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.

Personally I'll take unit variety over loadout variety any day, much as I'd much rather a game have a variety of viable factions see play over a few that dominate no matter what build they take.

I do think part of the current challenge is a result of something 10th has done really well, which is give units themselves much stronger purposes for taking altogether. It means that often instead of swapping guns in a unit, you're probably going to just take a different unit.

It's also a bit of an issue with the desire to keep weapons consistent across units, which is why the most successful build varieties seem to be from things like Inceptors that have unique variants of common weapon types. Gladiators are probably the big example of weapon swaps working simply because they just treat it as a new datasheet.

I think my main issue with points is they don't really solve these core issues. They feel good on principle, but in practice they make lists really sterile. It is more punishing to pay extra for stuff that isn't worth it than to take a subpar option that costs the same and that makes flushing extras out of lists far more of an advantage than making sure you have the best option wherever possible.

I do think a lot of the options in 10th are on the right track, but GW clearly overvalued some things like 1 extra attack on a model that makes 6 vs making every existing attack more reliable. I think there's a lot of potential to design weapons that feel more distinct now than ever and I really hope we see GW take another crack at things that for various reasons just did not work as designed in 10th.

 Tawnis wrote:

That being said, I'm sure that there will be something imbalanced at launch, GW has a proven track record of that as well, I just don't think it's going to be anything near as broad as shooting is OP, or melee is OP (I've heard both about this edition from many people.) If something does come out OP at launch it will likely be a specific army taking advantage of a new tweak in an unexpected way and get nerfed around as quickly as 10th edition Aeldari did at launch.

If only there was some kind of rules development process that would involve the player base and result in better balance.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
the standard-issue freebie upgrades, and a plasma pistol and power weapon or power fist on every officer. Despite these units still retaining a decent number of options, the outcome is cookie-cutter to a degree that has not always been the case.

People will read "it was cookie cutter before too" but in support of catbarf I have to stress that before there were mitigating factors.

If loading your unit up with expensive gear was the meta choice but your unit was naked, your unit was suboptimal, but at least it's cheap.

If running your unit barebones was the meta choice, and you loaded up with expensive gear, your unit was suboptimal, but at least you did get some fancy toys for your points even if they're not top efficiency.

This resulted in a dampening effect on worst-case scenarios, which opens up more options for casual players to do things "a bit wrong" for thematic reasons without completely torpedoing themselves in the process. It also was much more new-player friendly, as it wasn't -catastrophic- no matter how you built the unit; you always had at least a consolation prize, even if you built your unit for aesthetics without knowing what the meta loadout is.

Contrast with the current situation. If loading up your unit with expensive gear is the meta choice but your unit is naked, your unit is not only weak, it's also much more expensive than it used to be, which is ruinous.

If running your unit barebones would have been the meta choice, it now doesn't matter, the unit has its points baked in, so you are paying for that expensive gear regardless (often leading to a unit that's terrible on a full datasheet level).

Yep. Agree with all that. And anecdotally, I was one of those people who liked to put extra toys on some of their units even when more boys were better and vice versa. I had sybarites that I'd give power swords to because it was fun to watch them actually have a chance in melee and occassionally pull off something unexpected. I could fluff those guys as being trueborn who had been sent to prove themselves among the rabble after they'd managed to embarrass their superiors. Or I had a squad of bare bones kabalites without so much as a blaster to their name. I used identical models for each of them and painted them up with graying hair. I called them "the withered vine", and their fluff was that they were the result of a batch of vat-born that hadn't mixed properly and functionally made a bunch of genetic duplicates instead of variety of different genomes. They were given the worst gear, tasked with the most gak jobs, and were kind of keeping eachother alive out of sheer spite for the way others treated them.

Again, nota massive impact to the win percentages of my games, but it let me project some personality (and lore) onto my units without feeling like I was just leaving free money (points) on the table. If I ran the withered vine today, it would feel like I was essentially paying twice as much as the unit was actually worth, and I'd be slightly bitter if I thought I'd lost the game as a result.

