So this opens an interesting dinamic that may be interesting to certain types of armies. Skitari want taxis? maybe[/img] shell a command point or two. Want melee blenders for your blue berries? Well, maybe a CP won't be spent a better way!

Wow that's very cool! Like you said, it opens up a lot of interesting doors

Somewhat concerned that as things stand my army can play literally none of these.

I'm assuming they will address this somehow.

Interesting.

That Supreme Command detachment really does allow for herohammer. (Maybe there will be rules regarding under what circumstances you can take certain detachments.)

 Robin5t wrote:
Somewhat concerned that as things stand my army can play literally none of these.

I'm assuming they will address this somehow.

You get a troupe leader as a HQ OR you get a specific detachment. They said there would be some specific ones in the indexes.

 Robin5t wrote:
Somewhat concerned that as things stand my army can play literally none of these.

I'm assuming they will address this somehow.

Which army would that be?

so.... allied detachments actually hurt now, interesting. that makes me a little sad I picked up allies of most armies to throw in some flavor, now they will cost command points if I bring em

So, is your force made up of multiple detachments?

Hmm, I am going to have to make another bike-riding HQ model and split my army into two detachments.

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
Interesting.

That Supreme Command detachment really does allow for herohammer. (Maybe there will be rules regarding under what circumstances you can take certain detachments.)

take Gulliman, Tiguris, Calgar (or Cato if Calgar is still a LOW) and Cassius. then throw as large an honorguard squad on there as you can.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Robin5t wrote:
Somewhat concerned that as things stand my army can play literally none of these.

I'm assuming they will address this somehow.

Which army would that be?

Harlequins. They currently don't have a HQ option and can only be played either in their formations, in a Masque detachment, or as Ynnari with a Dark Eldar or Craftworld Eldar HQ.

Yeah, what the heck are Skitarii gonna do?

Also, I really wish the Supreme Command detachment was 3-6 instead of 3-5. That way, you could have a battle-forged detachment that was just all 6 Phoenix Lords and the Avatar of Khaine.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Yeah, what the heck are Skitarii gonna do?

Either they get their own detachment OR (and I think this is the most likely choice) they merge with Cult Mechanicus.

I am more curious if Matched Play will add extra restrictions to this, because as we all know Matched Play will be the "only" mode used in many cases, so any further restrictions that it adds will become the assumed default. We could very well see many of these options turn out to be more or less useless.

there is a good change that either Shadow Seers or individual Troupe masters are an HQ choice.

I really like that all these detachments require an HQ. It makes sense to have a leader for all these special detachments

It's as I expected, the whole "14 formations" is a load of hype and drivel, as 3 of the formations are copy pastes of the other, the only difference being if you want Elites, Fast Attack or Heavy Support.

The fact that taking a single Lord of War does not penalize your Command Points but taking anything else solo that's not a Lord of War *does* is also bs.

The "Lots of fortifications" and "Lots of flyers" formations are there. Interestingly, there remains no detachment that lets you turn a Vehicle into your Warlord (if you wanted to do a Space Marine Armored Company or a Crabthedral, you're out of luck).

Incidentally, did this game even *need* a Flyer Detachment like this? With so many other detachments allowing 2 flyers for minimal tax, this is fairly superfluous. I suppose if you wanted to do an "all Wraithknight and Crimson Hunter" build or something goofy like that, then more power to you...

Also, no-HQ builds like Leafstealer are illegal in this setup unless you want a lot of negative CP.

So a bunch of observations, in no particular order: At a glance it looks like Battalion will be the go to, probably with some number of support detachments.

Any army with a cheap HQ will enjoy being able to use the vanguard/spearhead/outrider to get extra CP for a small tax. Actually, the only advantage brigade has over the equivalent in smaller formations (2 battalion, 1 each of vanguard, spearhead, and outrider). Is a smaller HQ tax, 3 vs 7. You can also do three battalions, for 9 troops and 6 HQ, which should be a lot cheaper than brigade for most armies.

Actually, Depending on how useful CP end up being, I foresee a lot of lists trying to get as many detachments in as possible, with the optional slots basically ignored. The air wing in particular seems likely.

Patrol is mostly useless unless playing a very expensive army or at very low point costs. The support formations offer cp with better options.

Lord of war choices are surprisingly decent. I'm amused by the fact it's the second best for giving cp.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Yeah, what the heck are Skitarii gonna do?

It's been all but confirmed mechanicus is a single unified army, this just makes it even more likely. At least everyone who got the starter box should have a dominus tucked away.

Wayniac wrote:
I am more curious if Matched Play will add extra restrictions to this, because as we all know Matched Play will be the "only" mode used in many cases, so any further restrictions that it adds will become the assumed default. We could very well see many of these options turn out to be more or less useless.

Can we please stop pretending matched is the only way that counts?

Also they said TOs might want to limit the amount to one so it's probably more than one now.

These actually seem pretty boring to me. Besides the benefit of going troop heavy (more command points) I don't get what they were trying to do here.

Why does brigade offer so many more elite slots than support or fast attack?

 Robin5t wrote:
Somewhat concerned that as things stand my army can play literally none of these.

I'm assuming they will address this somehow.

Are you sure? Patrol has a minimum of 1 HQ and 1 Troop.

If you can't put down 1 HQ and 1 Troop, just what kind of army do you have?

 ross-128 wrote:

 Robin5t wrote:
Somewhat concerned that as things stand my army can play literally none of these.

I'm assuming they will address this somehow.

Are you sure? Patrol has a minimum of 1 HQ and 1 Troop.

If you can't put down 1 HQ and 1 Troop, just what kind of army do you have?

One of the two armies with out an HQ choice.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
The fact that taking a single Lord of War does not penalize your Command Points but taking anything else solo that's not a Lord of War *does* is also bs.

It makes sense because there is no LoW slot in the "normal" detachments, so taking the single LoW detachment is the only way to get a LoW. This keeps the LoW separate for things like "all models in this detachment" effects or putting limits on the number of detachments you can take, but doesn't remove the ability to take a LoW. But with the other FOC slots they're already in the standard detachments. The only reason to take the single-unit detachment is to take something you couldn't otherwise use, most likely a single powerful unit from some other faction, so it's appropriate that you pay a price for getting it. If you don't just want to pick a single powerful unit out of a faction then it's very easy to bring an entire detachment (a patrol detachment is only 1 HQ + 1 troops) for it and not suffer any penalty.

Interestingly, there remains no detachment that lets you turn a Vehicle into your Warlord (if you wanted to do a Space Marine Armored Company or a Crabthedral, you're out of luck).

Do warlords even exist anymore? I really hope not, the whole concept was stupid. But, if they're still around, it's likely that there are vehicle units/detachments (such as IG tank commanders) that allow you to take a vehicle for that role.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Why does brigade offer so many more elite slots than support or fast attack?

More importantly why would you use them?

For the low low cost of 1 extra HQ you can take a vanguard and a battalion and get all the slots you could ever need plus an extra command point.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Yeah, what the heck are Skitarii gonna do?

Hopefully it means a combined ad mech army

Sorry, if this seems like basic information, but I am new and do not yet fully understand all of this.

First, your force is made of multiple detachments, and each detachment must be made up of units from the same faction. Could the different detachments that make up your force then come from different factions?

Second, what would be the advantage of taking extra units in a brigade detachment when you could just add a new smaller detachment and get an extra commamd point? For example, I have a brigade detachment with three HQs and three elites. I also have a fourth HQ and three more elites I could add. Why would I just add them to the brigade detachement when I could make an entirely seperate vanguard detachment and get the extra command point?

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:

 Robin5t wrote:
Somewhat concerned that as things stand my army can play literally none of these.

I'm assuming they will address this somehow.

Are you sure? Patrol has a minimum of 1 HQ and 1 Troop.

If you can't put down 1 HQ and 1 Troop, just what kind of army do you have?

One of the two armies with out an HQ choice.

One of One. Skittari don't exist anymore on their own.

harlequins or skitarii.

Detachments are fairly basic but solid and will fit just about any specialised army (I'm sorry but outside those 2 codexes who runs without any hq's).

 MagicJuggler wrote:
It's as I expected, the whole "14 formations" is a load of hype and drivel, as 3 of the formations are copy pastes of the other, the only difference being if you want Elites, Fast Attack or Heavy Support.

The fact that taking a single Lord of War does not penalize your Command Points but taking anything else solo that's not a Lord of War *does* is also bs.

The "Lots of fortifications" and "Lots of flyers" formations are there. Interestingly, there remains no detachment that lets you turn a Vehicle into your Warlord (if you wanted to do a Space Marine Armored Company or a Crabthedral, you're out of luck).

Incidentally, did this game even *need* a Flyer Detachment like this? With so many other detachments allowing 2 flyers for minimal tax, this is fairly superfluous. I suppose if you wanted to do an "all Wraithknight and Crimson Hunter" build or something goofy like that, then more power to you...

Also, no-HQ builds like Leafstealer are illegal in this setup unless you want a lot of negative CP.

What about Impy Armourgroup and Ork Kans. Vehicles can still be warlords, if you have vehicles eligible to be them.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Why does brigade offer so many more elite slots than support or fast attack?

More importantly why would you use them?

For the low low cost of 1 extra HQ you can take a vanguard and a battalion and get all the slots you could ever need plus an extra command point.

I dunno.

But now I'm thinking of Supreme Command filled with Vanquisher Beast Hunter Command Tanks with a Stormlord in the LoW

 MagicJuggler wrote:
It's as I expected, the whole "14 formations" is a load of hype and drivel, as 3 of the formations are copy pastes of the other, the only difference being if you want Elites, Fast Attack or Heavy Support.

The fact that taking a single Lord of War does not penalize your Command Points but taking anything else solo that's not a Lord of War *does* is also bs.

The "Lots of fortifications" and "Lots of flyers" formations are there. Interestingly, there remains no detachment that lets you turn a Vehicle into your Warlord (if you wanted to do a Space Marine Armored Company or a Crabthedral, you're out of luck).

Incidentally, did this game even *need* a Flyer Detachment like this? With so many other detachments allowing 2 flyers for minimal tax, this is fairly superfluous. I suppose if you wanted to do an "all Wraithknight and Crimson Hunter" build or something goofy like that, then more power to you...

Also, no-HQ builds like Leafstealer are illegal in this setup unless you want a lot of negative CP.

I think it's time to forget all the "builds" people used to use and get used to the new way of "building" armies. Getting caught up in how things used to be isn't going to help your army win a game.

 G00fySmiley wrote:
so.... allied detachments actually hurt now, interesting. that makes me a little sad I picked up allies of most armies to throw in some flavor, now they will cost command points if I bring em

Actually no. You can bring normal detachments with other faction and gain even CP. The one that cost you Command Points is if you want to cherry pick only one unit.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Also, no-HQ builds like Leafstealer are illegal in this setup unless you want a lot of negative CP.

And what's wrong with that? Forgoing CP in favor of some OC Donutsteel build is a tactical decision.

