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.

Wow... Somedays I'm just amazed!

There are screen captures of the FOC in the OP... Two troops and one HQ are compulsory.

 oni wrote:
Wow... Somedays I'm just amazed!

There are screen captures of the FOC in the OP... Two troops and one HQ are compulsory.

Which is why I was thinking that you're required 1 Troops and then a second Troops comes as part of the detachments. If GW has used numerals and put "1" instead of "2" I'd assume it was just a typo, but they spelled it out as "one", which is a lot harder to screw up.

The screen shot from the video showing pages from the rule book states two troops.




But I suppose there may be other detachments you can choose as the primary that only have one, zero or sixteen troop choices as a minimum and still allow you to be battle forged

 Bangbangboom wrote:
The screen shot from the video showing pages from the rule book states two troops.

Spoiler:

Which doesn't invalidate the WD which says you take 1HQ, 1 Troops and then add a detachment on top of that to make your army.

I'm going to err on the side of the screen caps of the rulebook in the video as being what is the actual case.

The White Dwarf weekly's don't exactly have the best track record for 100% correct/complete info (Re: the Knights info we got prior to the Knight codex releasing).

Either the author typoed the article and nobody caught it (likeliest scenario) or he was referencing the allied detachment information instead of the main part of the Combined Arms detachment force org chart.

Just my opinion on that. Battleforged forces are 1 HQ, and 2 Troops choices mandatory. Everything else is optional.

Take it easy.

-Red__Thirst-

 Red__Thirst wrote:
I'm going to err on the side of the screen caps of the rulebook in the video as being what is the actual case.

The White Dwarf weekly's don't exactly have the best track record for 100% correct/complete info (Re: the Knights info we got prior to the Knight codex releasing).

Either the author typoed the article and nobody caught it (likeliest scenario) or he was referencing the allied detachment information instead of the main part of the Combined Arms detachment force org chart.

Just my opinion on that. Battleforged forces are 1 HQ, and 2 Troops choices mandatory. Everything else is optional.

Take it easy.

-Red__Thirst-

Oh I am taking it easy when people aren't jumping down my throat to say I'm wrong when I'm quoting the WD article.

Yes, they can be wrong, but until we have rulebook in hand we won't know for sure so biting my head off won't solve anything.

And just because it's been brought up a dozen times now: the Knights thing was more a lot of vagueness what they meant by "your army" instead of being intentionally misleading to Chaos Players.

Though if rumors are true we could see Knights in CSM armies in the near future.

The WD just looks badly written and I suspect contains errors.

"You need to take one HQ, one troops and use detachments"

"There are two types of detachments combined arms and allied"

So that leaves us in a situation where a combined arms army has two HQ and three troops or and allied army consisting of one HQ and one troop choice from faction A and one HQ and one troop choice from faction B.

Personally I don't see them making two HQ's compulsory. I am going to choose to ignore what was said in WD, others can if they wish continue to threat about BF armies with one troop choice.

Quoted from wd16
The new Warhammer 40,000 offers unlimited potential for utilising your
collections of miniatures. Jes Bickham takes a look at what making an Unbound
army really means for both your army and the grim darkness of the far future…
Forget what you know. The old ways are dead, and a horizon of limitless possibilities has
opened up for the armies of Warhammer 40,000. With the advent of Unbound armies, you
can create exactly the army you want. It’s a seismic shift in army creation and a profound
change in how games of Warhammer 40,000 can now be played. Let’s explore exactly what it
means for you.
There are two ways of creating an army now. Once you and your opponent have decided the
points limit of your game (if indeed you want to use points at all), you need to decide whether
your army is going to be Battle-forged or Unbound. Battle-forged armies use the Force
Organisation chart that you know and love from previous editions of Warhammer 40,000.
You’ll need to take at least one HQ and one Troops choice, and use Detachments. There are
two types of Detachment – Combined Arms and Allied – and your Primary Detachment will
be the one with your Warlord in it. With us so far? You’ll also need to bear in mind Factions
(basically the race a particular unit belongs to – Space Marines, Necrons, Imperial Knights or
whatever) as units in a Detachment must be of the same Faction, and your Faction also
dictates your level of alliance of with other Factions. (More on this next issue!)
This should all sound pretty similar to how armies were constructed in previous editions of
Warhammer 40,000, right? But there are added bonuses to being Battle-forged, mainly the
ability to re-roll your Warlord trait, and the Objective Secured special rule. This rule applies
to Troops units from Battle-forged Detachments; all units are scoring units now in
Warhammer 40,000, but Troops units with Objective Secured will always control objectives
over and above other units.
And why is this important? Because of the Unbound method of building your army, which
offers complete freedom but lacks Objective Secured. The new Warhammer 40,000 has this
to say about Unbound armies: simply use whichever units from your collection that you
want. It’s that simple… and almost paralysing in the freedom it offers. It’s therefore entirely
possible that you won’t have any Troops in an Unbound army at all! (And it explains why the
Objective Secured special rule is such a valuable bonus for making a Battle-forged army.)

