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.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
Looks interesting.

So long as they balance out the existing armies (i.e. they don't balance the tax of taking Fire Warriors against the boost of taking Eldar Jetbikes), this would go a long way towards evening the playing field and removing the worst of the formation abuses.

There will still be the Faction-specific detachments, if rumors/statements hold true, that might unbalance things one way or the other...

But yeah, I'm happy with this.

Provided Jetbikes remain Troops and don't shift back to Fast Attack.

There's a lot of ways they could rebalance things in that regard, and I've no idea how well they've done so (and won't, until I see the final product and have a while to digest it).

But I absolutely am not crying that the sky is falling - while all 3 examples we've seen have require HQ and Troops, I suspect we'll see Detachments that are more focused on other types. I'm guessing that the Detachments we've seen are nearly exhaustive of the CAD-equivalents we'll find among detachments - instead, I figure Elite-heavy, Fast Attack-heavy, Flyer-only, and Lord of War-focused Detachments (etc., etc.) will fill out the rest of the 14 we've been told will make up the initial release's base rules.

They've promised that formations are gone, but that they can mostly be remade. HQ-less and/or Troopless Detachments, then, seem almost inevitable.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
It's unwelcome to me. I enjoyed formations.

I despise the "1 HQ 2 Troops" methodology. I loved Skitarii for not having an HQ.

These are three of a great many detachments to choose from though.

You cannot tell me that I can build a list using my Stealth Suits, Pathfinders, Piranhas, and Ghostkeels under the showcased Detachments.

Formations were far, far superior.

That's right. We can't tell you that. But nor can you claim it, because there's a boatload of detachments we're yet to see. So we're all flying blind.

Sure I can claim it.

Because right now, as of the information we got today, I can't do that. They gave us three that are just variations on the same thing.
That's a quarter of the "new detachments" already showcased where it's just adding in more Troops and HQs.

I can't ever think of a time in the past where I've said "Man, I really wish I had a way to take more HQs".

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
This is quite exciting.

The doing away with Formations as we know them isn't unwelcome. They'd been dished out haphazardly after all.

But, I still expect to see army exclusive Detachment organisations, even if they ultimately match the above, but shifting what the minimums are (so for instance, Codex White Scars would hypothetically replace Troops with Fast Attack for minimum slots, but gain exactly the same benefits)

I don't know, with 14 unique FOC's available to everyone, it stands to reason that there will be ones that are Elite, Fast Attack and Heavy Support centric anyway. I wouldn't be surprised if army specific FOC's make a comeback but it certainly feels that the core set up of the game leaves a lot less space for them (Tyranids for instance would gravitate towards that brigade detachment, it's pretty easy for them to fill out all minimum requirements and still come in under 2000pts). However, we have allready been told that all armies wil get their own specific Command Points (maybe there will be generic command points available to all armies as well) and I expect thats where the focus will be on instead of giving every army a unique FOC.

 Kirasu wrote:
Seems fair, you can use all units in the Tyranid Faction or I can use all the units in the IMPERIUM faction to build my list! Why even have any other faction?? Maybe that just means stuff like Inquisition.

Yeah I'm a little skeptical here too.

Hopefully they mean more specific factions, I.E. Black Templars, Dark Angels, Imperial Guard/Astra Militarum, etc. rather than IMPERIUM or CHAOS.

And while I'm ok with formations going away, I still hope that there's some form of allies possible, as under a keyword system you can deal with the shenanigans which arise from Deathstars.

 docdoom77 wrote:

 andysonic1 wrote:
I think the biggest takeaway from this article is the fact that they didn't tease the next article for tomorrow. This makes me believe they will be announcing preorders tomorrow since they said very clearly at the start of these teasers that they will be releasing an article every day until release. If no article is teased or planned for tomorrow we may be on the eve of release or preorders.

The new battle forged armies are pretty sweet too. Looks like it will be much easier to take an "allied detachment" with just one HQ and Troop required. Also cultists get rhinos potentially.

They haven't been posting on the weekends, so no guarantee of anything tomorrow.

They just posted last weekend and the end of this post said they would have something tomorrow tho.

 docdoom77 wrote:

They haven't been posting on the weekends, so no guarantee of anything tomorrow.

We actually got the shooting article on Sunday.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
It's unwelcome to me. I enjoyed formations.

I despise the "1 HQ 2 Troops" methodology. I loved Skitarii for not having an HQ.

I really dislike this change and think it is a huge step backwards.

Formations in 7th Ed that had been given to all armies and/or points costed would have potentially worked - instead they were flung out willy nilly to power dexes to boost them further and begrudgingly given out to any one else.

Now from those posts it looks like formations will still be there (its even in the first line!) just not called that.

100% agreed. Formations COULD have been awesome, but in practice created some massive power divides. I'm not a fan of free benefits with no downside. That downside could be a points cost (formations were free) or some other sort of restriction.

That technically allows you to take more dedicated Transports then before. The question is what is a dedicated transport?