GW gave us a sample mission and it included Slay the Warlord; it's now worth D3 points instead of 1, because if there's one thing scoring in 40k needs, it's more randomness.

I had two secondary armies planned, one which was going to be a simple conversion project/to build on my Word Bearers (the Crabthedral list), and the second was a War Rig army that used the Insurrection to avoid taking any HQs so I could have a Russ Warlord.

As written, both of the lists as written are 100% illegal, unless GW allows for a "zero HQ" clause or an "anyone can be the Warlord" clause.

Plus it's going to be a mess to go into a 40k game with 26 detachments of one unit and -26 Command Points. I guess I can be even more obnoxious about it and print each detachment on its own sheet.

I will say that it's interesting and a bit weird that "Flying Circus" is now an entirely valid approach with its own dedicated detachment. Unless there ends up being a restriction on some of them (which I imagine the auxiliaries might have) along the lines of "this cannot be your primary detachment, it must be attached to a primary detachment".

Guess it could allow for some silly oddball games though, like a superheavy cage match, a Top Gun match (flyers vs flyers), or an HQ All-Stars match.

 ross-128 wrote:
I will say that it's interesting and a bit weird that "Flying Circus" is now an entirely valid approach with its own dedicated detachment.

Only if you want to auto-lose for having no models on the table.

ALL CAPS title changed - there's really no reason for shouting in the title!

That shouldn't be a big problem if they got the balance right but still a tad weird.

 Mud Turkey 13 wrote:
Sorry, if this seems like basic information, but I am new and do not yet fully understand all of this.

First, your force is made of multiple detachments, and each detachment must be made up of units from the same faction. Could the different detachments that make up your force then come from different factions?

Second, what would be the advantage of taking extra units in a brigade detachment when you could just add a new smaller detachment and get an extra commamd point? For example, I have a brigade detachment with three HQs and three elites. I also have a fourth HQ and three more elites I could add. Why would I just add them to the brigade detachement when I could make an entirely seperate vanguard detachment and get the extra command point?

Presumably you will be able to mix factions outside detachments. Whether any other restrictions exist is not (as far as I know) known.

Generally there isn't. Most of those open slots exist in case you can only afford to take 1-2 units more, not enough to fill another detachment (that offers points). They also allow you to bypass taking extra HQ choices to get more of whatever slot, which may be useful depending on how useful they are.

It was my understanding that these detachments were going to be very generic and the ones with flavor would come when the actually army codex came out for each faction.

Are we stressing this early?

 Robin5t wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Robin5t wrote:
Somewhat concerned that as things stand my army can play literally none of these.

I'm assuming they will address this somehow.

Which army would that be?

Harlequins. They currently don't have a HQ option and can only be played either in their formations, in a Masque detachment, or as Ynnari with a Dark Eldar or Craftworld Eldar HQ.

Or you have -10 cp

Or they get hq.

 Peregrine wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:
I will say that it's interesting and a bit weird that "Flying Circus" is now an entirely valid approach with its own dedicated detachment.

Only if you want to auto-lose for having no models on the table.

Or flyers can deploy normally, we honestly don't know. Not even clear where things like FMC will fit in.

 Mud Turkey 13 wrote:
Sorry, if this seems like basic information, but I am new and do not yet fully understand all of this.

First, your force is made of multiple detachments, and each detachment must be made up of units from the same faction. Could the different detachments that make up your force then come from different factions?

Second, what would be the advantage of taking extra units in a brigade detachment when you could just add a new smaller detachment and get an extra commamd point? For example, I have a brigade detachment with three HQs and three elites. I also have a fourth HQ and three more elites I could add. Why would I just add them to the brigade detachement when I could make an entirely seperate vanguard detachment and get the extra command point?

They have already mentioned that players, and especially tournaments may want to put a cap on the number of detachments a player may take.

I for one welcome a return to saner army construction rules.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
GW gave us a sample mission and it included Slay the Warlord; it's now worth D3 points instead of 1, because if there's one thing scoring in 40k needs, it's more randomness.

I had two secondary armies planned, one which was going to be a simple conversion project/to build on my Word Bearers (the Crabthedral list), and the second was a War Rig army that used the Insurrection to avoid taking any HQs so I could have a Russ Warlord.

As written, both of the lists as written are 100% illegal, unless GW allows for a "zero HQ" clause or an "anyone can be the Warlord" clause.

Plus it's going to be a mess to go into a 40k game with 26 detachments of one unit and -26 Command Points. I guess I can be even more obnoxious about it and print each detachment on its own sheet.

Or maybe you can take them all into the same detachment!



But seriously. You couldn't be more obnoxious even if you were trying. Calm down dude.

 Da-Rock wrote:
It was my understanding that these detachments were going to be very generic and the ones with flavor would come when the actually army codex came out for each faction.

Are we stressing this early?

Eh, tbh I don't think we will be seeing that many unique detachments. Unless the unique detachments act like formations with unique bonuses, I don't see much usage for them.

>Saner army construction.
>Triple Tau'nar or Triple Skatach
Pick one.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Why does brigade offer so many more elite slots than support or fast attack?

There's some speculation that some of the HQ choices that currently don't use up a normal HQ slot, like commissars and mekboyz, will get changed to being Elites. As far as I know that's still entirely speculation with no mention of it in the teasers.

I'm kind of surprised that Patrol doesn't offer 1 CP, but maybe they figured it was too easy to farm command points with cheap HQ and Troop choices?

Lord Kragan wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
GW gave us a sample mission and it included Slay the Warlord; it's now worth D3 points instead of 1, because if there's one thing scoring in 40k needs, it's more randomness.

I had two secondary armies planned, one which was going to be a simple conversion project/to build on my Word Bearers (the Crabthedral list), and the second was a War Rig army that used the Insurrection to avoid taking any HQs so I could have a Russ Warlord.

As written, both of the lists as written are 100% illegal, unless GW allows for a "zero HQ" clause or an "anyone can be the Warlord" clause.

Plus it's going to be a mess to go into a 40k game with 26 detachments of one unit and -26 Command Points. I guess I can be even more obnoxious about it and print each detachment on its own sheet.

Or maybe you can take them all into the same detachment!

But seriously. You couldn't be more obnoxious even if you were trying. Calm down dude.

You realize every detachment listed has that "same faction" stipulation except the "solo Lord of War", "solo auxiliary", or fortifications (which don't have factions unless GW changes that).

The list in question has no HQ. None of the CAD-like detachments let you go without an HQ.

 Mud Turkey 13 wrote:

Second, what would be the advantage of taking extra units in a brigade detachment when you could just add a new smaller detachment and get an extra commamd point? For example, I have a brigade detachment with three HQs and three elites. I also have a fourth HQ and three more elites I could add. Why would I just add them to the brigade detachement when I could make an entirely seperate vanguard detachment and get the extra command point?

Assuming you aren't playing tournament etc that resticts detachmentcount max det count yes.

Back in start of 7th ed i actually thought similar many detachment idea(hs one, elite one etc). Ran into same issue best solution i came with was point cost to each detachment

 MagicJuggler wrote:
GW gave us a sample mission and it included Slay the Warlord; it's now worth D3 points instead of 1, because if there's one thing scoring in 40k needs, it's more randomness.

I had two secondary armies planned, one which was going to be a simple conversion project/to build on my Word Bearers (the Crabthedral list), and the second was a War Rig army that used the Insurrection to avoid taking any HQs so I could have a Russ Warlord.

As written, both of the lists as written are 100% illegal, unless GW allows for a "zero HQ" clause or an "anyone can be the Warlord" clause.

Plus it's going to be a mess to go into a 40k game with 26 detachments of one unit and -26 Command Points. I guess I can be even more obnoxious about it and print each detachment on its own sheet.

They have said that every army legal in 7th will be legal in 8th. You can ask them in facebook about this. And I'm not being sarcastic.

EDIT: No reason to be hostile. Sorry.

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Why does brigade offer so many more elite slots than support or fast attack?

There's some speculation that some of the HQ choices that currently don't use up a normal HQ slot, like commissars and mekboyz, will get changed to being Elites. As far as I know that's still entirely speculation with no mention of it in the teasers.

I'm kind of surprised that Patrol doesn't offer 1 CP, but maybe they figured it was too easy to farm command points with cheap HQ and Troop choices?

Dark Eldar got that covered. 30 points for 3 Llhameans, 3 Command Points. Enjoy.

Well I uh...
I need to buy more baneblades

 Peregrine wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:
I will say that it's interesting and a bit weird that "Flying Circus" is now an entirely valid approach with its own dedicated detachment.

Only if you want to auto-lose for having no models on the table.

Thats assuming flyers start off board. If they did would there be need for fly off board, you die rule?

Iirc there are 14 generic detachments, the OP has 12.

Will be interesting to see how valuable command points are and if anything gets new roles, as well as cost changes.

It's very possible things like harlequins and skitarri will have their 7th edition 2 wound characters as HQ options and not part of the unit in 8th.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
GW gave us a sample mission and it included Slay the Warlord; it's now worth D3 points instead of 1, because if there's one thing scoring in 40k needs, it's more randomness.

I had two secondary armies planned, one which was going to be a simple conversion project/to build on my Word Bearers (the Crabthedral list), and the second was a War Rig army that used the Insurrection to avoid taking any HQs so I could have a Russ Warlord.

As written, both of the lists as written are 100% illegal, unless GW allows for a "zero HQ" clause or an "anyone can be the Warlord" clause.

Plus it's going to be a mess to go into a 40k game with 26 detachments of one unit and -26 Command Points. I guess I can be even more obnoxious about it and print each detachment on its own sheet.

Or maybe you can take them all into the same detachment!

But seriously. You couldn't be more obnoxious even if you were trying. Calm down dude.

You realize every detachment listed has that "same faction" stipulation except the "solo Lord of War", "solo auxiliary", or fortifications (which don't have factions unless GW changes that).

The list in question has no HQ. None of the CAD-like detachments let you go without an HQ.

You realize that "same faction" can encompass a miriad of codexes by what they are saying? As in, Imperium and Chaos as a whole are a faction each,

I suddenly want an army of BEHNBLEEHDS

 MagicJuggler wrote:
>Saner army construction.
>Triple Tau'nar or Triple Skatach
Pick one.

Yes, I too can see the LoW only formation.

Any other obvious points you'd like to point out?

 Galas wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
GW gave us a sample mission and it included Slay the Warlord; it's now worth D3 points instead of 1, because if there's one thing scoring in 40k needs, it's more randomness.

I had two secondary armies planned, one which was going to be a simple conversion project/to build on my Word Bearers (the Crabthedral list), and the second was a War Rig army that used the Insurrection to avoid taking any HQs so I could have a Russ Warlord.

As written, both of the lists as written are 100% illegal, unless GW allows for a "zero HQ" clause or an "anyone can be the Warlord" clause.

Plus it's going to be a mess to go into a 40k game with 26 detachments of one unit and -26 Command Points. I guess I can be even more obnoxious about it and print each detachment on its own sheet.

