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.

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.