kanluwen wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
They've already said that Platoons are still in.

Time to start converting veterans then...That or accept no command points! I think I might just baaaaaarely have enough for battalion at least if I paint the 3rd platoon but literally zero options for troops...

Veterans are currently Troops. I'd be surprised to see them get moved but who knows.

I can, theoretically, run a Brigade depending on how things shake out.
It won't be pleasant for me carrying everything, but c'est la vie I guess...I built towards that for the Cadian Detachment. Sadly I won't get to use my Shadowsword...

That\s the point. Since I have zero veterans(as indicated by "time to start converting veterans") I have zero options with troops for brigade and maybe not even for battalion so unless I convert some veterans(or buy platoon) can't even get battalion! So as I said. Time to convert some veterans to bulk out troop choices or I'm out of command points!

Though not fan of veteran spam :-/ For me infantry platoon is the core but that's point heavy troop choice. And money and painting....

tneva82 wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
I'm really worried about it from the perspective of IG though. Unless they change platoons, you can basically stack an entire army worth of infantry into a single troop slot if you wanted to. Six troop slots is 130 guardsmen, minimum, unless you're taking veterans. I think in most of my games at 1500-2000 points previously, I took about 50-60 (including HQ and vets) tops. That's a lot of padding to get the hip new points.

That is bit scary thought. Wonder how they handle IG. If they drop platoon idea that kinda runs against IG's idea of getting lots of infantry but with platoons those minimum troops would be real hassle to fill.

Veterans are there but required to use those to avoid 130 guardsmen...And still haven't figured good way to separate veterans and non veterans easily.

I wonder how much we could push the logistics of IG platoons without sacrificing too much flavor. Say the minimum was just 2 squads of Infantry and the command squad was a nifty upgrade, and mandatory if you had more than 3 basic infantry squads? I'm interested in the direction IG could go with being a little more flexible on what are troops in general, though. It doesn't necessarily bother me that infantry vets are infantry that don't need a platoon but it does irk me a little bit that all troops choices are just 32 flavors of infantry. I would have no problem moving Ogryns, bullgryns, ratlings, Scions, and sentinels to the troop slot.

 Howscat wrote:
I have a little bit of fear about my Militarum Tempestus army in a FOC. We have 2 HQs, 1 Troop, and now what would be 1 Flyer. We will more than likely need a specialized FOC for us to earn any command benefits.

A lot of problems like this are going to keep happening if GW keeps publishing 7 brand new forces every year and only releasing a few splashy models for them. The Grand Alliance mechanics from AoS mitigate this a little bit, but it shouldn't be enough. Harlequins need fleshed out more. More units to choose from in general. And then Skitarii and AdMech need folded into one book. I also don't think there is any real way to justify letting scions be their own army and not folding them into the main IG book. Giving every army a special snowflake FOC kind of eliminates the point of having FOCs IMO. Of course, I doubt GW would do such a thing, but 8ed is happening, so I guess all bets are off.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
As long as it's not Special Character-based.

That's why I would rather they just skipped the whole role-changing ability and made detachments that allowed the roles to be used more instead of Troops. BA and White Scars spamming Fast Attack over Troops, Deathwing and Farsight Enclaves spamming Elites over Troops, and the like. Obviously they wouldn't get as many command points, if at all.

As long as it's generic rather than "white scars FA spam" I'm okay. But all fast attack is actually very unfluffy representation of white scars. That's special case for white scars and special case that can be seen by orks, iron hands, chaos etc as well as white scars.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
He doesn't make up stuff to posts but rather runs a very loose filter over any rumors submitted. At least the last batch of rumors got a proper looking at and were rejected by third party sources which lead to a proper retraction. If these are fake then I can see the same happening here.

Decurion style FOCs I think could work as long as they can't also get Command Points to spend from the FOC. If that's our big balancing factor between different FOCs and even taking multiples of the same FOCs then it shouldn't be a bonus for armies who are gaining other formation bonuses.