340$. wut

As 7th ed rules get clarified, they only sound worse. The bound armies' bonus isn't nearly enough to justify them against unbound.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I bought the psychic deck (and all the psychic cards since) because I thought they'd be a great resource. Now they're invalidated. Feth that noise.

Yeah, that's why I don't bother with those sort of aides.
One could just photocopy them from the book and be done with it anyway.

Triszin wrote:
340$. wut

Yes, the collector's edition is very, very expensive and I have no desire for one, even if I had the money.

 MWHistorian wrote:
As 7th ed rules get clarified, they only sound worse. The bound armies' bonus isn't nearly enough to justify them against unbound.

Perhaps. We still do not know the full extent of the rules, nor do we know if there are other Battle-forged bonuses.
So far, we have only seen the combined arms FoC; there could be others.

 MWHistorian wrote:
As 7th ed rules get clarified, they only sound worse. The bound armies' bonus isn't nearly enough to justify them against unbound.

Good thing it doesn't look like the two are supposed to be cross compatible then!

 azreal13 wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
As 7th ed rules get clarified, they only sound worse. The bound armies' bonus isn't nearly enough to justify them against unbound.

Good thing it doesn't look like the two are supposed to be cross compatible then!

What gives you that idea.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Red__Thirst wrote:
I'm going to err on the side of the screen caps of the rulebook in the video as being what is the actual case.

The White Dwarf weekly's don't exactly have the best track record for 100% correct/complete info (Re: the Knights info we got prior to the Knight codex releasing).

Either the author typoed the article and nobody caught it (likeliest scenario) or he was referencing the allied detachment information instead of the main part of the Combined Arms detachment force org chart.

Just my opinion on that. Battleforged forces are 1 HQ, and 2 Troops choices mandatory. Everything else is optional.

Take it easy.

-Red__Thirst-

Oh I am taking it easy when people aren't jumping down my throat to say I'm wrong when I'm quoting the WD article.

Yes, they can be wrong, but until we have rulebook in hand we won't know for sure so biting my head off won't solve anything.

And just because it's been brought up a dozen times now: the Knights thing was more a lot of vagueness what they meant by "your army" instead of being intentionally misleading to Chaos Players.

Though if rumors are true we could see Knights in CSM armies in the near future.

Made my post for clarity's sake here, wasn't trying to bite your, or anyone else's, head off. :( Nor was I trying to jump down your throat. Was just offering my opinion on the info presented and it happened to be opposite of yours of course. I didn't think I was being disrespectful but if I came off that way, I apologize.

I made the knight WD article reference as a note to the lack of... shall we say.. full or clear info in the WD's in the past.

You're welcome to your opinion and interpretation of the White Dwarf info, and I don't besmirch you that opinion, or interpretation. I'm just erring on the side of the screen caps I've seen of the actual rulebook vs. the WD article you've quoted. We'll see what we see once the rulebook is up for sale and we get our hot little hands on it.

Take it easy.

-Red__Thirst-

 Squidbot wrote:

 Captainlanger wrote:
anyone else a little bit annoyed that Games workshop seems to be ebbing closer and closer to everything just being Space marines. haven't seen much else from other armies for months, nothing but supplements for space marines and a whole new IG army. have they forgotten there are actually other armies out there? all these new rules sounding like you can use whatever you want in any army. i just want my Orcs update waited so long now

I feel your pain, but we're getting what we want soon.