Of course it is only a short step from 'one obvious equipment choice' to having simplified profiles for squads and then the rules can start to match the model density...

The_Real_Chris wrote:

 Tawnis wrote:

That being said, I'm sure that there will be something imbalanced at launch, GW has a proven track record of that as well, I just don't think it's going to be anything near as broad as shooting is OP, or melee is OP (I've heard both about this edition from many people.) If something does come out OP at launch it will likely be a specific army taking advantage of a new tweak in an unexpected way and get nerfed around as quickly as 10th edition Aeldari did at launch.

If only there was some kind of rules development process that would involve the player base and result in better balance.

Yeah.... you don't want this. You really, really don't want this.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Of course it is only a short step from 'one obvious equipment choice' to having simplified profiles for squads and then the rules can start to match the model density...

I think GW has painted themselves into a corner here, because on the one hand it makes total sense to abstract things in this way with how big battles can get, but on the other hand GW is a miniatures company first, they want the power swords and power fists and thunder hammers and lightning claws to feel like all those things, because that is ultimately what they're selling to you, much more so than the rules.

Napoleonics can abstract stuff as much as they want, they don't care, equipment options aren't that big deal in such a setting and miniatures tend to be straightforward to match. Warhammer miniatures, in comparison, are extremely elaborate, and GW is no doubt painfully aware that the models are why GW is successful - it's not their rules writing skills that have blazed a path through the wargame medium, to put it mildly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:
If only there was some kind of rules development process that would involve the player base and result in better balance.

Yeah.... you don't want this. You really, really don't want this.

I think they mean playtesting. Which GW used to do, with more than just the handful of actual rules writers, but they stopped doing it because it resulted in relentless leaks.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
the standard-issue freebie upgrades, and a plasma pistol and power weapon or power fist on every officer. Despite these units still retaining a decent number of options, the outcome is cookie-cutter to a degree that has not always been the case.

People will read "it was cookie cutter before too" but in support of catbarf I have to stress that before there were mitigating factors.

If loading your unit up with expensive gear was the meta choice but your unit was naked, your unit was suboptimal, but at least it's cheap.

If running your unit barebones was the meta choice, and you loaded up with expensive gear, your unit was suboptimal, but at least you did get some fancy toys for your points even if they're not top efficiency.

This resulted in a dampening effect on worst-case scenarios, which opens up more options for casual players to do things "a bit wrong" for thematic reasons without completely torpedoing themselves in the process. It also was much more new-player friendly, as it wasn't -catastrophic- no matter how you built the unit; you always had at least a consolation prize, even if you built your unit for aesthetics without knowing what the meta loadout is.

Contrast with the current situation. If loading up your unit with expensive gear is the meta choice but your unit is naked, your unit is not only weak, it's also much more expensive than it used to be, which is ruinous.

If running your unit barebones would have been the meta choice, it now doesn't matter, the unit has its points baked in, so you are paying for that expensive gear regardless (often leading to a unit that's terrible on a full datasheet level).

I miss 8th Edition Imperial Guard. Especially during the brief period when GW actually put effort into balancing wargear prices. Before they just threw all of it in the bin in 9th. And then released an IG codex that more closely resembled something normally found below a squatting dog.

I made an infantry army where the officers (3-4 Company Commanders, a Lord Commissar, 1-2 Tempestor Primes, a Primaris Psyker etc.) had different wargear options. I also took various artefacts seen as weak/bad (like the relic swords) to give them extra flavour. Really made them feel like distinct characters.

Alas, I was clearly having fun wrong. Thank goodness GW has set me right on both counts.

I miss relics so Gork damn much, man.

I converted and did special paintjobs for my Chaos Knights relics. I painted a glowing magma claw for my Gauntlet of Ascension, a similar incandescent head for the Helm of Dogs, and gave my Warp-Borne Stalker a pair of wings kitbashed from a Hive Tyrant to hint at its increased mobility.

