Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

I’m guessing this means no more Troops/Elites/Fast Attack etc?

Looks like it, which is a pity.
There will most likely be a replacement term for them though that might have some rules interactions, like how Troops are now Battleline.

I wish they kept the old terms though.

Dunno, the weakness of the FOC has always been some armies having crap to middling troops, with all the juicy stuff crammed into Elites.

Only six strats sounds great. Over the course of a game I tend to use only a few out of that massive page of options they give me.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Anyway, 3 of the same Datasheet. So right now that could mean, for instance, 9 Gladiators in a single army.

I've been thinking about this for a while - it's good to finally know it's on datasheet at least.

With the new datasheet format they could more easily consolidate. Instead of needing a special rule for the Lancer's gun the datasheet just shows it at BS2.

So someone can still do a dreadnought army with 3 contemptors and 3 redemptors or w/e, but not 9 redemptors.

But otherwise like you mentioned this is an area where they could really screw the system if some armies get the same repetitive datasheets allowing more selections for spam.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
With the new datasheet format they could more easily consolidate. Instead of needing a special rule for the Lancer's gun the datasheet just shows it at BS2.

I thought the same thing, but it strengthens the idea of mono-pose optionless kits (non-modular Ork Buggies make more sense under this system than, say, the Carnifex kit!) and unless they consolidate data slates then we could see some very silly armies (Orks can take 3 Deff Dreads, but Marines can take 24* Dreads!).

This is a dark path...

[EDIT]: Plus the cynic in me cannot see this as a change made for the benefit of the game, for balance, or anything like that. More options for more things in your army sounds like "Find a way to make them buy more stuff" from someone above who doesn't give a gak about the rules. This is "Make the Wraithknight cheaper so more people buy it!" levels of bull gak.



*3 Regular, 3 Contemptor, 3 Venerable, 3 Ironclad, 3 Invictus**, 3 Redemptor, 3 Brutalis, 3 Shooty Redemptors
**I know it's not technically a Dread. Don't @ me.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Dunno, the weakness of the FOC has always been some armies having crap to middling troops, with all the juicy stuff crammed into Elites.

I am curious on how they'll make troops more appealing. It sounds good, at least.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Anyway, 3 of the same Datasheet. So right now that could mean, for instance, 9 Gladiators in a single army.

So someone can still do a dreadnought army with 3 contemptors and 3 redemptors or w/e, but not 9 redemptors.

We certainly know why the Closecombaticus Redemptor, the Shooticus and Sir Mixalot are all 'different' units instead of variant loadouts of one base entry...

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Anyway, 3 of the same Datasheet. So right now that could mean, for instance, 9 Gladiators in a single army.

I've been thinking about this for a while - it's good to finally know it's on datasheet at least.

With the new datasheet format they could more easily consolidate. Instead of needing a special rule for the Lancer's gun the datasheet just shows it at BS2.

So someone can still do a dreadnought army with 3 contemptors and 3 redemptors or w/e, but not 9 redemptors.

But otherwise like you mentioned this is an area where they could really screw the system if some armies get the same repetitive datasheets allowing more selections for spam.

I for one would like a return of the old generic Cryptek datasheet, with the different disciplines being represented through gear.
That would avoid being able to take 12 crypteks which may be increased to 24, provided Dynastic Advisors is still a thing.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Dunno, the weakness of the FOC has always been some armies having crap to middling troops, with all the juicy stuff crammed into Elites.

I am curious on how they'll make troops more appealing. It sounds good, at least.

very high OC stat is my guess. And the only ones able to do actions (if those are still a thing) maybe?

and yeah, consolidating all those "same but with a different loadout" units would do wonders and i am fully expecting it to become a thing

Good call.

Definitely somewhat optimistic. The concepts sound good. But then a chocolate teapot sounds delicious.

Oh boy, it's Army Building Mad Libs!
Is it really AoS1.0 and the start of 8E again?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Dunno, the weakness of the FOC has always been some armies having crap to middling troops, with all the juicy stuff crammed into Elites.