To be honest, I find hard to believe that at every new about 8th edition it hurts all of your personal army/proyects/etc...
But well. They have said that every army legal in 7th will be legal in 8th. You can ask them in facebook about this. And I'm not being sarcastic.

This was my main planned project after Traitor Legions came out and once I took a glance at the Word Bearers Warlord Traits. Notice the original posting date:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/711836.page.

I already have most the Cultists on deck (leftover Marauders and Guard bits) and wanted an excuse to model a giant enemy crab cathedral. Of course, personal life got in the way and between a subsequent job change and move the project ended up on hold.

 G00fySmiley wrote:
so.... allied detachments actually hurt now, interesting. that makes me a little sad I picked up allies of most armies to throw in some flavor, now they will cost command points if I bring em

You could take a small patrol detachment for your allies and not have negative CP.

 kronk wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
so.... allied detachments actually hurt now, interesting. that makes me a little sad I picked up allies of most armies to throw in some flavor, now they will cost command points if I bring em

You could take a small patrol detachment for your allies and not have negative CP.

Exactly, or an outrider/vanguard style detachment if you want 3 specific units from that slot.

Makes allies an interesting proposition now.

Barring something more specialized that vanguard detachment looks like it fits Deathwing pretty nicely.

The downside is that if you want more than 1 CP you're going to have to something else along, like a battalion.

 Blacksteel wrote:
Barring something more specialized that vanguard detachment looks like it fits Deathwing pretty nicely.

The downside is that if you want more than 1 CP you're going to have to something else along, like a battalion.

I suppose you could take multiple Vanguards. Assuming HQs remain mostly the same as they are now, you could have one with a captain and another with a libby and 6 DW squads with whatever support units you want.

tneva82 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:
I will say that it's interesting and a bit weird that "Flying Circus" is now an entirely valid approach with its own dedicated detachment.

Only if you want to auto-lose for having no models on the table.

Thats assuming flyers start off board. If they did would there be need for fly off board, you die rule?

They said you have to start with at least half your army on the board in matched play. Also, we know the generic rules for models with fly, but we don't know if flyers themselves will have extra things. Who knows really.

blaktoof wrote:
Iirc there are 14 generic detachments, the OP has 12.

Maybe there will be a couple detachments meant for narrative play and/or Apocalypse?

I wonder what the standard detachment limit is going to be for tournaments. I can't imagine they'd only allow one, because that would be pretty boring and disallow a lot of armies that are legal today. On the other hand, if they allow too many then command point farming might become a thing, with people taking cheap HQ units and splitting their armies up into as many detachments as possible.

The next big question is how much things cost points wise - like how expensive would it be to field a brigade of three Gravis Captains and six Primaris troops?

 MagicJuggler wrote:
GW gave us a sample mission and it included Slay the Warlord; it's now worth D3 points instead of 1, because if there's one thing scoring in 40k needs, it's more randomness.

I had two secondary armies planned, one which was going to be a simple conversion project/to build on my Word Bearers (the Crabthedral list), and the second was a War Rig army that used the Insurrection to avoid taking any HQs so I could have a Russ Warlord.

As written, both of the lists as written are 100% illegal, unless GW allows for a "zero HQ" clause or an "anyone can be the Warlord" clause.

Plus it's going to be a mess to go into a 40k game with 26 detachments of one unit and -26 Command Points. I guess I can be even more obnoxious about it and print each detachment on its own sheet.

Could you use more basic words?

What is Crabthedral and what is a "war rig army with insurrection?"

This is pretty interesting.

You can create a much more varied and interesting army now in 8th than you ever could in 7th. You just lose out on formation benefits.

 Luciferian wrote:
I wonder what the standard detachment limit is going to be for tournaments. I can't imagine they'd only allow one, because that would be pretty boring and disallow a lot of armies that are legal today. On the other hand, if they allow too many then command point farming might become a thing, with people taking cheap HQ units and splitting their armies up into as many detachments as possible.

The next big question is how much things cost points wise - like how expensive would it be to field a brigade of three Gravis Captains and six Primaris troops?

Given how liberal the faction rules are (allowing units from several different 'armies' within a single detachment) I'd be surprised if most tournaments don't cap it at 2 detachments.

 yakface wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
I wonder what the standard detachment limit is going to be for tournaments. I can't imagine they'd only allow one, because that would be pretty boring and disallow a lot of armies that are legal today. On the other hand, if they allow too many then command point farming might become a thing, with people taking cheap HQ units and splitting their armies up into as many detachments as possible.

The next big question is how much things cost points wise - like how expensive would it be to field a brigade of three Gravis Captains and six Primaris troops?

Given how liberal the faction rules are (allowing units from several different 'armies' within a single detachment) I'd be surprised if most tournaments don't cap it at 2 detachments.

I mean, maybe. The balancing factor will be how strong command points actually are.

Also, we don't know if (a) you can have negative command points, maybe going negative would make an illegal list or (b) if you have negative command points, are they added into your opponents total?

 Galas wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
so.... allied detachments actually hurt now, interesting. that makes me a little sad I picked up allies of most armies to throw in some flavor, now they will cost command points if I bring em

Actually no. You can bring normal detachments with other faction and gain even CP. The one that cost you Command Points is if you want to cherry pick only one unit.

I suppose assuming one can take multiple detachments (thinking limitations in tournaments not free play or picku p games here). though I am also curios how my legion of the damned, custodes, or sisters of silence are going to be on the table without an HQ and without having zero command points though hopefully that means I get actual HQ choices for them. I am hoping the 30k stuff for custodies and sisters of silence make their way into 40k I love my custodies jet bikes

Seems I'll have to get the 2nd Imperium book and run a Vanguard IG list to run my current Scion army.

 G00fySmiley wrote:

I suppose assuming one can take multiple detachments (thinking limitations in tournaments not free play or picku p games here). though I am also curios how my legion of the damned, custodes, or sisters of silence are going to be on the table without an HQ and without having zero command points though hopefully that means I get actual HQ choices for them. I am hoping the 30k stuff for custodies and sisters of silence make their way into 40k I love my custodies jet bikes

Re-read the faction rules (posted earlier in this thread). If the Sisters of Silence and/or Legion of the Damned have the 'Imperium' faction, for example, you could simply slot them into a detachment with any other 'Imperium' units.

 kronk wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
GW gave us a sample mission and it included Slay the Warlord; it's now worth D3 points instead of 1, because if there's one thing scoring in 40k needs, it's more randomness.

I had two secondary armies planned, one which was going to be a simple conversion project/to build on my Word Bearers (the Crabthedral list), and the second was a War Rig army that used the Insurrection to avoid taking any HQs so I could have a Russ Warlord.

As written, both of the lists as written are 100% illegal, unless GW allows for a "zero HQ" clause or an "anyone can be the Warlord" clause.

Plus it's going to be a mess to go into a 40k game with 26 detachments of one unit and -26 Command Points. I guess I can be even more obnoxious about it and print each detachment on its own sheet.

Could you use more basic words?

What is Crabthedral and what is a "war rig army with insurrection?"

In Traitor's Hate, one formation is called the Warpack. It lets you turn one Walker in the formation into a Character (thus making it eligible to be Warlord). In the list I wrote and linked, the intent was to combine this with Word Bearers Tactics and traits for a Warlord Defiler (aka a Crab Cathedral, aka a Crabthedral).

The Genestealer Cult Decurion is called the Cult Insurrection. If you use a Neophyte Cavalcade as your core, you can avoid taking any HQ or Character choices. The intent was to build a pure mech GSC list as something that went against the grain of Subterranean Uprising/First Curse builds but could have a chance at winning games.

 yakface wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:

I suppose assuming one can take multiple detachments (thinking limitations in tournaments not free play or picku p games here). though I am also curios how my legion of the damned, custodes, or sisters of silence are going to be on the table without an HQ and without having zero command points though hopefully that means I get actual HQ choices for them. I am hoping the 30k stuff for custodies and sisters of silence make their way into 40k I love my custodies jet bikes

Re-read the faction rules (posted earlier in this thread). If the Sisters of Silence and/or Legion of the Damned have the 'Imperium' faction, for example, you could simply slot them into a detachment with any other 'Imperium' units.

Of course that means invalidating armies which gw said they wont do. Albeit likely not big issue as whd has all sos and/or custodes army

Thanks for the clarifications.

We still have the faction books coming that might add more options and/or detachments.

 yakface wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
I wonder what the standard detachment limit is going to be for tournaments. I can't imagine they'd only allow one, because that would be pretty boring and disallow a lot of armies that are legal today. On the other hand, if they allow too many then command point farming might become a thing, with people taking cheap HQ units and splitting their armies up into as many detachments as possible.

The next big question is how much things cost points wise - like how expensive would it be to field a brigade of three Gravis Captains and six Primaris troops?

Given how liberal the faction rules are (allowing units from several different 'armies' within a single detachment) I'd be surprised if most tournaments don't cap it at 2 detachments.

That's kind of what I was thinking as well.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
In Traitor's Hate, one formation is called the Warpack. It lets you turn one Walker in the formation into a Character (thus making it eligible to be Warlord). In the list I wrote and linked, the intent was to combine this with Word Bearers Tactics and traits for a Warlord Defiler (aka a Crab Cathedral, aka a Crabthedral)..

Doesn't that formation require a warpsmith, which was and likely still is an HQ? Meaning it'd still be legal (spearhead/vanguard depending on which vehicles you took).

 yakface wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:

I suppose assuming one can take multiple detachments (thinking limitations in tournaments not free play or picku p games here). though I am also curios how my legion of the damned, custodes, or sisters of silence are going to be on the table without an HQ and without having zero command points though hopefully that means I get actual HQ choices for them. I am hoping the 30k stuff for custodies and sisters of silence make their way into 40k I love my custodies jet bikes

Re-read the faction rules (posted earlier in this thread). If the Sisters of Silence and/or Legion of the Damned have the 'Imperium' faction, for example, you could simply slot them into a detachment with any other 'Imperium' units.

sweet! though I do still hope for sisters of silence and custodies to get real HQ's... a table full of golden servants of the big E himself!

SilverAlien wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
In Traitor's Hate, one formation is called the Warpack. It lets you turn one Walker in the formation into a Character (thus making it eligible to be Warlord). In the list I wrote and linked, the intent was to combine this with Word Bearers Tactics and traits for a Warlord Defiler (aka a Crab Cathedral, aka a Crabthedral)..

Doesn't that formation require a warpsmith, which was and likely still is an HQ?

*Checks out*

Yes indeed. So all this bitching he's making is just pointless.

Bravo dude. Just Bravo! People make mountains out of molehills, you made a mountain out of a depression.

These are all so incredibly boring

No inspiration on any of them.

 Talamare wrote:
These are all so incredibly boring

No inspiration on any of them.

Thats why they are so balanced
But fear no more, guardsmen! because you'll find your super special and probably OP detachment in future Eldar, Space Marines and Tau Codex, coming this Winter to GW stores near you!