As a Tyranid player, let me just say "be careful what you wish for"

 Red__Thirst wrote:
Made my post for clarity's sake here, wasn't trying to bite your, or anyone else's, head off. :( Nor was I trying to jump down your throat. Was just offering my opinion on the info presented and it happened to be opposite of yours of course. I didn't think I was being disrespectful but if I came off that way, I apologize.

I wasn't saying you were jumping down my throat, just that when people do (and there were several who did all at once) it's really hard to "take it easy".

 loki old fart wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
As 7th ed rules get clarified, they only sound worse. The bound armies' bonus isn't nearly enough to justify them against unbound.

Good thing it doesn't look like the two are supposed to be cross compatible then!

What gives you that idea.

From the screen caps of WD.

It refers to "battle forged or unbound" as one of the things you decide on with your opponent, alongside points values etc, before you begin the game.

Of course, there's nothing stopping you choosing to mix and match, but the implication certainly seems to be that it is an either/or decision, game by game.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Red__Thirst wrote:
Made my post for clarity's sake here, wasn't trying to bite your, or anyone else's, head off. :( Nor was I trying to jump down your throat. Was just offering my opinion on the info presented and it happened to be opposite of yours of course. I didn't think I was being disrespectful but if I came off that way, I apologize.

I wasn't saying you were jumping down my throat, just that when people do (and there were several who did all at once) it's really hard to "take it easy".

 Lobukia wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

I'm missing how that'd work since it says Objective Secured still counts as scoring the objective even if another unit is nearby as long as they don't also have "Objective Secured".

It says even if another "scoring" unit is there... not another unit. I'm just really worried that Unbound or something else will have non-scoring units... which could hurt the ill-prepared 40k commander

Things like this should be bad for the ill-prepared; that's part of learning and becoming a better player......and I say this even though I, admittedly, am not very good at this game.

Anyone think the shooting rules will slow things down a bit.
Now, when a squad or vehicle shoots, you fire, roll to hit, wound and resolve wounds with one class of
weapons in the unit at a time, and casualties are the models which are closest to the firers.
So, in a Tactical squad you might choose to fire your flamer first, resolving its effects before
unleashing the bolters and lastly a missile launcher. This gives the active player some tactical
choices as to which weapons to fire in which order. It’s really simple once you get your head
around the small changes.”

Still no love for assault then

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Perfect Organism wrote:
I thought that 'the dogs bollocks' was a good thing? Am I failing to keep up with English again?

Anyway, I like sixth. I've liked every edition since fourth better than the last and only my ignorance of third edition and my issues with the style of second edition stop me from seeing all versions of 40k so far as a steady improvement.

I prefer the politer term of bee's knees as opposed to dog's bollocks.

It can be both depending on usage. If it is "the Dog's Bollocks' that is good. It it looks like a pair of them then it is bad. Never understood why - coz it isn't a pretty sight regardless.

And yes, despite the flag, I am English.

 MWHistorian wrote:
As 7th ed rules get clarified, they only sound worse. The bound armies' bonus isn't nearly enough to justify them against unbound.

People keep saying stuff like that, but I've yet to see much evidence that unbound armies will be much more powerful than battle forged ones. The most powerful deathstar units at the moment are ones which tank damage with re-rollable invulnerables. Being able to spam extra killing power isn't going to work, because they can shrug off the 10% more damage you manage to squeeze out by eliminating the 'filler' from your list.

You can also make an unbound army which is really difficult to kill, by having all your units only vulnerable to a narrow range of threats (or just a seerstar / screamerstar combination) but then the objective secured rule actually becomes quite good, because you are generally playing for points rather than tabling your opponent.

 loki old fart wrote:
Anyone think the shooting rules will slow things down a bit.
Now, when a squad or vehicle shoots, you fire, roll to hit, wound and resolve wounds with one class of
weapons in the unit at a time, and casualties are the models which are closest to the firers.
So, in a Tactical squad you might choose to fire your flamer first, resolving its effects before
unleashing the bolters and lastly a missile launcher. This gives the active player some tactical
choices as to which weapons to fire in which order. It’s really simple once you get your head
around the small changes.”

