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.

EightFoldPath wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Again, that was possible before though, maybe at a CP hit, but that composition is nothing new.

The improvement over taking a spearhead other than the CP savings is the extra other slots. A Spearhead was 1~2 HQ, 0~2 Elite, 0~2 Fast Attack. This new detachment is 1~4 HQ, 0~3 Elite, 0~3 Elite characters, 0~3 Fast Attack.

So 9 x LRBT as base, but now you can take 3 TCs instead of just 2 or take 3 units of Sentinels instead of just 2.

Oh I understand this, but the complaint was that guard will no longer have to take troops, when they didn't anyway.

EightFoldPath wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Again, that was possible before though, maybe at a CP hit, but that composition is nothing new.

The improvement over taking a spearhead other than the CP savings is the extra other slots. A Spearhead was 1~2 HQ, 0~2 Elite, 0~2 Fast Attack. This new detachment is 1~4 HQ, 0~3 Elite, 0~3 Elite characters, 0~3 Fast Attack.

So 9 x LRBT as base, but now you can take 3 TCs instead of just 2 or take 3 units of Sentinels instead of just 2.

How much are 9 Lemans and 2 Commanders base? It doesn't matter if they had 10 extra Fast Attack slots if there's no points for Sentinels to begin with.

 Hulksmash wrote:
They aren't going to remove the rule of 3. It's been the greatest balancing tool GW ever ran into since allowing more than 3 of any specific slot.

Obsec is also built into codexes. It's not going anywhere either.

Yes, that's what I mean by "Assuming it's still there"

But how much do you think you could exploit the system.

cody.d. wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
They aren't going to remove the rule of 3. It's been the greatest balancing tool GW ever ran into since allowing more than 3 of any specific slot.

Obsec is also built into codexes. It's not going anywhere either.

Yes, that's what I mean by "Assuming it's still there"

But how much do you think you could exploit the system.

I don't think anyone can answer that really, it's basically the exact same crappy meta lists as now, but with more cp to spend or 100-200 points of troops cut.

The biggest benefactors of this are likely the lone LoW lists, stompas, monoliths etc. Get to turn up and not be dead weight.

 Ravajaxe wrote:

cody.d. wrote:
Okay, so what's the worst/most powerful thing you reckon you can do with this FOC? Assuming the rule of 3 and obsec are still a thing in this tourney pack. Though they very well could be for all I know.

We will lend to getting rid of weak troops and will take only the best killy / resilient / (both) from our codex, and at no cost.

For Astra Militarum, spam the Leman Russes and sentinels, with the "armoured superiority" regiment trait, to count them as 5 or 3 models respectively, on objectives. Then add some Bullgryns and/or rough riders for melee punch. Take 3 commissars (elite characters new slot) to give the order "count as objective secured" on sentinels, bullgryns or cavalry when needed. No need for infantry squads.

Does this looks as a fluffy Imperial Guard army ? No. But it will work.

I'm not sure if that's broken, powerful perhaps but with weaknesses and shortcomings. And as mentioned you just had to exchange a few command points for the privilege. But that leaves you with less stratagems you can use due to unit variety, thus less CP you can and need to use in an given turn. So is it really that much of a cost?

My thoughts are, this FOC isn't really much of a change. Just GW lumping it all together and saying, eh, do whatever. Feels kinda lazy.

HH Rites of war feel more fun, buuuuuut way harder to balance with asymmetrical armies of course.

I quite like this, people already take what they want regardless by juggling detachments, and there is now potentially an actual reason to consider super heavies outside of knights (presumably in Arks of Omen detachment and not a SHA = actually gets army rules).