Lord Kragan wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
In Traitor's Hate, one formation is called the Warpack. It lets you turn one Walker in the formation into a Character (thus making it eligible to be Warlord). In the list I wrote and linked, the intent was to combine this with Word Bearers Tactics and traits for a Warlord Defiler (aka a Crab Cathedral, aka a Crabthedral)..

Doesn't that formation require a warpsmith, which was and likely still is an HQ?

*Checks out*

Yes indeed. So all this bitching he's making is just pointless.

Bravo dude. Just Bravo! People make mountains out of molehills, you made a mountain out of a depression.

...reading comprehension is apparently not your friend, considering the very next paragraph described the other army I had planned (which is in fact based on not having any characters). The issue with the other build is there looks to be no provision for making non-character models your Warlord.

 Talamare wrote:
These are all so incredibly boring

No inspiration on any of them.

You know that's the whole point, right? These are the generic detachments, the equivalent to the standard FOC in other editions. Each army will have their own special detachments, though we can only hope they won't be as game-breaking and stupid as 7th edition's formations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
The issue with the other build is there looks to be no provision for making non-character models your Warlord.

{citation needed}

Have we actually seen the rules for choosing warlords, or are you just assuming this?

 Peregrine wrote:
You know that's the whole point, right? These are the generic detachments, the equivalent to the standard FOC in other editions. Each army will have their own special detachments, though we can only hope they won't be as game-breaking and stupid as 7th edition's formations.

Actually in the preview where they said formations were going away, they kind of hinted that these universal detachments would be it...no special detachments for each army.

And I really hope so, personally. And I'm also really glad these are 'boring', because they should be.

40k has so, so many different units to choose from, that players have a great time being able to construct their army for how they want it to play on the table. Detachment rules IMHO shouldn't be some kind of puzzle or game where you are able to break the game and get freebies by finding a loophole in one of the dozens of detachments available.

What's presented here is more than what is needed.

Oh, by the Emperor...

I'm sure I can fish up an army without characters. How about 1 Shadowsword in a lord of war detach, A ADL, Firestorm Bunker, and Void Shield Battery in a Fortification detach, and a flight of Vendettas in an air support detach.

And again, for the "My Warlord is a Tank" army, how about:

Spearhead Detach:
HQ: Vanquisher Tank Commander [Warlord]
HQ: Vanquisher Tank Commander
Troop: Leman Russ Battle Tank
Troop: Leman Russ Battle Tank
Troop: Leman Russ Battle Tank
Support: Basilisk
Support: Basilisk
Support: Basilisk
Support: Manticore
Support: Manitcore

And of course, it you're heart is set of being Genestealer Cults, then decorate your tank commander with Tyranid bits, and have another detachment full of Genestealers!

 Talamare wrote:
These are all so incredibly boring

No inspiration on any of them.

Kind of like certain posts from certain users...

I could run a crazy cryptek named mister burns who defends his tomb world with his canoptek army;


Hell I could do a royal court with a giant unit of lychguard, ally that into my normal battalion for lulz.

Also currently the harlequin don't have an HQ choice, that might change in 8th ed, maybe the shadow seer becomes HQ, like almost every other psycher in the game. maybe it will be a counts as if all of your units have the harlequin keyword. People are sure quick to jump to the assumption that GW is out to bone them in particular.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
...reading comprehension is apparently not your friend, considering the very next paragraph described the other army I had planned (which is in fact based on not having any characters). The issue with the other build is there looks to be no provision for making non-character models your Warlord.

First off, I have no idea why you can't simply toss an iconward in if you don't want to use the piecemail formations.

Secondly, we know nothing about warlord in 8E. To my knowledge we haven't even confirmed warlords are still a thing, or what the position of warlord does. People tend to assume it'll either function like last edition or like AoS, but neither is a given.

Third, even if you can't nominate a defiler as warlord, that army is still legal. It is a mechanics change, every army will have a few of those happen. Look at the changes to summoning for example, that has a much bigger impact on demons than this change will have on your list.

 Marmatag wrote:
You can create a much more varied and interesting army now in 8th than you ever could in 7th. You just lose out on formation benefits.

And this is how it should be.

-

Very exciting stuff; hope to see some cool stratagems specific to factions that really make this worth conforming to.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Oh, by the Emperor...

I'm sure I can fish up an army without characters. How about 1 Shadowsword in a lord of war detach, A ADL, Firestorm Bunker, and Void Shield Battery in a Fortification detach, and a flight of Vendettas in an air support detach.

And again, for the "My Warlord is a Tank" army, how about:

Spearhead Detach:
HQ: Vanquisher Tank Commander [Warlord]
HQ: Vanquisher Tank Commander
Troop: Leman Russ Battle Tank
Troop: Leman Russ Battle Tank
Troop: Leman Russ Battle Tank
Support: Basilisk
Support: Basilisk
Support: Basilisk
Support: Manticore
Support: Manitcore

And of course, it you're heart is set of being Genestealer Cults, then decorate your tank commander with Tyranid bits, and have another detachment full of Genestealers!

Alternative, if you drop either some B&M, you could make it a Battalion instead and end up with 2 more CPs

Definitely food for thought and I hope CP's add to the game/list building experience. Off the top of my head I would have liked to see things done a bit different.

Maybe CP fixed to points used and each detachment chosen subtracts from your total; representing infrastructure and resources used to command different detachments. Thus driving players to fill all slots rather than the minimum. Also the Super-Heavy-Detachment with no restrictions (not even faction?) seems a little silly. I'd rather have seen Lord's of War attached and maybe limited to being part of Battalions/Brigades; making them more of centerpiece heavy hitters not sent into battles without sufficient support.

Also really hope Troops will be more than just tax, but I guess we will see as more is revealed. Hoping for the best =)

Using the cheapest possible options an UM army in 7th could get a Brigade for 9 CP using about 1000 points.

Edit - Eldar for around 750.

 Talamare wrote:
Using the cheapest possible options an UM army in 7th could get a Brigade for 9 CP using about 1000 points.

Edit - Eldar for around 750.

Good to know. I like how balanced they've made CP's. Sure you can take all the absolute cheapest crap you can in an army and get 9 CP's, but who cares? That will give you an advantage in CP's, but CP's aren't that powerful. They can provide a distinct advantage for a highly skilled strategist, but they aren't gamebreaking.

That Outrider detachment is what my Ravenwing needed to see. Looks like all-bike armies are still a thing! Squeee!

Not just bikes. ANY faction can skip out on troops in favor of fast attack choices. That means Chaos Biker lists, Nob Biker lists, Jump-Pack lists, Crisis Suit lists etc are all de facto on the table. You want to make a Tyranid force that's centered around Raveners? Go for it. Want to make a fluffy Night Lords raptor list? More power to you.

Meanwhile, MagicJuggler wants to pretend that 8th edition limits the type of armies you can make. Wew lad.

SilverAlien wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
...reading comprehension is apparently not your friend, considering the very next paragraph described the other army I had planned (which is in fact based on not having any characters). The issue with the other build is there looks to be no provision for making non-character models your Warlord.

First off, I have no idea why you can't simply toss an iconward in if you don't want to use the piecemail formations.

Secondly, we know nothing about warlord in 8E. To my knowledge we haven't even confirmed warlords are still a thing, or what the position of warlord does. People tend to assume it'll either function like last edition or like AoS, but neither is a given.

Third, even if you can't nominate a defiler as warlord, that army is still legal. It is a mechanics change, every army will have a few of those happen. Look at the changes to summoning for example, that has a much bigger impact on demons than this change will have on your list.

Removing "Reroll 1s" on Daemons of Tzeentch will have a larger impact than changing the mechanics of summoning. If you're going to spout memes, at least be realistic about them. Changing parts of the army is a given: Everyone knew the Serpent Shield nerf was going to happen. Fundamentally changing certain aspects of the game rules to make armies not worth the effort (Sure, I could build a Defiler list, but it's not the same without the whole "The Defiler is a Warlord" schtick. Sure, I could have had my Cultists "count as Lesser Daemons" in 4th edition...) but again, there really isn't much of a point to going out of the way to run a build like that anymore.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Not just bikes. ANY faction can skip out on troops in favor of fast attack choices. That means Chaos Biker lists, Nob Biker lists, Jump-Pack lists, Crisis Suit lists etc are all de facto on the table. You want to make a Tyranid force that's centered around Raveners? Go for it. Want to make a fluffy Night Lords raptor list? More power to you.

Meanwhile, MagicJuggler wants to pretend that 8th edition limits the type of armies you can make. Wew lad.

Tell me where 7th edition touched you. All it took was for them to put a little more effort into their "many detachments" (besides xeroxing "+X Command Points" in), or even detailing the usage of army-based stratagems as something that lets you make fundamental changes to how your army works, rather than serving as "one-use" dice manipulations, but hey, I'm playing pretend.

They did all they needed to do. The detachments already offer you a massive amount of customization on how your army can be configured and CP's are the perfect balance of being advantageous without breaking the game.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
...reading comprehension is apparently not your friend, considering the very next paragraph described the other army I had planned (which is in fact based on not having any characters). The issue with the other build is there looks to be no provision for making non-character models your Warlord.

First off, I have no idea why you can't simply toss an iconward in if you don't want to use the piecemail formations.

Secondly, we know nothing about warlord in 8E. To my knowledge we haven't even confirmed warlords are still a thing, or what the position of warlord does. People tend to assume it'll either function like last edition or like AoS, but neither is a given.

Third, even if you can't nominate a defiler as warlord, that army is still legal. It is a mechanics change, every army will have a few of those happen. Look at the changes to summoning for example, that has a much bigger impact on demons than this change will have on your list.

Removing "Reroll 1s" on Daemons of Tzeentch will have a larger impact than changing the mechanics of summoning. If you're going to spout memes, at least be realistic about them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Not just bikes. ANY faction can skip out on troops in favor of fast attack choices. That means Chaos Biker lists, Nob Biker lists, Jump-Pack lists, Crisis Suit lists etc are all de facto on the table. You want to make a Tyranid force that's centered around Raveners? Go for it. Want to make a fluffy Night Lords raptor list? More power to you.

Meanwhile, MagicJuggler wants to pretend that 8th edition limits the type of armies you can make. Wew lad.

Tell me where 7th edition touched you. All it took was for them to put a little more effort into their "many detachments" (besides xeroxing "+X Command Points" in), or even detailing the usage of army-based stratagems as something that lets you make fundamental changes to how your army works, rather than serving as "one-use" dice manipulations, but hey, I'm playing pretend.

Dude we get it, you don't like 8th. Congratz, you don't have to. You are still free to continue playing 7th with the 2 other people who don't switch to HH or 8th AND don't prefer some edition in the 2-5 range.

What you do have to accept is that the majority of people, especially here seem to have A) Hated 7th and B) look forward to 8th and that while it's no one's place to tell you how to play your game; we can tell you that forum content for you, that isn't complaining about 8th, is going to dry up pretty quick on release.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
They did all they needed to do. The detachments already offer you a massive amount of customization on how your army can be configured and CP's are the perfect balance of being advantageous without breaking the game.