I am curious on how they'll make troops more appealing. It sounds good, at least.

very high OC stat is my guess. And the only ones able to do actions (if those are still a thing) maybe?

and yeah, consolidating all those "same but with a different loadout" units would do wonders and i am fully expecting it to become a thing

I don't think the consolidation might be on the datasheet side, but rather the detachment side. We see this in AoS quite a bit, where a Warscroll Battalion lets you put 0-3 of <Insert Keyword Here> Heroes or 3-6 <Insert Unit Keyword in Bold Here> when it's a unit with multiple options(Vanguard-Raptors for Stormcast Eternals, for example).

IE:
A Space Marine Pew Pew Detachment can take up to 0-3 Redemptor Dreadnoughts of any type.

 Kanluwen wrote:

I don't think the consolidation might be on the datasheet side, but rather the detachment side. We see this in AoS quite a bit, where a Warscroll Battalion lets you put 0-3 of <Insert Keyword Here> Heroes or 3-6 <Insert Unit Keyword in Bold Here> when it's a unit with multiple options(Vanguard-Raptors for Stormcast Eternals, for example).

IE:
A Space Marine Pew Pew Detachment can take up to 0-3 Redemptor Dreadnoughts of any type.

you can have units outside of detachments in AoS tho, detachments are simply how you purchase certain buffs for your army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

I don't think the consolidation might be on the datasheet side, but rather the detachment side. We see this in AoS quite a bit, where a Warscroll Battalion lets you put 0-3 of <Insert Keyword Here> Heroes or 3-6 <Insert Unit Keyword in Bold Here> when it's a unit with multiple options(Vanguard-Raptors for Stormcast Eternals, for example).

IE:
A Space Marine Pew Pew Detachment can take up to 0-3 Redemptor Dreadnoughts of any type.

you can have units outside of detachments in AoS tho, detachments are simply how you purchase certain buffs for your army.

so if it was a 1-to-1 copy of the AoS system, you could bring

3 Shooty redemptors -> buy a buff
3 melee redemptors -> buy a buff
3 hybrid redemptors -> buy a buff

in your overall army if you wanted

I reckon your chosen detachment will define your Battleline, without otherwise altering a units data card info.

For instance, Iyanden may allow Wraith Constructs to count as Battleline, but not tinker with their OC rating. This would allow you to theme quite nicely, without entirely removing the usefulness of Guardians, assuming they have a solid OC rating,

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
For instance, Iyanden may allow Wraith Constructs to count as Battleline, but not tinker with their OC rating. This would allow you to theme quite nicely, without entirely removing the usefulness of Guardians, assuming they have a solid OC rating,

I hope they have the balls to make changes to organisation and what counts and doesn't count as "Battleline" depending on the type of army you're taking. And this also assumes that Iyanden is something that continues to exist, rather than the "Ghost Warrior Warhost" or some other such nonsense name that they pull out of thing air.

True enough. Was going for an example where I didn’t have to write much!

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

I’m guessing this means no more Troops/Elites/Fast Attack etc?

Looks like it, which is a pity.
There will most likely be a replacement term for them though that might have some rules interactions, like how Troops are now Battleline.

I wish they kept the old terms though.

Dunno, the weakness of the FOC has always been some armies having crap to middling troops, with all the juicy stuff crammed into Elites.

Most of the time you would find the cheapest troop so you could focus on the meat of the army. Want to use some sweet Eldar Aspect Warriors? They come with 15 rangers that you have to have.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
For instance, Iyanden may allow Wraith Constructs to count as Battleline, but not tinker with their OC rating. This would allow you to theme quite nicely, without entirely removing the usefulness of Guardians, assuming they have a solid OC rating,

I hope they have the balls to make changes to organisation and what counts and doesn't count as "Battleline" depending on the type of army you're taking. And this also assumes that Iyanden is something that continues to exist, rather than the "Ghost Warrior Warhost" or some other such nonsense name that they pull out of thing air.

Since they are calling it Battleline I imagine they are importing some of the rulings from AoS. In AoS certain type of heroes can make certain units into Battleline. F.ex. if I have a Herald on Bloodcrusher my Bloodcrushers become battleline. A subfaction in Idoneth makes Leviadons into Battlelines and so on and so on.

I fully expect some armies to have their subfactions replaced with detachments based on army concepts that literally no one asked for. Like a detachment for Haarken Wordlclaimer's warband but nothing for Night Lords.