For example: I assume in marines Rhino and Razorback are dedicated transports. Are landraiders? How about landspeeder storms?


Looking at Eldar. I assume Waveserpents are transports and Falcon tanks aren't or are they?

Looks like MSU may be getting another advantage then? Do Tyranids even have a "dedicated transport" unit yet?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I remember once that 6 of us spent an entire tournament - 5 games a piece - without remember to do a single lea... oh no wait we didn't 'cause it's an easy rule to remember.

Saying that pinning/morale tests tests were somehow difficult to track, or were too complicate to work elegantly, reminds me of the people you see struggling at simple tasks in infomercials.

Oh great, let's mock others for the inability to do things you can do! Glad you stopped by! /s

 Kriswall wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
It's unwelcome to me. I enjoyed formations.

I despise the "1 HQ 2 Troops" methodology. I loved Skitarii for not having an HQ.

I really dislike this change and think it is a huge step backwards.

Formations in 7th Ed that had been given to all armies and/or points costed would have potentially worked - instead they were flung out willy nilly to power dexes to boost them further and begrudgingly given out to any one else.

Now from those posts it looks like formations will still be there (its even in the first line!) just not called that.

100% agreed. Formations COULD have been awesome, but in practice created some massive power divides. I'm not a fan of free benefits with no downside. That downside could be a points cost (formations were free) or some other sort of restriction.

Putting it bluntly, the problem was very rarely the formations.
It was the way players utilized them.

Skyhammer, for example, could have been easily fixed by making it so that Independent Characters couldn't benefit from it. But people argued till they were blue in the face that it had to confer and GW caved.
Battle Demi-Company and the "free" Dedicated Transports?
Required Tactical Squad sizes of 10--boom, no freebie Razorbacks from the 6 Tactical Squads.

And let's not even start looking at the whole nonsense with "Superfriends" and Librarius Conclaves. That could have been avoided from day one if someone had written "Chapter Tactics" into DA, BA, and SW.

Requizen wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:

 andysonic1 wrote:
I think the biggest takeaway from this article is the fact that they didn't tease the next article for tomorrow. This makes me believe they will be announcing preorders tomorrow since they said very clearly at the start of these teasers that they will be releasing an article every day until release. If no article is teased or planned for tomorrow we may be on the eve of release or preorders.

The new battle forged armies are pretty sweet too. Looks like it will be much easier to take an "allied detachment" with just one HQ and Troop required. Also cultists get rhinos potentially.

They haven't been posting on the weekends, so no guarantee of anything tomorrow.

They just posted last weekend and the end of this post said they would have something tomorrow tho.

You're totally right. I don't know why I remember it wrong. I remember it wrong, so CLEARLY.

 streamdragon wrote:
Looks like MSU may be getting another advantage then? Do Tyranids even have a "dedicated transport" unit yet?

Kinda/sorta?

The spore pod is a transport, but nothing had the option to buy it because we never got a reworked codex.

 streamdragon wrote:
Looks like MSU may be getting another advantage then? Do Tyranids even have a "dedicated transport" unit yet?

I could see the not-Mycetic Spore (can't remember what it's called) being theirs.

It'd be cool kinda if Trygons or Tervigons were classed as DTs too.

Already covered.

 docdoom77 wrote:

 andysonic1 wrote:
I think the biggest takeaway from this article is the fact that they didn't tease the next article for tomorrow. This makes me believe they will be announcing preorders tomorrow since they said very clearly at the start of these teasers that they will be releasing an article every day until release. If no article is teased or planned for tomorrow we may be on the eve of release or preorders.

The new battle forged armies are pretty sweet too. Looks like it will be much easier to take an "allied detachment" with just one HQ and Troop required. Also cultists get rhinos potentially.

They haven't been posting on the weekends, so no guarantee of anything tomorrow.

They have been posting on weekends, and the very last sentence says they'll be back tomorrow with more news.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
It's unwelcome to me. I enjoyed formations.

I despise the "1 HQ 2 Troops" methodology. I loved Skitarii for not having an HQ.

I really dislike this change and think it is a huge step backwards.

Formations in 7th Ed that had been given to all armies and/or points costed would have potentially worked - instead they were flung out willy nilly to power dexes to boost them further and begrudgingly given out to any one else.

Now from those posts it looks like formations will still be there (its even in the first line!) just not called that.

100% agreed. Formations COULD have been awesome, but in practice created some massive power divides. I'm not a fan of free benefits with no downside. That downside could be a points cost (formations were free) or some other sort of restriction.

Putting it bluntly, the problem was very rarely the formations.
It was the way players utilized them.

Skyhammer, for example, could have been easily fixed by making it so that Independent Characters couldn't benefit from it. But people argued till they were blue in the face that it had to confer and GW caved.
Battle Demi-Company and the "free" Dedicated Transports?
Required Tactical Squad sizes of 10--boom, no freebie Razorbacks from the 6 Tactical Squads.