Regardless we'll see. So much is still up in the air and it's not like we can't see fast changes going forward if something slipped the net in testing.

Looks like you aren't familiar with nafka...If you don't see something they post elsewhere you can be sure it's made up junk. They have zero reliable sources. Only accurate ones they get are basically copied from here, hastings, atia etc they spotted elsewhere. But nafka first...Only way those are accurate is when by pure accident they made up something that randomly actually hit. Give keyboard to monkey and eventually they make out shakespear principle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Given we don't know what slot each unit will occupy (Grots might be Lords of War... you never know!!!), it might be somewhat premature to start planning out your army.

I'm pretty damn sure like 99% of battle roles are unchanged. Flyers got their own and there's slight chance they do some specific like jetbikes goes to fast attack or something but generally changing those heavily would be changing just for sake of changing. Old GW could do that to help sales(let's force people to buy terminators that are now troops while tac marines are elite and scouts fast attack!) but isn't new GW supposed to be changed?-)

A special (no need for the snowflake bit) FOC for each army is actually a cool way to balance, and allow fluffy combos to get Command Points without being as game-breaking as some formations. Really, it doesn't matter how you select your army. All Knight armies already exist, and still will, so restricting how others play with their toys is unfun. Allowing fluffy combos for CPs, or choose crazy combos but don't get as many/any CPs? That's a nice mechanic and makes 8th have 'formations-lite' and accommodate various army styles without breaking core concepts.

No, different benfits from army specific FOC actually can be just as bad as formations.

I do like the idea of command point benefits being army specific.
And they are one per phase only so hopefully they won't be too gamebreaking.

I think we should wait to see what you can spend Command Points on before we get all excited.

I find it interesting that they seem to be encouraging taking more elite slots than heavy or fast attack.

It's kind of like how is 30k where you get an extra optional HQ and Elite slot for the basic Force Org Chart.

I approve of the latest developments. They're great for the same reason that points are great. If every army is, at their core, organised along the same lines (just as they are equal in points) then this edition is going to be far more balanced than the previous one. I can't wait to see how these command points will work too.

I think some people might not quite get the idea behind these new FoCs. I doubt you can take multiples of them. Need more flyers, the answer isn't take 2 patrol FoCs, no the only answer available will be take one of the bigger FoCs and pay the bigger minimum cost. This is how they balance the game, This was how 5th handled things, I think this is how 8th will as well. I for one look forward to it.

 Coyote81 wrote:
I think some people might not quite get the idea behind these new FoCs. I doubt you can take multiples of them. Need more flyers, the answer isn't take 2 patrol FoCs, no the only answer available will be take one of the bigger FoCs and pay the bigger minimum cost. This is how they balance the game, This was how 5th handled things, I think this is how 8th will as well. I for one look forward to it.

No there is proof in gw post that without additional restrictions you can take multiple which is mandatory for allies which isn't going away either provenly.

 Coyote81 wrote:
I think some people might not quite get the idea behind these new FoCs. I doubt you can take multiples of them. Need more flyers, the answer isn't take 2 patrol FoCs, no the only answer available will be take one of the bigger FoCs and pay the bigger minimum cost. This is how they balance the game, This was how 5th handled things, I think this is how 8th will as well. I for one look forward to it.

Easier access to more unit types wasn't the most broken aspect of formations, it was the highly varied return on special rules for the same investment. For example:
Tyranids: spend ~1000pts and have it all turn up from reserve on the same turn (with no bonus to the roll)
Marines: spend ~1000pts, get +500pts free!

I'm sure you'll be able to take multiples of the new detachments, but I expect the balancing factor will be the much better bonuses you receive for focusing on larger generic ones. I have no doubt there will be a detachment that lets you field extra flyers or lots of Elites, but you're not going to be getting +9 command points for taking them like you will with a generic Brigade. In turn those command points can be used to level the field (such as re-rolling tricky To Hit rolls on flyers). I'm feeling confident this system will leave us in a much better place than 7E while still being flexible enough for everyone's existing armies.