All gone now. That sort of thing just sucks the fun and character out of it all.

 Ashiraya wrote:
I miss relics so Gork damn much, man.

There still are relics? They renamed them into enhancements.

During the codex updates they swapped which ones were available but that is pretty standard. You can still model the enhancements onto models too.

LunarSol wrote:I think my main issue with points is they don't really solve these core issues. They feel good on principle, but in practice they make lists really sterile. It is more punishing to pay extra for stuff that isn't worth it than to take a subpar option that costs the same and that makes flushing extras out of lists far more of an advantage than making sure you have the best option wherever possible.

I do think a lot of the options in 10th are on the right track, but GW clearly overvalued some things like 1 extra attack on a model that makes 6 vs making every existing attack more reliable. I think there's a lot of potential to design weapons that feel more distinct now than ever and I really hope we see GW take another crack at things that for various reasons just did not work as designed in 10th.

I actually agree with this in general. Points are not a substitute for design, or capable of solving design issues. Having a choice between two weapons that do different things is better than having two that do the same thing but one is better and the other is cheaper. If you have two units that do the same thing, the most likely outcome is that whichever is more efficient is the only one that sees play.

As you mentioned one of the best things GW has done with 10th is give units individual identity, and I like that in many cases they've tried to reframe wargear options as role-based sidegrades. On the whole the game is more interesting, better balanced, and more fitting to the lore for having armies go into battle with their doctrinal allotment of special and heavy weapons rather than a bunch of naked bodies to hold objectives.

Still, there are edge cases where options are not equivalent in utility, and cannot easily be made equivalent without more design effort than assigning an in-the-ballpark points value. I don't care about 1pt power swords and bolt pistols, but if GW can put a price on a single Ripper Swarm or minor enhancement, they can absolutely assign a number to a pair of plasma cannon sponsons for a Leman Russ.

 the Signless wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
I miss relics so Gork damn much, man.

There still are relics? They renamed them into enhancements.

During the codex updates they swapped which ones were available but that is pretty standard. You can still model the enhancements onto models too.

It wasn't just a renaming, though. There are whole classes of artefacts that no longer exist.

Take Imperial Guard - the 8th edition book had at least three different relic swords.

Please name one relic sword Enhancement available to IG in 10th.

Yep, that. And also the points upgrades, like aforementioned Warp-Borne Stalker. Favours of the Dark Gods added a crucial element of depth to listbuilding, to compensate for the naturally thin roster Chaos Knights have. Without them the faction just isn't as interesting.

 LunarSol wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:

 Tawnis wrote:

That being said, I'm sure that there will be something imbalanced at launch, GW has a proven track record of that as well, I just don't think it's going to be anything near as broad as shooting is OP, or melee is OP (I've heard both about this edition from many people.) If something does come out OP at launch it will likely be a specific army taking advantage of a new tweak in an unexpected way and get nerfed around as quickly as 10th edition Aeldari did at launch.

If only there was some kind of rules development process that would involve the player base and result in better balance.

Yeah.... you don't want this. You really, really don't want this.

Yeah, I'm with LunarSol on this. Ask 100 people on the internet what's imbalanced in a game, you'll get 20 different answers and 50 different ways to "fix" the problem. Also, who, aside from those whose full time job it is, has time to test all the matchups and various conditions armies could be played in.

GW is far from perfect but their ability to balance a game with so many variations and moving parts anywhere near as well as they do does not get the respect it deserves. If every faction had a win rate between 60-40 that is still very good and would be a healthy place to be at, but we often get even better these days. (As a reminder, Chess a game with 2 identical forces and perfect information, has a 52.5-47.5 balance strictly because of its one single variable, first turn advantage.)

Looking at the detachment points for my eldar, the 3DP detachments definitely feel like they got screwed over. Warhost was generally considered pretty mid too. It would have benefitted greatly from being 2DP so that you could combine it with something else to give your army a boost. Still paying for the sins of being good prior to the quadrouple nerf it took a few months ago, I guess.