Maybe, 40k used to do that in 4th ed.
Warbosses could take Nobs as troops, for example.

Maybe Necrons will finally get Battleline Canoptek or Destroyers then to go with Cryptek armies and Destroyer cults respectively.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
For instance, Iyanden may allow Wraith Constructs to count as Battleline, but not tinker with their OC rating. This would allow you to theme quite nicely, without entirely removing the usefulness of Guardians, assuming they have a solid OC rating,

I hope they have the balls to make changes to organisation and what counts and doesn't count as "Battleline" depending on the type of army you're taking. And this also assumes that Iyanden is something that continues to exist, rather than the "Ghost Warrior Warhost" or some other such nonsense name that they pull out of thing air.

Eh, you can get annoyed at naming all you want, but explicitly not linking rules to paint instead of the heavily implied rules linked to paint of 9th, well it’s a net positive. You can now (theoretically) easily run a Biel Tan Wraithhost if that’s where your fluff/models loves intersect, without anyone having a whinge. That’s cool.

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:
I fully expect some armies to have their subfactions replaced with detachments based on army concepts that literally no one asked for. Like a detachment for Haarken Wordlclaimer's warband but nothing for Night Lords.

Why get caught up by the name if it's a set of rules that give you what you want? i.e. if "worldtakers" undoubtedly does a load of stuff for jump pack units etc, then you'd just pick it for night lords?

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

I don't think the consolidation might be on the datasheet side, but rather the detachment side. We see this in AoS quite a bit, where a Warscroll Battalion lets you put 0-3 of <Insert Keyword Here> Heroes or 3-6 <Insert Unit Keyword in Bold Here> when it's a unit with multiple options(Vanguard-Raptors for Stormcast Eternals, for example).

IE:
A Space Marine Pew Pew Detachment can take up to 0-3 Redemptor Dreadnoughts of any type.

you can have units outside of detachments in AoS tho, detachments are simply how you purchase certain buffs for your army.

so if it was a 1-to-1 copy of the AoS system, you could bring

3 Shooty redemptors -> buy a buff
3 melee redemptors -> buy a buff
3 hybrid redemptors -> buy a buff

in your overall army if you wanted

Warhammer Community wrote:Instead of choosing a subfaction or constructing your own, you now choose a single set of Detachment rules for your whole army. These include special abilities, Enhancements, Stratagems, and unit restrictions.

In AoS, WSB are optional. It does not look to be the same here.

Frankly? I think people might want to peek at the "Armies of Renown" we had been getting. Those seem to very, very, very much match what this has talked about today.

Not that anyone asked, but you’re getting My Thoughts So Far Summarised.

1. Army Selection is looking nice and flexible. Even without fancy Dan detachment rules, we’ll have a lot of freedom in what we can be arsed to paint and field.

2. Even with said Fancy Dan Detachment, any Stratagems we might want to use aren’t playing hide and seek. But are instead just there, on the sheet.

3. This is pleasing unto Nuggan. I won’t need a degree in Army Building to cobble something together.

4. No I don’t expect this to create perfect balance. Yes there will still be ways to abuse things. But that’s something I’ve long accepted as a fundamental truth of 40K.

5. This makes it easier for people to get into, and indeed easier to make us spend more money, as army builds are less slaved to a restrictive FOC. For instance, even without Fancy Dan Detachment, I can shake up an Eldar list by swapping out a Guardian unit for an Aspect, whereas currently, I also need to worry about which FOC slot is being swapped out.

 Kanluwen wrote:

I don't think the consolidation might be on the datasheet side, but rather the detachment side. We see this in AoS quite a bit, where a Warscroll Battalion lets you put 0-3 of <Insert Keyword Here> Heroes or 3-6 <Insert Unit Keyword in Bold Here> when it's a unit with multiple options(Vanguard-Raptors for Stormcast Eternals, for example).

IE:
A Space Marine Pew Pew Detachment can take up to 0-3 Redemptor Dreadnoughts of any type.

A) units don't have to be in detachment in aos
B) not really all that specific. Hero, artillery, monster, hero with max 9 wounds, rest is standard. Some army specific like khorne mortal hero.