Only complaints from me are that the transport rule is still dumb, and the new battle brothers could have been about a sentence or two longer to allow any army to take an allies detachment that shares appropriate keywords (i.e. Goff Orks could bring Evil Sunz buddies along) instead of the usual soup poster boys only.

 whembly wrote:

KillerAngel wrote:
I'm a bit confused. The three elite slots for characters is nice on the surface, but haven't pretty much all elite characters been given a slot-exemption if certain (lore-based) conditions are met? So now I can take three Datasmiths without Kestelans, or three Commissars without Command Squads, and suffer no real ill effects? I don't know all the factions that well, but I can only think of a handful of situations this helps with (Tau marksmen, some of the Ork characters, maybe some Spez Marns?). Seems that every elite character should have just been written with a lore/balance based exemption to begin with so it's not a free-for-all.

DeathGuard's Elite Characters don't get that "slot exemption".

This will help DeathGuard lists, as it would be easier to maximize Deathshrouds and Blightlords.

? You get the Foetid Virion. You get 3 elite characters per slot.

 Kanluwen wrote:
This stuff is basically designed for Matched Play. Y'know, that spot where everything is totes balanced?

No one's claiming that, but nice try, Mr. Power Levels.

 Insularum wrote:
I quite like this, people already take what they want regardless by juggling detachments, and there is now potentially an actual reason to consider super heavies outside of knights (presumably in Arks of Omen detachment and not a SHA = actually gets army rules).

Only complaints from me are that the transport rule is still dumb, and the new battle brothers could have been about a sentence or two longer to allow any army to take an allies detachment that shares appropriate keywords (i.e. Goff Orks could bring Evil Sunz buddies along) instead of the usual soup poster boys only.

To be fair, we don't know that the Transport rule as is will stay. They might remove it as there have been lots of complaints about it.

That said with every step forward GW takes like 7 steps back.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sasori wrote:

 whembly wrote:

KillerAngel wrote:
I'm a bit confused. The three elite slots for characters is nice on the surface, but haven't pretty much all elite characters been given a slot-exemption if certain (lore-based) conditions are met? So now I can take three Datasmiths without Kestelans, or three Commissars without Command Squads, and suffer no real ill effects? I don't know all the factions that well, but I can only think of a handful of situations this helps with (Tau marksmen, some of the Ork characters, maybe some Spez Marns?). Seems that every elite character should have just been written with a lore/balance based exemption to begin with so it's not a free-for-all.

DeathGuard's Elite Characters don't get that "slot exemption".

This will help DeathGuard lists, as it would be easier to maximize Deathshrouds and Blightlords.

? You get the Foetid Virion. You get 3 elite characters per slot.

And now it's largely unnecessary, which is a good thing.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
To be fair, we don't know that the Transport rule as is will stay. They might remove it as there have been lots of complaints about it.

The transport limitation is printed right on the detachment sheet.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
To be fair, we don't know that the Transport rule as is will stay. They might remove it as there have been lots of complaints about it.

That said with every step forward GW takes like 7 steps back.

It does say in the article quite a way down (after the heroic support strat) that there is some carry over from Nephilim, including CP generation and transports must be occupied at start. I'm totally indifferent to what the CP magic meter settings are, but mandatory fluff on how to play transports is dumb - especially for armies whose only/best vehicles are DT's.

I feel like this new force org is edging into giving too much freedom. Without restrictions being meaningful people don't have to make hard choices. And while hard choices are, well, hard, they add depth to gameplay. Too many is bad, too few makes the game feel more shallow and lacking any rules.

So they made a new FOC.

In some ways, they wrote MORE rules to give you MORE freedom... which seems a little silly, but that's what we've ended up with.

Allied detachments will be specific based on faction, now, which is interesting. And they'll have extra rules for weird armies like Drukhari and Dark Angels that don't fit the normal bill.

Whatever restrictions there were before have been heavily eased or straight up removed. As a Night Lord player, I can now have 3 squads of Possessed AND 3 helbrutes AND still have enough room for a master of executions.

You do still have to be a little choosy, because, for example, if I do the above, I can still only take 3 venomcrawlers but can't fit extra squads of raptors in there. So there's still a tiny bit of limit, but... well, not paying command points to take heavy elite-related stuff, not having to pay troop taxes, etc...

I guess we'll see what this new command point system is. I'm all for more freedom for building your army, but I find it hilarious that it feels like there's more paragraphs of rules that ultimately say 'take more of what you want!'