It does put me in an awkward spot as I tend to play a lot of 1k games. I imagine we'll probably end up house ruling that 3DP detachments count as 2DP at lower points, but if not, I'll have to choose a 2DP detachment to commit to. Which is tricky for my eldar because none of the 2DP detachments are really "generic." The closest thing to that is probably either one of the corsair detachments (where I'd ignore all the enhancements and half the benefits because I don't have a lot of pirate units in my collection) or the seer council (which means starting every list with a few hundred points of psykers in order to use any of the detachment benefits.)

My tyranids are in a similar boat. I lost the ability to play invasion fleet as my default detachment in smaller games. Fortunately, my collection lends itself moderately well to a 1k vanguard list.

My drukhari were mostly unaffected. Reaper's Wager *is* my go-to detachment (I play PT, so the harlequin teamup is fluffy), but I can still play my cartel or a cult list at lower points and be fine.

My marines came out ahead (shocking). I mostly play Shadowmark Talon, so I basically just gained the ability to make my phobos or psyker units more powerful in larger games without needing to change my list.

EDIT: Definitely feels like we have some winners and losers right out the gate.

Just took a glance at the DE faction pack.

I see GW are still turning over Enhancement design to people whose imagination leaked out of their ears long ago.

"So what Enhancement should we give to a Succubus?"

"Uh... um.... well... um... maybe we could... uh... you know... we could... give her... uh... the thing? You know... um... the thingy thing?"

"Come on, we can do this! We need to give her something cool. Something that reflects her being a seasoned pit-fighter. We can't just cop out and give her something crap like plus one toughness-"

"Right! Plus one toughness! That's exactly what I was going to say."

"What? That's terrible. She used to get that just with Combat Drugs."

"See - we've even got precedent for it. Plus it's almost lunch time."

"Good point. Plus one toughness it is."

 vipoid wrote:
Just took a glance at the DE faction pack.

I see GW are still turning over Enhancement design to people whose imagination leaked out of their ears long ago.

"So what Enhancement should we give to a Succubus?"

"Uh... um.... well... um... maybe we could... uh... you know... we could... give her... uh... the thing? You know... um... the thingy thing?"

"Come on, we can do this! We need to give her something cool. Something that reflects her being a seasoned pit-fighter. We can't just cop out and give her something crap like plus one toughness-"

"Right! Plus one toughness! That's exactly what I was going to say."

"What? That's terrible. She used to get that just with Combat Drugs."

"See - we've even got precedent for it. Plus it's almost lunch time."

"Good point. Plus one toughness it is."

lol. On the plus side, the DP costs do make it more inviting to mix your subfactions together at higher points. You can take cartel or spectacle as your main detachment, then still sprinkle in a 1DP coven or cult detachment so that members of other subfactions are getting something.

But yeah, there's a tragic lack of flavor behind most of the new strats and enhancements that is indicative of what I was really tired of in 10th.

"This detachment gives lethal hits to your wyches!"
"'Kay."
"But not against vehicles though..."
"'Kay."
"Unless you spend 1CP to let a single squad have lethal hits against vehicles!"
"'Kay..."

Meanwhile in 9th edition:
"So after your succubus gets killed, it triggers this booby trap she had rigged inside her own body that makes her skeleton erupt into a bunch of spiked growths, skewering her killer."

Meanwhile in older editions:
"So then you can plop down a persistent webway portal, reshaping the battlefield, and allowing your units to enter from reserves from a new angle, dramatically changing what unit loadouts are viable and forcing your opponent to think on their feet!"

I'm definitely not wowed by the initial design of the detachment system. That may change with the codex releases, but currently it just feels like 3 DP is stuff you should play and 2 DP is stuff no one touches with the hope one of the 1 DP options makes them viable. There's definitely nothing about the system that feels like it takes advantage of the design space yet.

Also, Deathwatch being locked to 2000 points is irritating.