Perfect is a stretch. I agree that having "flexible" FOC-focused detachments was overdue for awhile, especially since it lets many armies with bad troops circumvent having to take them as a tax in the first place. On the other hand, there's very little in here that appears to restrict spam of any degree, as while many of the formations of 40k had notable taxes, this is no longer an aspect. There's little stopping someone from running (as a hypothetical example, since again, the complete rules aren't there yet) 2 Inquisitors with Servo-Skulls, some conscript chaff, and 12 Deathstrikes or some other far-fetched combinatoric of the sort. If you don't believe such an open system will be broken...

I just want to get a bit more clarity on something. From the rules and information we currently have available I could take an army that consists of a detachment of chaos demons and a detachment of Grey Knights if I wanted to? There is nothing out currently that states otherwise, correct?

Theoretically, there could be rules that would prevent this, but I am not seeing anything that currently says otherwise. I just want to make sure that I am not totally missing something with what has been stated so far. Thanks for any help you can supply me!

ERJAK wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
...reading comprehension is apparently not your friend, considering the very next paragraph described the other army I had planned (which is in fact based on not having any characters). The issue with the other build is there looks to be no provision for making non-character models your Warlord.

First off, I have no idea why you can't simply toss an iconward in if you don't want to use the piecemail formations.

Secondly, we know nothing about warlord in 8E. To my knowledge we haven't even confirmed warlords are still a thing, or what the position of warlord does. People tend to assume it'll either function like last edition or like AoS, but neither is a given.

Third, even if you can't nominate a defiler as warlord, that army is still legal. It is a mechanics change, every army will have a few of those happen. Look at the changes to summoning for example, that has a much bigger impact on demons than this change will have on your list.

Removing "Reroll 1s" on Daemons of Tzeentch will have a larger impact than changing the mechanics of summoning. If you're going to spout memes, at least be realistic about them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Not just bikes. ANY faction can skip out on troops in favor of fast attack choices. That means Chaos Biker lists, Nob Biker lists, Jump-Pack lists, Crisis Suit lists etc are all de facto on the table. You want to make a Tyranid force that's centered around Raveners? Go for it. Want to make a fluffy Night Lords raptor list? More power to you.

Meanwhile, MagicJuggler wants to pretend that 8th edition limits the type of armies you can make. Wew lad.

Tell me where 7th edition touched you. All it took was for them to put a little more effort into their "many detachments" (besides xeroxing "+X Command Points" in), or even detailing the usage of army-based stratagems as something that lets you make fundamental changes to how your army works, rather than serving as "one-use" dice manipulations, but hey, I'm playing pretend.

Dude we get it, you don't like 8th. Congratz, you don't have to. You are still free to continue playing 7th with the 2 other people who don't switch to HH or 8th AND don't prefer some edition in the 2-5 range.

What you do have to accept is that the majority of people, especially here seem to have A) Hated 7th and B) look forward to 8th and that while it's no one's place to tell you how to play your game; we can tell you that forum content for you, that isn't complaining about 8th, is going to dry up pretty quick on release.

I believe there are a lot of potential issues with the stuff that has been released with 8th, and many of the changes do point towards a game of "no mans-land gunlines" punctuated by the odd melee peek-aboo, like the worst parts of 4th and 6th edition. I believe that "modding 7th" can fix the issues that do exist with it (Maelstrom was a horrid idea with a lazy execution, Unbound shouldn't have ever existed, and introducing superheavies and D into standard-scale 40k games has been a problem, and BRB Invisibility is immersion-breaking), but 8th is adding its own immersion-breaking elements ("Vehicles have attacks in B2B", "Every Vehicle is a Warp Quake Grey Knight." "Artificial Hard Caps to Reserves", "Random Victory Points for Slay the Warlord", etc). Many of these changes don't actually hint towards tightening up and fixing actual issues, so much as throwing ideas at a wall to see if they stick.

You seem a bit too keen to see the skeptics and naysayers purged from your little social bubble. Note I do in fact complain about issues in 7th (I have for awhile now). I complain because I want a better game, Games Workshop has the potential to do it (or at least they're giving off the attitude that they would like to amend for their previous corporate seclusion), and because sometimes rule proposals can lead to interesting debates/what-if scenarios. For example, I've posted about "ways to rebalance formations", "redoing Thousand Sons" (as Wrath of Magnus was a trainwreck of rules-writing), "three Rules of 40k" (Three basic rules to make trouble points of 7th less problematic), whether Space Marine Bolters should have Shred (which in itself led to the whole debate about why Tactical Marines were not worth taking on their own merits), etc. I will complain as the rules are released, and propose tighter alternative rules, again because I believe it can spur the discussion about making the game better as a whole and because this might actually be the edition where such "complaints/alternate rule proposals" might actually gain some traction. If GW were to actually implement a "trial rules" program for many such tweaks (like how Assault from early 3rd to late 3rd/4th became so drastically overhauled), then they would be well on their way to making the game more engaging and more balanced, rather than relying on artificial caps like "only half your army may Reserve...because reasons."

Outrider Detachment, AKA, the Dominion attachment...

Also, 'all my must your faction' guess I can enjoy never using any flyer slots ever as a Sisters player

BAO and Las Vegas open, other tournaments will probably limit it to only 3 detachments.

 Roleplayer wrote:
Outrider Detachment, AKA, the Dominion attachment...

Also, 'all my must your faction' guess I can enjoy never using any flyer slots ever as a Sisters player

depends how the detachment rules work, if you can, as I suspect you can, have 1 detachment of 1 faction and another of another, then you could just take a flier wing detachment of stormravens (just for example) and run them.

also it's likely that you'll be able to take a "Imperial crusade army" ala whats in GS1, and just lose some faction special rules for doing so

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Removing "Reroll 1s" on Daemons of Tzeentch will have a larger impact than changing the mechanics of summoning. If you're going to spout memes, at least be realistic about them. Changing parts of the army is a given: Everyone knew the Serpent Shield nerf was going to happen. Fundamentally changing certain aspects of the game rules to make armies not worth the effort (Sure, I could build a Defiler list, but it's not the same without the whole "The Defiler is a Warlord" schtick. Sure, I could have had my Cultists "count as Lesser Daemons" in 4th edition...) but again, there really isn't much of a point to going out of the way to run a build like that anymore.

So your entire army and list revolved around deflier as warlord. That was the entire point of the entire army. I want to clarify I'm not somehow misunderstanding this.

Yes the army list you built based on a single rule is probably not going to survive edition change unaltered. It baffles me you thought it would. That's the sort of list a codex update or even FAQ could entirely alter.

Your army is still legal. The fact you only ran it for one random rule doesn't change that fact.

SilverAlien wrote:
Your army is still legal. The fact you only ran it for one random rule doesn't change that fact.

That's not really a fair statement. It's not just one random rule, it's an army-defining rule where having the special warlord is the whole point of taking the formation. Take away that theme element and it's not at all the same army anymore, even if all the models can still be used for something else.

I can empathize with people loosing a legal army but... I don't know. To me thats something so niche and to be expected.... making a big hobby proyect around a specific army/build of an edition is a little... runing against the clock.

Sisters have a flyer, decent one too. I mean it's not a fire raptor, but it works well enough.https://www.forgeworld.co.uk/en-AU/Imperial-Navy-Avenger-Strike-Fighter?_requestid=2277617
So as usual, ForgeWorld has you covered.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Not just bikes. ANY faction can skip out on troops in favor of fast attack choices. That means Chaos Biker lists, Nob Biker lists, Jump-Pack lists, Crisis Suit lists etc are all de facto on the table. You want to make a Tyranid force that's centered around Raveners? Go for it. Want to make a fluffy Night Lords raptor list? More power to you.

Meanwhile, MagicJuggler wants to pretend that 8th edition limits the type of armies you can make. Wew lad.

Oh God, I just realized something. Eldar Warp Spiders are a Fast Attack choice, and can now be spammed for only an HQ tax. We'd better hope Warp Spiders got nerfed...

 ZergSmasher wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Not just bikes. ANY faction can skip out on troops in favor of fast attack choices. That means Chaos Biker lists, Nob Biker lists, Jump-Pack lists, Crisis Suit lists etc are all de facto on the table. You want to make a Tyranid force that's centered around Raveners? Go for it. Want to make a fluffy Night Lords raptor list? More power to you.

Meanwhile, MagicJuggler wants to pretend that 8th edition limits the type of armies you can make. Wew lad.

Oh God, I just realized something. Eldar Warp Spiders are a Fast Attack choice, and can now be spammed for only an HQ tax. We'd better hope Warp Spiders got nerfed...

Yes, there's a lot of possibilities for whacky stuff. Unless they balance the units really well, then we are going to see some REALLY insane armies. Maybe not 7th edition formation bad...but bad.

I mean, any elite/FA/LoW/HS/HQ has almost ZERO tax on it now, so you can spam something that's even SLIGHTLY out of line points wise.

 Mud Turkey 13 wrote:
I just want to get a bit more clarity on something. From the rules and information we currently have available I could take an army that consists of a detachment of chaos demons and a detachment of Grey Knights if I wanted to? There is nothing out currently that states otherwise, correct?

Theoretically, there could be rules that would prevent this, but I am not seeing anything that currently says otherwise. I just want to make sure that I am not totally missing something with what has been stated so far. Thanks for any help you can supply me!

From what we've seen so far, there is nothing against this. But I'm assuming there will be some rules/guidelines that will prevent it, or at least create some negatives for doing so.

 Carnage43 wrote:
I mean, any elite/FA/LoW/HS/HQ has almost ZERO tax on it now, so you can spam something that's even SLIGHTLY out of line points wise.

Another argument against points.

 ZergSmasher wrote:

Oh God, I just realized something. Eldar Warp Spiders are a Fast Attack choice, and can now be spammed for only an HQ tax. We'd better hope Warp Spiders got nerfed...

I mean pretty much all the slots can be spammed, not just Fast Attack.

The only thing that really changes from 7e is that you no longer need to take maybe 100 or so points worth of troops.

 Formerly Wu wrote:

 Carnage43 wrote:
I mean, any elite/FA/LoW/HS/HQ has almost ZERO tax on it now, so you can spam something that's even SLIGHTLY out of line points wise.

Another argument against points.

So instead of bad balance, there's no balance whatsoever?

...

Yeah no.

 JNAProductions wrote:


So instead of bad balance, there's no balance whatsoever?

...

Yeah no.

Balance only matters when your objective is winning against strangers.

Since I don't play like that- and two of the three game modes in 8th assume that you're not- I personally think points can go feth themselves.

 Talamare wrote:

 ZergSmasher wrote:

Oh God, I just realized something. Eldar Warp Spiders are a Fast Attack choice, and can now be spammed for only an HQ tax. We'd better hope Warp Spiders got nerfed...

I mean pretty much all the slots can be spammed, not just Fast Attack.

The only thing that really changes from 7e is that you no longer need to take maybe 100 or so points worth of troops.