No battalion fop vanquard raptors for example.

I think that we could all do with them doing an article showing this in practice, using a fairly "standard" Detachment.

Heck, take a 2k army from today, and import it into the 10th framework.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Maybe, 40k used to do that in 4th ed.
Warbosses could take Nobs as troops, for example.

Maybe Necrons will finally get Battleline Canoptek or Destroyers then to go with Cryptek armies and Destroyer cults respectively.

I don't see why 10th ed wouldn't have that. That was the point of Unbound, and when GW "reined" it back in, we got the specialist detachments that don't need Troops to facilitate the same thing. Arks of Omen are basically back to Unbound. GW very much likes for people to have the option to buy the models they want without any restrictions create the army of their dreams with no regard for how it affects the game. I have my doubts that this design brief is going away again. It's too profitable.

tneva82 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

I don't think the consolidation might be on the datasheet side, but rather the detachment side. We see this in AoS quite a bit, where a Warscroll Battalion lets you put 0-3 of <Insert Keyword Here> Heroes or 3-6 <Insert Unit Keyword in Bold Here> when it's a unit with multiple options(Vanguard-Raptors for Stormcast Eternals, for example).

IE:
A Space Marine Pew Pew Detachment can take up to 0-3 Redemptor Dreadnoughts of any type.

A) units don't have to be in detachment in aos
B) not really all that specific. Hero, artillery, monster, hero with max 9 wounds, rest is standard. Some army specific like khorne mortal hero.

No battalion fop vanquard raptors for example.

A) They do in 40k.
B) Nope, absolutely specific when you look at book battalions.

Vanguard-Raptors may not have their own battalion, but in the Vanguard Justicar Conclave you're given their name in bold to represent that you can take both variants to meet that criteria.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
That’s cool.

I don't think changing the entire game to "Counts As" is all that cool.

Dudeface wrote:

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:
I fully expect some armies to have their subfactions replaced with detachments based on army concepts that literally no one asked for. Like a detachment for Haarken Wordlclaimer's warband but nothing for Night Lords.

Why get caught up by the name if it's a set of rules that give you what you want? i.e. if "worldtakers" undoubtedly does a load of stuff for jump pack units etc, then you'd just pick it for night lords?

It won't give the rules you want though. It will focus on Haarken, Obliterators and Venomcrawlers because those were the contents of the latest box set they threw together.

My worry right now is they're going to remove all subfaction flavor in the name of balance, and you won't even HAVE like "Iyanden" or "Biel-tan", you'll just have "Swordwind" (aspect warriors) and "Ghost Warriors" (Wraith units) that are completely generic, so it doesn't matter if you have Iyanden or Saim-Hann or your own craftworld, it behaves the same beyond colors.

Wayniac wrote:
My worry right now is they're going to remove all subfaction flavor in the name of balance

Oh, I wouldn't worry too much about GW doing anything in the name of balance...

Wayniac wrote:
and you won't even HAVE like "Iyanden" or "Biel-tan", you'll just have "Swordwind" (aspect warriors) and "Ghost Warriors" (Wraith units) that are completely generic, so it doesn't matter if you have Iyanden or Saim-Hann or your own craftworld, it behaves the same beyond colors.

Just like in 3rd edition, where that was exactly how Codex: Craftworld Eldar worked. And everybody hated that for being too generic. Right? ...right..?

Wayniac wrote:
My worry right now is they're going to remove all subfaction flavor in the name of balance, and you won't even HAVE like "Iyanden" or "Biel-tan", you'll just have "Swordwind" (aspect warriors) and "Ghost Warriors" (Wraith units) that are completely generic, so it doesn't matter if you have Iyanden or Saim-Hann or your own craftworld, it behaves the same beyond colors.

I really don’t see the problem with that?

I mean, certain things being tied to certain colours benefits no-one. All I really need to know is “which army and detachment” when setting up the board. If I now choose to field startlingly neon pink and green Eldar, I don’t risk Sadact McNeckbeard mithering because “acccckkkkkshually, you can’t be Biel Tan because Biel Tan can only be coloured thusly”.

If I want to switch up my detachment game to game? So what?