 LunarSol wrote:
I'm definitely not wowed by the initial design of the detachment system. That may change with the codex releases, but currently it just feels like 3 DP is stuff you should play and 2 DP is stuff no one touches with the hope one of the 1 DP options makes them viable. There's definitely nothing about the system that feels like it takes advantage of the design space yet.

Also, Deathwatch being locked to 2000 points is irritating.

...If I'm reading the detachment rules correctly (which I may not be) none of them actually restrict what units you can take in them, beyond subfaction keyword? So you can still take Deathwatch with one of the generic 2p detachments at 1,000pts? Sure, no SIA that way, but nobody else gets their cool Chapter-specific stuff at 2 detachment points either?

I'm probably just being thick but where does it say how many DP a given detachment costs?

 vipoid wrote:
I'm probably just being thick but where does it say how many DP a given detachment costs?

Only place I've seen is the WC article announcing the download for SM. No idea if they're planning on putting that info somewhere usable at some point.

 LunarSol wrote:
I'm definitely not wowed by the initial design of the detachment system. That may change with the codex releases, but currently it just feels like 3 DP is stuff you should play and 2 DP is stuff no one touches with the hope one of the 1 DP options makes them viable. There's definitely nothing about the system that feels like it takes advantage of the design space yet.

Also, Deathwatch being locked to 2000 points is irritating.

There seems to be three reasons behind getting hit with 3DP in what I can gleam from what we've got so far.

1. Generalist detachments that effect everything are getting hit. At the moment, it seems more of a philosophy than anything else, but the ones that effect the entire army with no restrictions have generally been quite powerful. War Horde, War Host, Mont'Ka, Invasion Fleet, Gladius, Awakened Dynasty, ect. I think that these are the most likely ones that could get dropped down to 2DP in the future after people get a better feel for 11th and it's more clear that not all of them are powerhouses on their own.

2. Detachments that look to have problematic interactions with combinations that limit design space: Stormlance Task Force, Liberator Assault Group, ect. (Mostly in Space Marines where they have to work around so many more 1DP detachments.)

3. Detachments that are seen as powerful enough right now that they don't to risk breaking with more bolt on rules: Subterranean Assault, Blade of Ultrammar, Aspect Host, Canoptek Court, ect.

As for Deathwatch, there may be another way to run them in 1k games via Imperial Agents once we get the info for that. I think the SM one is meant as the large scale version. Time will tell there.

 Tawnis wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
I'm definitely not wowed by the initial design of the detachment system. That may change with the codex releases, but currently it just feels like 3 DP is stuff you should play and 2 DP is stuff no one touches with the hope one of the 1 DP options makes them viable. There's definitely nothing about the system that feels like it takes advantage of the design space yet.

Also, Deathwatch being locked to 2000 points is irritating.

There seems to be three reasons behind getting hit with 3DP in what I can gleam from what we've got so far.

1. Generalist detachments that effect everything are getting hit. At the moment, it seems more of a philosophy than anything else, but the ones that effect the entire army with no restrictions have generally been quite powerful. War Horde, War Host, Mont'Ka, Invasion Fleet, Gladius, Awakened Dynasty, ect. I think that these are the most likely ones that could get dropped down to 2DP in the future after people get a better feel for 11th and it's more clear that not all of them are powerhouses on their own.

2. Detachments that look to have problematic interactions with combinations that limit design space: Outrider Task Force, Liberator Assault Group, ect. (Mostly in Space Marines where they have to work around so many more 1DP detachments.)

3. Detachments that are seen as powerful enough right now that they don't to risk breaking with more bolt on rules: Subterranean Assault, Blade of Ultrammar, Aspect Host, Canoptek Court, ect.

As for Deathwatch, there may be another way to run them in 1k games via Imperial Agents once we get the info for that. I think the SM one is meant as the large scale version. Time will tell there.

1. It definitely seems to be more of a philosophy/vibes thing than anything else. Warhost for eldar has been considered pretty bad since the nerfing a few months ago where they took away our re-embarkation tricks. So it feels like they just slapped 3DP on it because "it's the generic one." Which is a shame, because mixing something like Warhost with a 1DP detachment could be a decent way to help resurrect it.