1) No more 'free' units from formations or summoning.
2) Unit (and option) point values that can be updated on a yearly basis instead of just whenever the next version of a codex gets released.
3) Taking any of the detachments that easily allow non-troops to be spammed provides you with less command points.


Between just those 3 things, I believe that 8e stands a much better chance of being much more balanced than 7e.

 yakface wrote:

1) No more 'free' units from formations or summoning.
2) Unit (and option) point values that can be updated on a yearly basis instead of just whenever the next version of a codex gets released.
3) Taking any of the detachments that easily allow non-troops to be spammed provides you with less command points.


Between just those 3 things, I believe that 8e stands a much better chance of being much more balanced than 7e.

1 - Was only rare cases. Acting as if every army had it. Fine to do away with it.
2 - This should have started a long time ago, but for this to happen it wasn't necessary for the rest of the edition to become basically Age of 40k.
3 - Now we just need to see how much impact will it truly have. Since the few they have leaked so far are at best... okay.

Age of 40k? 40k has remained so 40k that it has surprised me! It has taked the best things about AoS ,keep all the good things about 40k, and fixed many many problems of both games.
You can like or not somet decissions but to diminiss this new edition as "Age of 40k" is ignorant and childlish.

And a genetic falacy, by the way.

 Peregrine wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:
Your army is still legal. The fact you only ran it for one random rule doesn't change that fact.

That's not really a fair statement. It's not just one random rule, it's an army-defining rule where having the special warlord is the whole point of taking the formation. Take away that theme element and it's not at all the same army anymore, even if all the models can still be used for something else.

Except the rule really wasn't doing much for the army in the first place. Basically nothing was lost.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ZergSmasher wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Not just bikes. ANY faction can skip out on troops in favor of fast attack choices. That means Chaos Biker lists, Nob Biker lists, Jump-Pack lists, Crisis Suit lists etc are all de facto on the table. You want to make a Tyranid force that's centered around Raveners? Go for it. Want to make a fluffy Night Lords raptor list? More power to you.

Meanwhile, MagicJuggler wants to pretend that 8th edition limits the type of armies you can make. Wew lad.

Oh God, I just realized something. Eldar Warp Spiders are a Fast Attack choice, and can now be spammed for only an HQ tax. We'd better hope Warp Spiders got nerfed...

Spiders aren't that bad when they are BS4 instead of BS5.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:


Spiders aren't that bad when they are BS4 instead of BS5.

True, but the order of the day seems to be synergy. Who's to say you won't get a +1 to hit aura from the Avatar/Farseer power/Phoenix lord/Autarch?

 Galas wrote:
Age of 40k? 40k has remained so 40k that it has surprised me! It has taked the best things about AoS ,keep all the good things about 40k, and fixed many many problems of both games.
You can like or not somet decissions but to diminiss this new edition as "Age of 40k" is ignorant and childlish.

And a genetic falacy, by the way.

You even established that it took it's rules from Age of Sigmar. We have seen quite a lot of the core rules to have an understanding of it.

I'm not saying that the rules are stupid because they came from Age of Sigmar. I'm saying that the rules are stupid. So no, it's not a genetic fallacy; and drop the ad hominem.

 yakface wrote:

 Mud Turkey 13 wrote:
I just want to get a bit more clarity on something. From the rules and information we currently have available I could take an army that consists of a detachment of chaos demons and a detachment of Grey Knights if I wanted to? There is nothing out currently that states otherwise, correct?

Theoretically, there could be rules that would prevent this, but I am not seeing anything that currently says otherwise. I just want to make sure that I am not totally missing something with what has been stated so far. Thanks for any help you can supply me!

From what we've seen so far, there is nothing against this. But I'm assuming there will be some rules/guidelines that will prevent it, or at least create some negatives for doing so.

Thank you! That is what I thought, but I hope there are some rules against forming certain combos such as the one that I mentioned.

 Mud Turkey 13 wrote:

 yakface wrote:

 Mud Turkey 13 wrote:
I just want to get a bit more clarity on something. From the rules and information we currently have available I could take an army that consists of a detachment of chaos demons and a detachment of Grey Knights if I wanted to? There is nothing out currently that states otherwise, correct?

Theoretically, there could be rules that would prevent this, but I am not seeing anything that currently says otherwise. I just want to make sure that I am not totally missing something with what has been stated so far. Thanks for any help you can supply me!

From what we've seen so far, there is nothing against this. But I'm assuming there will be some rules/guidelines that will prevent it, or at least create some negatives for doing so.

Thank you! That is what I thought, but I hope there are some rules against forming certain combos such as the one that I mentioned.

I doubt there will be any rules PREVENTING you from any combo

What I expect is that there will be a similar Allies system to 7e. However, replace all those "come the apoc" rules and replace it with like -3 CP.

As a nid player I am personally looking forward to the sheer number of elites I can bring now. That slot is always so crowded.Now I don't need to pick between zoanthropes venomthropes and malanthropes. Bring them all.

 Lance845 wrote:
As a nid player I am personally looking forward to the sheer number of elites I can bring now. That slot is always so crowded.Now I don't need to pick between zoanthropes venomthropes and malanthropes. Bring them all.

even the standard brigade detachment is gonna be pretty good for people wanting to run a horde army.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
As a nid player I am personally looking forward to the sheer number of elites I can bring now. That slot is always so crowded.Now I don't need to pick between zoanthropes venomthropes and malanthropes. Bring them all.

even the standard brigade detachment is gonna be pretty good for people wanting to run a horde army.

Currently considering a Battalion with a Vanguard.

Nets me 4 Commander points, plenty of elites, plenty of troops, and 3 HQs.

Might go brigade if I can justify 3 fast attack units. Kind of depends on what foc slots the nids occupy now.

So... anyone else thinking about fielding two brigades?

 Spreelock wrote:
So... anyone else thinking about fielding two brigades?

Wha...
But...

HOW?!

What army can possibly field 6 HQs, 12 troops, 6 elites, 6 FA and 6 HS?!

 BoomWolf wrote:

 Spreelock wrote:
So... anyone else thinking about fielding two brigades?

Wha...
But...

HOW?!

What army can possibly field 6 HQs, 12 troops, 6 elites, 6 FA and 6 HS?!

I want to say Genestealer Cults, but the HS slots might be a little too points intensive.

 BoomWolf wrote:

 Spreelock wrote:
So... anyone else thinking about fielding two brigades?

Wha...
But...

HOW?!

What army can possibly field 6 HQs, 12 troops, 6 elites, 6 FA and 6 HS?!

Tyranids can easily.

HQ Tyranid Primes.
Troops Ripper Swarm bases.
Elites Lictors.
FA Sky Slashers.
Heavy Support Biovores.

Might not be a great force, but it is sure doable and can fit in a under 2,000pts I imagine.

 Robin5t wrote:
Also, I really wish the Supreme Command detachment was 3-6 instead of 3-5. That way, you could have a battle-forged detachment that was just all 6 Phoenix Lords and the Avatar of Khaine.

Here's a thought, add in Irylith, Drazhar and the Yncarn and then you can run two of those detachments with both Avatars!

OKAY OKAY, THE NEW DETACHMENT ARE HERE. I hurried up to check if my army is still valid, and these benefits are still within my reach. You wanna look how two brigades are gathered? Here's the list, my gallery also has some pictures.

Outrider Detachment [dark angels]
- Sableclaw
- Bike squad
- Bike squad
- Bike squad
- Attack bike
- Attack bike
- Nephilim

Outrider Detachment [dark angels]
- Librarian (bike)
- Librarian (bike)
- Land Speeder (typhoon) x 2
- Land Speeder (tornado) x 2
- Land Speeder
- Ravenwing Black Knights
- Land Speeder Vengeance

Brigade Detachment [dark angels]
- Company Master
- Chaplain (jump pack)
- Ezekiel
- Librarian
- Inter-rogator Chaplain (terminator)
- Tactical Squad (5-strong) + Razorback
- Tactical Squad (5-strong) + Drop Pod
- Tactical Squad (10-strong) + Drop Pod
- Tactical Squad (10-strong) + Drop Pod
- Tactical Squad (10-strong) + Rhino
- Tactical Squad (10-strong) + Rhino
- Command Squad + Rhino
- Command Squad + Razorback
- Veterans + Rhino
- Veterans + Razorback
- Terminator Squad Command + Land Raider Crusader
- Terminator Squad
- Terminator Squad
- Dreadnought + Drop Pod
- Assault Squad (10-strong)
- Assault Squad (5-strong)
- Dark Shroud
- Devastator Squad (10-strong)
- Devastator Squad (10-strong)
- Whirlwind Battery (3)
- Land Raider

Supreme Command Detachment [dark angels]
- Azrael (lord of war)
- Belial
- Company Master
- Company Master
- Company Master
- Techmarine

Patrol Detachment [space wolves]
- Bjorn the Fell-Handed + Drop Pod
- canis Wolfbourne
- Bloodclaws + Drop Pod
- Bloodclaws + Drop Pod
- Thunderwolf cavalry
- Stormwolf (transport for supreme command)

Brigade Detachment [imperial guard]
- Commissar Yarrick
- Commissar
- Primaris Psyker
- Priest
- Company Command Squad + Chimera
- Bullgryns
- Scions Platoon
- Ogryns
- Infantry Platoon (command + 2x squad, special weapons squad, conscripts)
- Infantry Platoon (command + 2x squad, special weapons squad)
- Infantry Platoon (command + 2x squad) + ALL IN CHIMERAS
- Infantry Platoon (command + 2x squad) + ALL IN CHIMERAS
- Infantry Platoon (command + 2x squad) + ALL IN CHIMERAS
- Veterans
- Veterans
- Veterans
- Valkyrie Squadron (3, transports vets)
- Hellhound
- Sentinels
- Rough Riders
- Hydra
- Deathstrike
- Leman Russ Squadron (3)

Super-Heavy Auxiliary Detachment [imperial guard]
- Shadowsword

Super-Heavy Detachment [imperial knights]
- Knight Paladin
- Knight Errant
- Knight Warden

Patrol Detachment [cult mechanicus]
- Techpriest Dominus
- Kataphron Destroyers

Fortification Network
- Bastion
- Bunker + Defence Line + Defence Emplacement

OTHERS WITHOUT DETACHMENT
- Inquisitor
- Eversor Assassin
- Skitarii Vanguard (10-strong)
- Skitarii Vanguard (10-strong)

Have I collected these? Well, mostly, I can write a list what am I missing... oh, and I have some black templars too, maybe they fit in...

EDIT: here's the list of what I'm missing;

Dark Angels Black Knights
Dark Angels Vengeance
Dark Angels Darkshroud
Dark Angels Librarians on bike

Imperial Knights (2)

Ogryns
Scions
Rough Riders
Valkyries
Veterans

Techpriest Dominus

Bjorn the Fell-Handed
Stormwolf
half of the thunderwolf cavalry
Bloodclaws

part of the transports

 BoomWolf wrote:

 Spreelock wrote:
So... anyone else thinking about fielding two brigades?