Still no love for assault then

You're being overly pessimistic, we've heard next to nothing about anything, thanks to the information embargo, the only things we have any real confirmation of are the things GW have chosen to share, and I'm sure you don't need me to tell you that they'll have their own agenda with regards to what they choose.

 azreal13 wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:
Anyone think the shooting rules will slow things down a bit.
Now, when a squad or vehicle shoots, you fire, roll to hit, wound and resolve wounds with one class of
weapons in the unit at a time, and casualties are the models which are closest to the firers.
So, in a Tactical squad you might choose to fire your flamer first, resolving its effects before
unleashing the bolters and lastly a missile launcher. This gives the active player some tactical
choices as to which weapons to fire in which order. It’s really simple once you get your head
around the small changes.”

Still no love for assault then

You're being overly pessimistic, we've heard next to nothing about anything, thanks to the information embargo, the only things we have any real confirmation of are the things GW have chosen to share, and I'm sure you don't need me to tell you that they'll have their own agenda with regards to what they choose.

Well that was a cut and paste from WD 16, so GW chose to share that.

 tetrisphreak wrote:

 Shandara wrote:

 bubber wrote:
I just want to know if you have to fork out another £14 for the 2 decks of card to be able to play this new version...

Likely to be in the rulebook, ready for copying (for personal use).

Without the deck you roll a d66 (tens, ones) for each objective and write them down. So no the deck isn't necessary but I'm definitely getting one for ease and time saving.

Cheers guys.
Also just remembered that you can't get the Apoc templates any more - I wonder if GW will re-release them or I have use the cardboard ones I made.

Ok, if I am reading this right then by saying "same faction" for your detachment and space marines are the same faction, then I can have a legal battle forged army with an iron hands chaptermaster on bike, troop assault marines, death company, sanguinary guard, marine bikes in the troop slot, grav centurions, and one of the dark angel's funky speeders? So to make a marine army with all available options you'd need all the marine codices? If this is not the case, why say "faction" instead of codex?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 fullheadofhair wrote:
What I don't get is why people are lining upto to buy this consider what a dog's bollocks this last edition was. Like all of a sudden you are going to get a good rule set. And $85 - sweet mother of God. And a week before their financial year end - looks like Kirby was right about his customers all along and will get the quick boost to sales numbers.

Frankly the only reason I'm buying it now is to review it and cover the whole thing as best I can so others can make informed decisions of their own. Something I wish we had a lot more of in this hobby honestly.

I mean, sure there will be reviews, but most of them will be short and focus on very specific things or glaze over the details and you have to read a lot of different ones to get a complete picture. It's that and the complaints I used to see about there being no way to know what's in some of these books that inspired me to do day one reviews. Of course that means throwing my money into a bin like everyone else, but at least I do it through my FLGS and not through GW directly so I don't feel as bad about it. My FLGS is going to order these books anyways, at least this way I'm supporting them while I do this.

EDIT: Oh, and I actually like most of what 6th was. There were some things I felt needed refining (such as faster ways to handle Look Out Sir and allocating wounds) but largely I liked the core rules. The real issue was the bipolar way the game handled codex design. If they were all on the same level as the CSM or DA books the game would be fine. The problem is that they're not, they're all over the place and the internal balance in a lot of books is a mess. The core rules didn't break the game, the codexes did.

And personally, I greatly appreciate your effort. Some type of comprehensive review will go a long way towards me deciding what to do with this edition. I somewhat agree on 6th. The problem is the rules were all over the place, they nerfed assault badly which hamstrung not just units, but whole fething armies; then they exacerbated the whole thing with non-existent internal balancing in the codices. I wish they wrote rules and then found ways to incorporate the fluff rather than using the fluff to decide how to write the rules.....

 loki old fart wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:
Anyone think the shooting rules will slow things down a bit.
Now, when a squad or vehicle shoots, you fire, roll to hit, wound and resolve wounds with one class of
weapons in the unit at a time, and casualties are the models which are closest to the firers.
So, in a Tactical squad you might choose to fire your flamer first, resolving its effects before
unleashing the bolters and lastly a missile launcher. This gives the active player some tactical
choices as to which weapons to fire in which order. It’s really simple once you get your head
around the small changes.”

Still no love for assault then

You're being overly pessimistic, we've heard next to nothing about anything, thanks to the information embargo, the only things we have any real confirmation of are the things GW have chosen to share, and I'm sure you don't need me to tell you that they'll have their own agenda with regards to what they choose.

Well that was a cut and paste from WD 16, so GW chose to share that.

Sorry, I was specifically responding to the "no love for assault" comment, but I didn't make that clear originally.