2. See, that would make sense, but Ynnari are a 2DP detachment right now. Maybe the 1DP detachments for eldar are just mediocre enough right now that they're not worried about it? But I'd have guessed that Devoted of Ynnead was going to end up being 3DP purely for the extra complexity that comes with mixing in the drukhari units.

3. This does seem to be the case for a few of them. Reaper's Wager for drukhari is probably 3DP for this reason. I'd question whether aspect host is *actually* still all that good at the moment (last time I checked, the win rate was in the low 40s), but I do think that *GW* thinks it's powerful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:
I'm definitely not wowed by the initial design of the detachment system. That may change with the codex releases, but currently it just feels like 3 DP is stuff you should play and 2 DP is stuff no one touches with the hope one of the 1 DP options makes them viable.

I'm worried it might actually be a little worse than that. My understanding is that my Shadowmark Talon detachment (2DP) was already considered pretty good and is now able to add a 1DP detachment on top of what it previously had. So all the benefits I had before, plus a bunch of phobos buffs or the librarius tricks.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
I'm definitely not wowed by the initial design of the detachment system. That may change with the codex releases, but currently it just feels like 3 DP is stuff you should play and 2 DP is stuff no one touches with the hope one of the 1 DP options makes them viable. There's definitely nothing about the system that feels like it takes advantage of the design space yet.

Also, Deathwatch being locked to 2000 points is irritating.

...If I'm reading the detachment rules correctly (which I may not be) none of them actually restrict what units you can take in them, beyond subfaction keyword? So you can still take Deathwatch with one of the generic 2p detachments at 1,000pts? Sure, no SIA that way, but nobody else gets their cool Chapter-specific stuff at 2 detachment points either?

Every other chapter has multiple 2 DP options. Even the special compliant Chapter locked options are all 2 DP except Blades and Ultramarines have Reclamation at 2 DP as another option.

Realise its all kind of mechanical, which isn't going to be popular in Commorragh, but I don't think DE have done too badly.

It might be very "boring" (that was my snap judgement on the faction focus and I stand by it) but the 1 DP choices seem reasonably strong compared with some factions (looking at you CWE).
So taking one in addition to a 2 DP choice feels like a respectable upgrade rather than a token improvement.

For all the mockery having lethal hits against non-Vehicles & Monsters on all Wych Cult melee attacks is pretty good. Wyches get a bazillion attacks so this will add up. Hellions perhaps benefit less due to their boosted S and Lance - but they have a bag of attacks too.
Sustained hits 1 on Kabal & Blades for hire shooting versus non-Vehicle and Monster isn't bad either. Although in practice your priority for these things is going to tend to be vehicles & monsters so its perhaps less good than it could be.

Competitively Spectacle of Spite plus Kabalite Agonysts seems like the thing to do. You'd have to play Purge but if the pros all claim that's the best mission set who cares? Its not that big a boost because your shooting is arguably there as dedicated anti-large, but sometimes you have to hose down bikers or something with darklight. The ability to keep a unit of Scourge hidden after they've just blown something up could also be game winning - so its nice to have the ability in your pocket.

You can take say Realspace Raiders and play anything except Reconnaissance. Or Skysplinter Assault and anything but Priority Assets. Not sure this should really be complimented though - because GW could have just let you play everything.
But it does let you mess about with your friends while keeping bound to the writ of the rules.

Does one of the 1 DP choices help Realspace Raiders get over the line? As people quickly discovered you just generally have enough pain tokens unless your game plan is falling apart. There's no real benefit to sitting there with half a dozen in hand. So as much as I want to say yes I'm not sure it is.
You could take this logic to its extreme and ditch RSR to take all 3 of 1 DP choices instead (although no Priority Assets for you) - and you get Cults with lethal into non-large, you get kabalites and friends with sustained hits into non-large and you get Talos/Cronos with -1 to wound vs higher S. Which isn't a bad set of bonuses across a "balanced" DE army. Not convinced the enhancements are game changers, but if they were cheap there are few useful ones here. The testing would have to be whether the stratagems are good enough.