Wha...
But...

HOW?!

What army can possibly field 6 HQs, 12 troops, 6 elites, 6 FA and 6 HS?!

Based on the current prices for the Ork Dread Mob List, an army composed of 6 Big Meks, 12 Deff Dreads, 6 Mekboy Junkas, 6 Killa Kans, and 6 Looted Wagons costs 1920 points.
It would be a lot of wasted transport capacity and the shooting would be 100% big shootas, but that's a legit army in every sense of the word.

Yeah, there are also shorter ways of doing two brigades, but we dont even know what options Command Points do (wishing recyclement on slain tyranid models for endless swarm). Tyranids could be nasty with two brigades, I just calculated list of Nids with 41 command points LOL...

I doubt recycling tyranids since they supposedly removed free models.

Also is that 41 CP army 1850 points?

Earth127 wrote:
I doubt recycling tyranids since they supposedly removed free models.

Also is that 41 CP army 1850 points?

Not nearly, consisting from three brigades + few genestealer cults detachments, point wisely 10k-15k. But this bigger scale is just too much fun, I'm definately looking for more apocalypse games in 8th edition.

Guys we don't even know if the same units are in the same force org slot ; )

Might be a bit soon to claim that your soon to be constructed army is invalidated or that you can min max your way to victory based on cheap HQ/Troop options.

Good sir, I am offended. I have no intentions on min maxing for CPs, I just want to throw 12 deff dreads at someone :V

So people are complaining that the army they have from 7th ed, using 7th ed codex and battlefield roles are now completely illegal in the new edition.

Which is a completely different.

And all the armys are getting new lists.

With us only having seen a glimpse of the rules.

And you can still play narrative or open play to take your army even if they are still illegal in matched play.

Yeah, perhaps my original point was missed, intended about fielding models currently in my collection. But the challenging part was more displayed, HOW are your's projects gonna withstand these moderations. These information that have leaked, would suggest on fielding large infantry army, as anyone can hurt anybody. Conclusion: I'm going with my tyranid swarm to have some fun

 oldzoggy wrote:
Guys we don't even know if the same units are in the same force org slot ; )

Might be a bit soon to claim that your soon to be constructed army is invalidated or that you can min max your way to victory based on cheap HQ/Troop options.

True. Personally I'm hoping slots stay the same. Unified cult mechanicus will do nicely in this system, being able to get basically any type of shooting it needs from the troop slot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, the new GSC article implies that allies do exist in some form, as a GSC detachment being able to take an imperial guard detachment is mentioned as something outside the norm, rather than a given. So some limitation on detachments taken together does seem to exist.

Huh, kinda seems like my Guard army got hosed. I just have two infantry platoons... unless an infantry platoon counts as two Troops choices, we got kinda screwed. I guess the joke is on me for taking two heavy weapons squads in each platoon.

You have to build more guardsmen lots and lots, brigades, brigades and more brigades. We have to get all those re-rolls

 Spreelock wrote:
You have to build more guardsmen lots and lots, brigades, brigades and more brigades. We have to get all those re-rolls

Haha, I am honestly all set tracking down more Tallarn models to bulk out my army. Each of my platoons are 47 models (3 infantry squads, 2x heavy weapons squads all with missile launchers, and command squad), and my case cannot possibly fit anymore with two of those, twenty Roughriders, two Russes, two Company Command Squads and two Inquisitors... huh, just realized that my army has a strange obsession with the number two.

The platoon structure can sort of be a double-edged sword like that. On the one hand, we can fit a ton of stuff into a small detachment. On the other hand, it can be hard to fill out the minimum requirements for large detachments with them because you get a ton of models and they all only fill one slot.

Veteran builds on the other hand are likely to have an easier time filling out brigade detachments, since they're still fairly cheap by most armies' standards and each squad occupies its own slot. Ratlings can provide cheap elites, and Wyverns can cheaply fill out heavy support slots, with sentinels in fast attack

 Sleep Spell wrote:
Definitely food for thought and I hope CP's add to the game/list building experience. Off the top of my head I would have liked to see things done a bit different.

Maybe CP fixed to points used and each detachment chosen subtracts from your total; representing infrastructure and resources used to command different detachments. Thus driving players to fill all slots rather than the minimum. Also the Super-Heavy-Detachment with no restrictions (not even faction?) seems a little silly. I'd rather have seen Lord's of War attached and maybe limited to being part of Battalions/Brigades; making them more of centerpiece heavy hitters not sent into battles without sufficient support.

Also really hope Troops will be more than just tax, but I guess we will see as more is revealed. Hoping for the best =)

Faction limit for 1 low det is pretty silly as all models will always be same faction. Only 1 model! Amd multiple detjs don't need to share faction.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ZergSmasher wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Not just bikes. ANY faction can skip out on troops in favor of fast attack choices. That means Chaos Biker lists, Nob Biker lists, Jump-Pack lists, Crisis Suit lists etc are all de facto on the table. You want to make a Tyranid force that's centered around Raveners? Go for it. Want to make a fluffy Night Lords raptor list? More power to you.

Meanwhile, MagicJuggler wants to pretend that 8th edition limits the type of armies you can make. Wew lad.

Oh God, I just realized something. Eldar Warp Spiders are a Fast Attack choice, and can now be spammed for only an HQ tax. We'd better hope Warp Spiders got nerfed...

Spiders aren't that bad when they are BS4 instead of BS5.

To me their shooting isn't what makes them broken, although it is very good. It's the ability to just negate any attempt to kill them by jumping out of LOS. And the fact that they get a 3+ save and so it takes a dedicated assault unit to clean them up in melee (since they get pseudo-Fearless from the Exarch). They'll just Hit&Run away easily if you can't kill them in one round. And we haven't even talked about Battle Focus...

Sorry if this seems like a rant, but I hope at least some of this has been toned down.

 ZergSmasher wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ZergSmasher wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Not just bikes. ANY faction can skip out on troops in favor of fast attack choices. That means Chaos Biker lists, Nob Biker lists, Jump-Pack lists, Crisis Suit lists etc are all de facto on the table. You want to make a Tyranid force that's centered around Raveners? Go for it. Want to make a fluffy Night Lords raptor list? More power to you.

Meanwhile, MagicJuggler wants to pretend that 8th edition limits the type of armies you can make. Wew lad.

Oh God, I just realized something. Eldar Warp Spiders are a Fast Attack choice, and can now be spammed for only an HQ tax. We'd better hope Warp Spiders got nerfed...

Spiders aren't that bad when they are BS4 instead of BS5.

To me their shooting isn't what makes them broken, although it is very good. It's the ability to just negate any attempt to kill them by jumping out of LOS. And the fact that they get a 3+ save and so it takes a dedicated assault unit to clean them up in melee (since they get pseudo-Fearless from the Exarch). They'll just Hit&Run away easily if you can't kill them in one round. And we haven't even talked about Battle Focus...

Sorry if this seems like a rant, but I hope at least some of this has been toned down.

The ability to jump out of LoS is now most likely gone. Everyone has pseudo-HnR, now as well. They may have a 3+ save, but they're still S3/T3, and if having a 3+ save means you need a dedicated assault unit to clean them out, then Tac marines must be one bad- dedicated assault unit, as I've had games of unlucky dice rolls resulting in Crisis teams getting caught by remnants of a Tac squad and getting swept. Battle Focus will likely exist in some form or fashion, but I would bet my house that it wont function the same as it does now (especially as Assault weapons can be fired by -any faction- after Advancing).

And lets not forget - you want that army of all Warp Spiders? No problem. The detachment gives 3 CP. Spend wisely. You're giving up something in return for an all Warp Spider army (or in my case, my "Coming soon, to a table near you!!" army of Night Lords Raptors), and while the strategems we've seen aren't game-breaking, smart use of them -can- alter the course of a battle in your favor.

So yes, a lot of what we see now in 7th ed in regards to Warp Spiders will be toned down, on top of the fact that there are actual downsides to spamming certain FOC slots.

Are there any indications that Matched Play rules will have restrictions on Detachments, either in number or combination?

My BA absolutely love this. When Assault Marines were moved to Fast Attack from troops, when Death Company were moved to Elites from troops, when DC dreads were moved to Elites from troops and when Baal Preds were moved to Heavy Support from Fast Attack, it literally invalidated EVERY BA list I ever ran (I mean I still had tons of models I never usually used to allow plenty of options with the new dex but moving 4 MAIN units to other slots in one codex change was a bit much, it's not like any one of them was close to broken - plus Baals losing scout was huge), I lost the mass jump pack list, the assault marine (NOT the same as tacs at all) and DC drop list and my favourite - my armoured fist lists focussing on many Baals and Vindis, supported by a few jp troops.
Whoever wrote that last BA dex clearly didn't understand BA and only did a cursory check of forums to see the most complaints was about the cost of Sanguinary Guard, the DC jump pack upgrade, the loss of +1I from FC in 7th (but put restrictions on getting it back) and Mephiston not being an IC. They took away the decent rules for blood talons (the only even slightly close to OP thing in the dex - but it wasn't like it was easy for us to get those dreads into assault anyway) magna grapples, the ability for Libby dreads to jump around which was the only thing that made them useful, even Tychos armour-ignoring hand, thus making him useless against everything but orks. They made our scouts inferior to the SM scouts released 2 months later and our assault termis more expensive than the SM equivalent. They even nerfed the Sanguinor!!! Who was already one of the worst choices in the dex (albeit bringing his points cost down) People at the time were so blinded by the fact that marines were the odd point cheaper, DC jps had gone from 15pts to 3pts and we had the chance of having old FC back that they seemed to LOVE the new dex at first... then everyone had played a few games with it and realised without FW it is absolute bottom tier trash. It was like the writer was the stereo typical right wing politician - giving the masses a couple of things they wanted so they don't realise that you're stealing everything else.

...
Sorry got sidetracked there
...

Anyway - now all the lists I could run in 6th are back :-D


Edit - they realised how badly their writer had ballsed up the dex that they had to release TWO supplements just to help out BA and a new FOC chart that got widespread condemnation because it allowed others to abuse it for 'taxi service' drop pods, thus being a main contributor to the rule that you can't start in an allies transport, hence screwing Skittari in the process. Butterfly effect in action.

Well at least Tycho will have a weird profile for his hand, right?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Well at least Tycho will have a weird profile for his hand, right?

Haha maybe, although I have a sneaking suspicion that they will just kill him off by not writing rules for him and retire his 2nd ed model from their model range, since he is after all dead in the fluff and nobody uses him. I've seen Malakim Phoros used more than Tycho and he's a Badab FW character that most people havent heard about - so that's saying a lot!

Poly Ranger wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Well at least Tycho will have a weird profile for his hand, right?

Haha maybe, although I have a sneaking suspicion that they will just kill him off by not writing rules for him and retire his 2nd ed model from their model range, since he is after all dead in the fluff and nobody uses him. I've seen Malakim Phoros used more than Tycho and he's a Badab FW character that most people havent heard about - so that's saying a lot!