One point that doesn't seem to have been discussed (unless I've missed it somewhere in the last 20 pages ) is dedicated transports.

Something I have always found bizarre in previous editions is the restriction on only being able to transport the unit the transport was bought for. Even within the grimdark, hidebound, follow-the-rules-at-all-times-or-else nature of the Imperium is this scenario plausible?

SM Company Commander: "Squad 4 is being overrun, have their Rhino withdraw them to their fallback position!"
SM Quartermaster: "That Rhino was taken out by enemy fire."
SM Company Commander: "Order Squad 6s Rhino to take over and pull them out!"
SM Quartermaster: "Sorry Sir, squad 4 was assigned Rhino 7-3C, we can't have Rhino 7-4F get them."
SM Company Commander: "Why in the name of Holy Terra not!"
SM Quartermaster: "Ermm... they didn't sign the insurance waiver?"

With the new FOCs allowing you to buy a transport pool for each detachment, I am going to take an educated guess that those transports can freely pick up any unit or combination of units that will fit in them (although the use of the term 'dedicated' still implies that this will be restricted to the detachment they are bought for rather than having free reign to pick up anyone from your army).

One interesting wrinkle with this is assuming ICs cannot join units a la AoS, Transports will have to allow multiple units to fit in them as long as there is space. In theory this allows a unit and a character to ride together, but will it also allow 2x 5-man marine squads to hitch a ride in a single Rhino, or allow a single Chimera to rescue the battered remnants of 2 IG squads as long as there are 12 survivors or less?

I personally hope so for rule-of-cool purposes


P.S. as all transports seem to be totally optional now does this mean that things like Tau Pathfinders will no longer be forced to buy a transport?

Dedicated transport could carry any unit. Just not start game with other inside. Ie no buying drop pod for devastators to carry unit that has no dedicated drop pod option(or rhino etc)

There may be some FOC's without any compulsory choices whatsoever for all anyone knows. The downside of such could be rather than earning you command points, it could give additional to the opponent which IMO would be a good trade off if people wanted to run armies that would not be viable within the typical FOC's, such as riptide wings etc.

 Chimera_Calvin wrote:
One point that doesn't seem to have been discussed (unless I've missed it somewhere in the last 20 pages ) is dedicated transports.

Something I have always found bizarre in previous editions is the restriction on only being able to transport the unit the transport was bought for. Even within the grimdark, hidebound, follow-the-rules-at-all-times-or-else nature of the Imperium is this scenario plausible?

This was never a thing. The rule in 7E was that a dedicated transport could only start the game carrying the unit it was bought for (or empty), but after that any unit was fair game.

Oops, I never played 7th and only glanced at the rules for 6th - I may be mixing something up with an older rule.

I still think transports in 8th will need to be allowed to transport multiple units and will be restricted to the detachment they are bought for, however

Chimera Calven, you could have done that the whole time. The only different is that you can't start in a transport that's not dedicated. They can even get in a transport first turn even if there is space.

Rippy
Post 06/05/2017 10:55:19 Subject: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition - Summary (all info in OP) 5th May 17 - Battle Forged Armies
Chimera Calven, you could have done that the whole time. The only different is that you can't start in a transport that's not dedicated. They can even get in a transport first turn even if there is space.

as stated...

Chimera_Calvin
Post 06/05/2017 10:53:02 Subject: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition - Summary (all info in OP) 5th May 17 - Battle Forged Armies
Oops, I never played 7th and only glanced at the rules for 6th - I may be mixing something up with an older rule.

They're great for the same reason that points are great. If every army is, at their core, organised along the same lines (just as they are equal in points) then this edition is going to be far more balanced than the previous one

Thats my hope too.