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I feel like this new force org is edging into giving too much freedom. Without restrictions being meaningful people don't have to make hard choices. And while hard choices are, well, hard, they add depth to gameplay. Too many is bad, too few makes the game feel more shallow and lacking any rules.

People don't really have to make hard choices now, outside of Nephilim artificially strangling your CP reserve (something that 9th Ed changed at the start, touted as a big deal as we'd have more CP... can GW limit themselves to maybe just two horse changes per race please?).

As soon as you could just bring the "All the Heavy Support" detachment as well as the normal one, or even instead of the normal one, the FOC has been pointless.

This new FOC, which is equally as stupid, at least cuts out the middle man and will get rid of all the 3x patrol armies out there that are maximising limited HQs/warlord traits/relics and whatnot. I genuinely like it, even if it is yet another complete abdication of rules writing responsibility on the part of the 40k team. It's dumb, but it's not "Lasguns wound Warlord Titans on 6's To Hit" dumb.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I feel like this new force org is edging into giving too much freedom. Without restrictions being meaningful people don't have to make hard choices. And while hard choices are, well, hard, they add depth to gameplay. Too many is bad, too few makes the game feel more shallow and lacking any rules.

People don't really have to make hard choices now, outside of Nephilim artificially strangling your CP reserve (something that 9th Ed changed at the start, touted as a big deal as we'd have more CP... can GW limit themselves to maybe just two horse changes per race please?).

As soon as you could just bring the "All the Heavy Support" detachment as well as the normal one, or even instead of the normal one, the FOC has been pointless.

This new FOC, which is equally as stupid, at least cuts out the middle man and will get rid of all the 3x patrol armies out there that are maximising limited HQs/warlord traits/relics and whatnot. I genuinely like it, even if it is yet another complete abdication of rules writing responsibility on the part of the 40k team. It's dumb, but it's not "Lasguns wound Warlord Titans on 6's To Hit" dumb.

I don't see it as -dumb- perse... It's more like... this would have been nice to start 9th with. Now, it feels like a test-bed for 10th, but considering 10th has already been written, it's more like they're trying to get us adjusted to whatever's coming next.

It feels less dumb and more... disingenuous. GW has been giving and taking these weird add-ons that you don't buy models for... CP, subfaction rules, FOC, allies, stratagems, warlord traits and relics... they're trying to find a balance between all these things that arent represented on models, but at the end of the day all we want are just ways to play with the models we want to play with. You don't need CP or specific traits or relics for that. You just need the freedom to play with your models.

It's like GW is installing this really obtuse middle-man between purchasing the plastic and playing with the plastic, and that middle-man has been getting really fat and obnoxious of late.

I think it's the push and pull of GW's desire to innovate and advance the game vs their obsession with secrecy.

I agree with you in that I believe 10th is already done... so why nkt tell us? Why not do what so many other companies do and do a beta test of the new rules. You could even make it a paid beta, if GW has to wring some extra cash out of it.

They spend all this time and effort patching patches and writing new exceptions to exceptions, and occassionalky throwing their hands up and giving up (AOC, HOTE, this new FOC)... well why not make use of your passionate and expansive customer base for something other than just more sales?

Just baffling...

This does give more freedom in list building, but the swing is massive from the start of 9th. We've gone from 1 LoW for 3CP, to 1 LoW for 1CP if it's from the same faction as your warlord, to up to 3 LoWs for "free" and they can be your Compulsory choice? This really feels like the rules writing team just throwing their hands in the air and saying "Yeah whatever. Do what you want", while waiting for 10th and letting 9th burn on the way out.

I actually really like this. I might actually consider using a 'naut or two in my ork armies. The cp tax was just too much before. I will have to look into this.

I consider this thought a huge win for GW. So many people will consider making creative lists with the limitations relaxed.