Malakim doesn't have gak rules though.

Very true

Stop the press!! Can someone please inform GW that a list created using 7th edition rules, relying on one particular faction rule, is potentially being invalidated? The fact he hasn't even done it yet makes it even more important that GW are informed ASAP.

I've always really enjoyed list building and these various detachments will add even more variety to the process. Looking good!

DevilsPox wrote:
Are there any indications that Matched Play rules will have restrictions on Detachments, either in number or combination?

yes they said as much in the battle forged run down here : https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/05/new-warhammer-40000-battle-forged-armiesgw-homepage-post-4/
when they said

Then it's been illuded to how it will work in the latest gene stealer cult run down here https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/27/warhammer-40000-faction-focus-genestealer-cults/
when they said

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:

 Robin5t wrote:
Somewhat concerned that as things stand my army can play literally none of these.

I'm assuming they will address this somehow.

Are you sure? Patrol has a minimum of 1 HQ and 1 Troop.

If you can't put down 1 HQ and 1 Troop, just what kind of army do you have?

One of the two armies with out an HQ choice.

Since, Independent characters (Shadowseer, Solitaire, and Death Jester) are not allowed to join units. They will be made their own units. Which means they will probably be made Shadowseer and Solitaire as HQ units and Death Jester as Heavy.

That would just be my guess.

With all the hopefully good things I have been seeing, I am hoping Iron Hands will be a unique army again instead of smurf wannabes. Hopind Kardan Stronos gets retconned out as he is just dumb, and we get Term sergeants back, Iron Fathers back, and possibly Dread Hqs. Oh, and our non standard compliant Companies back (each one it's own separate force rather than one being elites another fast attack ect.). Maybe even an option to support the IH's belief in a battle council. Iknow none of this will probably happen, but I am still hoping.

 NorseSig wrote:
With all the hopefully good things I have been seeing, I am hoping Iron Hands will be a unique army again instead of smurf wannabes. Hopind Kardan Stronos gets retconned out as he is just dumb, and we get Term sergeants back, Iron Fathers back, and possibly Dread Hqs. Oh, and our non standard compliant Companies back (each one it's own separate force rather than one being elites another fast attack ect.). Maybe even an option to support the IH's belief in a battle council. Iknow none of this will probably happen, but I am still hoping.

proably not, the fluff bit just requires a codex writer who loves Iron Hands, GW to decide that there is money in the chapter, as well as the rules to really work well in the game (lack of uniform stats in units has been a pain before, I suspect we're gonna see GW trying to avoid that being too much of a thing) truthfully I have a suspicion we're gonna see LESS snowflakeing among marines rather then more

BrianDavion wrote:

 NorseSig wrote:
With all the hopefully good things I have been seeing, I am hoping Iron Hands will be a unique army again instead of smurf wannabes. Hopind Kardan Stronos gets retconned out as he is just dumb, and we get Term sergeants back, Iron Fathers back, and possibly Dread Hqs. Oh, and our non standard compliant Companies back (each one it's own separate force rather than one being elites another fast attack ect.). Maybe even an option to support the IH's belief in a battle council. Iknow none of this will probably happen, but I am still hoping.

proably not, the fluff bit just requires a codex writer who loves Iron Hands, GW to decide that there is money in the chapter, as well as the rules to really work well in the game (lack of uniform stats in units has been a pain before, I suspect we're gonna see GW trying to avoid that being too much of a thing) truthfully I have a suspicion we're gonna see LESS snowflakeing among marines rather then more

Unfortunately I think you are right. I know if Iron Hands become any more generic I am done. Though gw liked Iron Hands enough to make an upgrade kit for them. Granted it is an okay kit at best. I'm just kind of unhappy that the army I love and wanted to play no longer really exists. It goes by the name Iron Hands but it really isn't. It is just smurfs with less goodies now. I am hoping 8th will give me a reason to play them again.

 NorseSig wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 NorseSig wrote:
With all the hopefully good things I have been seeing, I am hoping Iron Hands will be a unique army again instead of smurf wannabes. Hopind Kardan Stronos gets retconned out as he is just dumb, and we get Term sergeants back, Iron Fathers back, and possibly Dread Hqs. Oh, and our non standard compliant Companies back (each one it's own separate force rather than one being elites another fast attack ect.). Maybe even an option to support the IH's belief in a battle council. Iknow none of this will probably happen, but I am still hoping.

proably not, the fluff bit just requires a codex writer who loves Iron Hands, GW to decide that there is money in the chapter, as well as the rules to really work well in the game (lack of uniform stats in units has been a pain before, I suspect we're gonna see GW trying to avoid that being too much of a thing) truthfully I have a suspicion we're gonna see LESS snowflakeing among marines rather then more

Unfortunately I think you are right. I know if Iron Hands become any more generic I am done. Though gw liked Iron Hands enough to make an upgrade kit for them. Granted it is an okay kit at best. I'm just kind of unhappy that the army I love and wanted to play no longer really exists. It goes by the name Iron Hands but it really isn't. It is just smurfs with less goodies now. I am hoping 8th will give me a reason to play them again.

the orginization behind the scenes is msotly flluff so easily corrected, chapter tactics can add a lot, some of the stuff like terminator sergents hoenstly just doesn't work right and is a bad idea in practice (it means the iron hands can't use rhinos, for example) still other stuff should be doable. I could see GW possiably doing some small scale stuff for other chapters, as the differance between iron hands and say... space wolves becomes less relevant as they all share a single index.

Youn wrote:

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:

 Robin5t wrote:
Somewhat concerned that as things stand my army can play literally none of these.

I'm assuming they will address this somehow.

Are you sure? Patrol has a minimum of 1 HQ and 1 Troop.

If you can't put down 1 HQ and 1 Troop, just what kind of army do you have?

One of the two armies with out an HQ choice.

Since, Independent characters (Shadowseer, Solitaire, and Death Jester) are not allowed to join units. They will be made their own units. Which means they will probably be made Shadowseer and Solitaire as HQ units and Death Jester as Heavy.

That would just be my guess.

I don't see the link between IC not being able to join units and them being HQ instead of Elite.

The Solitaires stay by themselves and only join masques during battles, and everyone is afraid of them. They won't become HQs.
Fluffwise, the troupe master makes the most valid HQ candidate, but it would be a bit odd as it's sold in the normal troupe box (just like any sergeant) instead of a clampack. And it's not really a "buffer", which would make for a poor independent character.
On the other side, the shadowseer will probably keep something similar to the current veil of tears, which would become an aura (that's actually how it works in SW:A). Gameplay-wise, it would make a perfect HQ choice.

So my money is on the shadowseer becoming an HQ choice, or Harlequins getting a way to field detachments without HQ choices, but that would probably restrict their army building capacity a lot compared to just getting access to a HQ.

fresus wrote:
Fluffwise, the troupe master makes the most valid HQ candidate, but it would be a bit odd as it's sold in the normal troupe box (just like any sergeant) instead of a clampack. And it's not really a "buffer", which would make for a poor independent character.

Well not many characters before has been much of a buffer before yet are going to become buffers. Did basic marine commanders give rerolls to hit before? Don't think so!

Wouldn't surprise me if ALL characters in 8th buff people around whether they buffed them before or not.

So my money is on the shadowseer becoming an HQ choice, or Harlequins getting a way to field detachments without HQ choices, but that would probably restrict their army building capacity a lot compared to just getting access to a HQ.

Certainly most likely solution. 2nd most likely being new release but doubtful they release new harlequin model at the start of 8th ed.

So.. maybe i'm being Daft... does the dedicated transport wording mean you can take a DT for every unit under the HQ slot.

I'm probably reading too much into the wording " May include 1 for each other choice" Other?

lords of war should subtract command points

 G00fySmiley wrote:
lords of war should subtract command points

Why?

Martel732 wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
lords of war should subtract command points

Why?

mostly because I am hoping to see tournament lists beyond as many big models as possible.

from a practical perspective they seem to have gotten toned down but are almost all really good. especially now that non lord of war units like dante, ghaz, and calgar are HQ again where they always should have been.

from a personal perspective I prefer units and tanks vs units and tanks not units and tanks vs gundam wing

Haha. I still remember an economic battletech game i played where everyone quit because all i built were tanks and airplanes. One match i literally had 250 tanks vs like 16 mechs. It was silly b/c battletech is silly.

 G00fySmiley wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
lords of war should subtract command points

Why?

mostly because I am hoping to see tournament lists beyond as many big models as possible.

from a practical perspective they seem to have gotten toned down but are almost all really good. especially now that non lord of war units like dante, ghaz, and calgar are HQ again where they always should have been.

from a personal perspective I prefer units and tanks vs units and tanks not units and tanks vs gundam wing

With how scoring works in 8th, I doubt we will see SH spam any more.
Or even more than 1 per list.

See, when two ork boys outscore an imperial knight, a horde army (and/or MSU army) have a REALLY easy time to hold objectives against SH armies.

Inversely, all it takes is one unit that is that right combination of speed, firepower and durability for its cost to make it that much better and there aren't as many restrictions in place to stop it from being spammed ad infinitum. With 7th, GW at least had to write a formation to push said power units without a tax

 DevilsPox wrote:
Are there any indications that Matched Play rules will have restrictions on Detachments, either in number or combination?

Pg 214 in the BRB. Most TOs seem to be going with 2k points, 3 detachments max for now.

The only superheavies I would be worried about seeing are Baneblades. I run a company (3) of them and they are stupid good in this edition.

Mainly, the issue is if you want an objective you just drive on it. The Baneblades are wide enough that the enemy cannot get within 3" of the center of the objective even when in B2B with the Baneblade, so until they kill it the objective is uncontestable.

The way its worded, what are the restrictions on dedicated transports? In some instances (the Eldar Wave Serpent for example), the transport almost works as a full on tank. The wording in the FOC simply says "one for each unit", etc. Are there restrictions in the rules around this or will you see people spamming a Wave Serpent (used as a light tank) for things like Eldar dreadnoughts, Avatars etc. and other units which can't actually make use of them?

Given how tough vehicles are, for instance, is a Razorback a dedicated transport? Could marine players likewise spam Razorbacks (again serving as light tanks) for things like Terminators, and jump marines etc. which they can't actually transport?

 Elbows wrote:
The way its worded, what are the restrictions on dedicated transports? In some instances (the Eldar Wave Serpent for example), the transport almost works as a full on tank. The wording in the FOC simply says "one for each unit", etc. Are there restrictions in the rules around this or will you see people spamming a Wave Serpent (used as a light tank) for things like Eldar dreadnoughts, Avatars etc. and other units which can't actually make use of them?

Given how tough vehicles are, for instance, is a Razorback a dedicated transport? Could marine players likewise spam Razorbacks (again serving as light tanks) for things like Terminators, and jump marines etc. which they can't actually transport?

on transports that seems to be the case. take termies buy a razorback, do whatever the new term for terminators deep striking is to place in 9 inches of enemy and get the cheap amazing assault cannon razorback too!