Eldar by contrast start in a much worse spot and none of this feels good.
Like we often see, these rules look like they were written for the game as it stood 9-12 months ago, and very much not as it exists today.
As Wyldhunt says - Aspect Host and War Host might have been 3 DP back in the day, but not now. In fact as a rule Eldar are deeply in trouble, so not sure there's a lot to be happy with here.
The best list right now is Seer Council and I guess you can now stack on Armoured Warhost for some potentially situational buffs to your Fire Prisms. Means you are playing Priority Assets or Recon - so you need those action monkeys.
In fact this is probably the go-to choice for all Eldar forces.
Not persuaded at all on splashing in a couple of Harlequin units and I think the ranger one just feels irrelevant to most detachments. Maybe there's some synergy in the Corsair Coterie because they have that stratagem that buffs ranger/shroud runner shooting, so you are likely bringing a unit or two. That's also Priority Assets and Recon for missions.

I'm feeling very disappointed for my Tau.

We have only 7 detachments now - the next lowest faction count has 9.
Additionally, GW advertised 3 new detachments - but 2 of the 3 are preexisting detachments they've just chopped and changed (read: nerfed) to make cheap 1pt detachments, so really it's just 1 new detachment.
Why do Votann get more detachments? They've practically got a detachment per unit

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I'm feeling very disappointed for my Tau.

We have only 7 detachments now - the next lowest faction count has 9.

Imperial Agents is at 5 and will remain at 5.

Sisters of Battle is going up to 8 with the 1 pointers, assuming they do not lose any of their current detachments.

 Tawnis wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:

If only there was some kind of rules development process that would involve the player base and result in better balance.

Yeah.... you don't want this. You really, really don't want this.

Yeah, I'm with LunarSol on this. Ask 100 people on the internet what's imbalanced in a game, you'll get 20 different answers and 50 different ways to "fix" the problem. Also, who, aside from those whose full time job it is, has time to test all the matchups and various conditions armies could be played in.

Having done professional playtesting, GW playtesting and testing other systems, there is a way of doing it that isn't crowd surfing opinions. Being able to run playtests and understand the results you get from them is part of being a game designer.

 LunarSol wrote:
I'm definitely not wowed by the initial design of the detachment system. That may change with the codex releases, but currently it just feels like 3 DP is stuff you should play and 2 DP is stuff no one touches with the hope one of the 1 DP options makes them viable. There's definitely nothing about the system that feels like it takes advantage of the design space yet.

Also, Deathwatch being locked to 2000 points is irritating.

I'm also a little concerned. I don't think GW have fully appreciated the interplay between the 1DP and 2DP detachments. You obviously need a good 2DP detachment to go with a 1DP detachment but a lot of the current combinations just seem pretty poor. One other concern is that GW are currently not presenting this info in the best way, so building armies feels a lot clunkier right now.

It will be interesting to see how detachments look in the first codex. Right now I’m getting a lot of “just slap some numbers on the old stuff to patch things and get them playing 11th”. Not making real updates to the legacy stuff that’s going to be replaced soon.

Of course, some armies are going to be stuck with these for years.

It is going to make army building more complicated. But once the apps and list builders catch up, that should be eased.

#New40k – World Champion’s top 5 changes

The way points costs work is being updated in two main ways. First, there will be separate point costs for some wargear on units, allowing different weapon options to become viable choices. This change won't be on every unit with wargear, but units like Adepta Sororitas Retributors or Adeptus Mechanicus Ironstrider Ballistari will have a lower base cost, but pay points for their best wargear.*

Second, a new system of point steppers will typically increase the cost of some datasheets on your third unit. Some extremely powerful datasheets, like the Defiler, may have this additional cost if you take a second and third unit. This change will help with internal diversity for armies and encourage players to consider their other available options.

Color me interested.