I have to say this Ark of Omen Detachment is a very interesting hybrid of multiple detachments. It allows lots of freedom and encompasses many different army types, but is actually more limiting than most 2 detachment options y you can pick out of the rulebook. It removes the need for picking a Fortification Detachment, but otherwise look at some comparisons:

Battalion + Vanguard/Spearhead/Outrider: You get the same number of Troops slots (or more if you use that as your compulsory choice), but you actually get less HQ, Elites (and some must be Characters), Fast Attack, and Heavy Support units. You do get the option of same non-super faction Lord of Wars with full sub-faction benefits, which is very nice.

Combination of two different detachments between Vanguard, Spearhead, and Outrider: Strictly worst unless you only wanted 3 of the core unit from the second detachment. But then, you might has well have used a Patrol instead unless you are mixing subsections (non-Nephilim restrictions).

Super-Heavy plus Super-Heavy Auxiliary: I got your 6 Lords of War in one detachment instead of 2. All is good, with a side of Fortifications if you want them. Will work great for Chaos/Imperial Knights.

So as much as this opens up some freedom, it it still somewhat restrictive. Will be interesting to see how people adjust their list as opposed to building armies with ludicrous amounts of one unit type (like stupid amounts of Elites).

I don't mind so much the removal of compulsory troops choices, because many if not most factions have garbage troops, ObSec be damned. Like, seriously, what troops in the game are good? Tyranid Warriors obviously are, and personally I think the Votann troops are solid but not amazing, but for most other armies they are just a tax you pay in order to fill out your detachment with as much of the actually good stuff as possible.

I do think we are in for a wild six months of skew lists, the return of soup (although since it kills your faction purity bonuses it probably won't be like early 8th or anything) and generally more LoWs in the game.

Dudeface wrote:

 Ravajaxe wrote:

cody.d. wrote:
Okay, so what's the worst/most powerful thing you reckon you can do with this FOC? Assuming the rule of 3 and obsec are still a thing in this tourney pack. Though they very well could be for all I know.

We will lend to getting rid of weak troops and will take only the best killy / resilient / (both) from our codex, and at no cost.

For Astra Militarum, spam the Leman Russes and sentinels, with the "armoured superiority" regiment trait, to count them as 5 or 3 models respectively, on objectives. Then add some Bullgryns and/or rough riders for melee punch. Take 3 commissars (elite characters new slot) to give the order "count as objective secured" on sentinels, bullgryns or cavalry when needed. No need for infantry squads.

Does this looks as a fluffy Imperial Guard army ? No. But it will work.

Again, that was possible before though, maybe at a CP hit, but that composition is nothing new.

But there was at least tradeoff.

Balance has taken a dive to worse unless new secondaries/scenarios eencourage troops


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insularum wrote:
I quite like this, people already take what they want regardless by juggling detachments, and there is now potentially an actual reason to consider super heavies outside of knights (presumably in Arks of Omen detachment and not a SHA = actually gets army rules).

Only complaints from me are that the transport rule is still dumb, and the new battle brothers could have been about a sentence or two longer to allow any army to take an allies detachment that shares appropriate keywords (i.e. Goff Orks could bring Evil Sunz buddies along) instead of the usual soup poster boys only.

So you know already full battle brother combinations? Care to share? As gw only gave partial list.

 alextroy wrote:
I have to say this Ark of Omen Detachment is a very interesting hybrid of multiple detachments. It allows lots of freedom and encompasses many different army types, but is actually more limiting than most 2 detachment options y you can pick out of the rulebook. It removes the need for picking a Fortification Detachment, but otherwise look at some comparisons:

Battalion + Vanguard/Spearhead/Outrider: You get the same number of Troops slots (or more if you use that as your compulsory choice), but you actually get less HQ, Elites (and some must be Characters), Fast Attack, and Heavy Support units. You do get the option of same non-super faction Lord of Wars with full sub-faction benefits, which is very nice.

Combination of two different detachments between Vanguard, Spearhead, and Outrider: Strictly worst unless you only wanted 3 of the core unit from the second detachment. But then, you might has well have used a Patrol instead unless you are mixing subsections (non-Nephilim restrictions).

Super-Heavy plus Super-Heavy Auxiliary: I got your 6 Lords of War in one detachment instead of 2. All is good, with a side of Fortifications if you want them. Will work great for Chaos/Imperial Knights.

So as much as this opens up some freedom, it it still somewhat restrictive. Will be interesting to see how people adjust their list as opposed to building armies with ludicrous amounts of one unit type (like stupid amounts of Elites).

Assuming you have the points to fill out some of those options. Taking, say, an Outrider and a Vanguard gives you 6 fast attack and 6 elite, but... most factions will struggle to fill those to capacity, especially since you'll still get a few slots of each of those in the opposing detachment.

I'm sure Guard players will have a field day, since many of their units are cheap enough that they can make the most out of any of these combinations.

 ZergSmasher wrote:
I don't mind so much the removal of compulsory troops choices, because many if not most factions have garbage troops, ObSec be damned. Like, seriously, what troops in the game are good?

Necron Warriors & Immortals
Gretchin,
Votann,
Tyranid Warriors
Imperial Guard,
Drukahi wyches & wracks (I don't use them, but there's an awful lot of DE players who swear by these things....)
*Spindel Drones (a Legends unit from Blackstone Fortress & the only Unaligned TROOP choice in the game. And at only 3PL is often the cheapest option for filling the required Troop slot in initial Crusade game Patrols for many forces. If you can't see how that's good....)
Deamons
etc etc etc

Of course, in order to tell if a troop (or any other) unit is any good, you have to be able to identify what you intend it to do with it. And then do it.
For ex: My Grots? They're invaluable to my Gretchin themed force. They're the units scoring me the majority of my VPs. The rest of the force? The Grot tanks, all the Gunz, & the Kanz? Those are the fighting units.
The foot grots score the pts & chip in as they can/as needed otherwise. Are they comperable to a tyranid warrior in any way? Nope. Not even close. But they do a damned fine job at getting me those VP. And doing actions the other units can't.
Now were I to send them out to act as my front line combat units? They'd fail miserably (most of the time).

Actually those additional troopslots will come in handy for GSC. But then againt the troops are pretty much the star of a GSC force.

The game needs more restrictions in army building, not fewer. The extra Elites slots for characters is a great example of how stupid this is. This really does feel like GW just giving up. They've even backtracked on the 1 per detachment because of how this new one works. The old system was getting a little bit complex, but at least there were tradeoffs and some attempt at restrictions. Now it just feels like a free for all.

I don't understand why so many people are getting their knickers in a twist over these FOC changes. We all know GW like to break/OP their games in the final few months before a new edition. Allow folks to play with everything they own, however they like, no matter how OP. We all know that in 6 months it's all in the bin and we'll be greeted with "the bestest edition evar", ready to start the new 3 year cycle of churn and burn.

The only surprising thing, is that people are surprised.

Slipspace wrote:
The game needs more restrictions in army building, not fewer. The extra Elites slots for characters is a great example of how stupid this is. This really does feel like GW just giving up. They've even backtracked on the 1 per detachment because of how this new one works. The old system was getting a little bit complex, but at least there were tradeoffs and some attempt at restrictions. Now it just feels like a free for all.

I feel its born of most factions not taking anything other than patrols or battalions just for CP purposes. You get all of the same slot options from the other detachment types, don't spend the CP, and you can take a second hive tyrant, warboss, etc without needing to muck about with detachments.

It's a simpler and easier version of what we're already doing, I don't see anything being broken by it.

Then you need to look harder and think more than 5 seconds

tneva82 wrote:
Then you need to look harder and think more than 5 seconds

Please provide an example of a broken list this FOC provides that the existing structure isn't currently capable of. Hint, you won't find one, you'll just find they have 3cp more, or maybe 100 points spent differently.

It opens up what were previously Vanguard or Outrider detachment based armies to have a 7 CP first turn alpha strike (where the 7 CP is spent on a combo of traits, relics and first turn strategems).

No CP tax, no points tax, just bring exactly 2,000 points of killer with no filler.