And let's not even start looking at the whole nonsense with "Superfriends" and Librarius Conclaves. That could have been avoided from day one if someone had written "Chapter Tactics" into DA, BA, and SW.

So, to summarize what you said... GW wrote extremely exploitable rules and it's the players' fault for exploiting them. I think my solution of having GW fix their exploitable rules (by getting rid of/toning down formations) is far more achievable than getting a LOT of players to self handicap.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
It's unwelcome to me. I enjoyed formations.

I despise the "1 HQ 2 Troops" methodology. I loved Skitarii for not having an HQ.

These are three of a great many detachments to choose from though.

You cannot tell me that I can build a list using my Stealth Suits, Pathfinders, Piranhas, and Ghostkeels under the showcased Detachments.

Formations were far, far superior.

That's right. We can't tell you that. But nor can you claim it, because there's a boatload of detachments we're yet to see. So we're all flying blind.

Sure I can claim it.

Because right now, as of the information we got today, I can't do that. They gave us three that are just variations on the same thing.
That's a quarter of the "new detachments" already showcased where it's just adding in more Troops and HQs.

I can't ever think of a time in the past where I've said "Man, I really wish I had a way to take more HQs".

No. You can only postulate and whine.

We know there's more to come in terms of Detachments.

What we've seen today are likely the most basic structure - the one most familiar to 40k players, as they're riffs on the existing, bog standard FoC.

You however have decided that the sky falling, based on incomplete knowledge, and insist therefore you can't possibly field a formation you currently field. Why, I dunno.

They did say there are 14 formations in the main rules. That is kind of funny considering the main rules are 12 pages long. Those three will take up 1 page just in placement. So, we can surmise that 4 of those 12 pages are made up of the formation rules!

People should not freak out with the "Imperium faction" they have mention today.

If come to something like this:
You can cherrypick units of a great faction (For example, a Imperium army with Space marine elites, Imperial Guard troops, Sister of Battle, etc, etc...) but you sinergies between models will be near 0.

Or you can go with a smaller sample of units in a faction (Dark Angels, Sisters of Battle, etc...) where the sinergies between them allow to compete against the broad of a bigger and more generic faction.

Now, the tricky thing here is to balance the "Swiss army-knife" of a great faction vs the specialization of a smaller faction.

They need to give smaller factions enough bonus to compensate for don't cherrypiking the units they want, but not so big bonnus that is useless to pick armies of a bigger faction.
And at the inverse, if subfactions hare not good enough in their specializations, they can't compete with the bonnus of cherrypicking the best units in different factions.

One of the things I most love of AoS is that it allows me to make fluffy mixed armies without problems. My greenskin-ogre army for example. Or my chaos army with beastmen, demon and mortals, etc...

I'm totally gonna do a Imperium army with a core of Imperial Guard and some small elit squadrons of Nu-marines (that in my mind will be still normal marines) to make them stand more! Maybe even add some Cult Mechanicus stuff.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
Looks interesting.

So long as they balance out the existing armies (i.e. they don't balance the tax of taking Fire Warriors against the boost of taking Eldar Jetbikes), this would go a long way towards evening the playing field and removing the worst of the formation abuses.

There will still be the Faction-specific detachments, if rumors/statements hold true, that might unbalance things one way or the other...

But yeah, I'm happy with this.

Provided Jetbikes remain Troops and don't shift back to Fast Attack.

That could be situational, e.g. "If all models in the detachment have the Sam Hain keyword, Jetbikes count as Troops."

Still allows fluffy get Jetbike armies, but also limits what you can combo them with.

Youn wrote:
That technically allows you to take more dedicated Transports then before. The question is what is a dedicated transport?

For example: I assume in marines Rhino and Razorback are dedicated transports. Are landraiders? How about landspeeder storms?

It depends entirely upon the unit.

If a power armored unit(Devastators, Tacticals, Sternguard, Command Squad) is 6 models or less, they can take a Razorback as a DT.
10 PA models or less, Rhino or Drop Pod.
Scouts are the only ones who can take Land Speeder Storms.
Terminators and Centurions can take Land Raider variants.

Looking at Eldar. I assume Waveserpents are transports and Falcon tanks aren't or are they?

Wave Serpents are Dedicated Transports.
Falcons are bought like Stormravens are; they're an extra slot(Heavy Support) that can carry something.

I would assume stormravens are flyers. I doubt they will make Falcons into that same slot. Though fluff wise they actually can do more the hover.

So how long will it take GW to break the detachment system where some are clearly better than others and everyone takes them (just the same as formations). I would guess the initial free ones will be balanced, but once they start releasing codexes (or what amounts to codexes) and the initial test phase is over they will quickly climb the power creep scale.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
It's unwelcome to me. I enjoyed formations.

I despise the "1 HQ 2 Troops" methodology. I loved Skitarii for not having an HQ.

I really dislike this change and think it is a huge step backwards.

Formations in 7th Ed that had been given to all armies and/or points costed would have potentially worked - instead they were flung out willy nilly to power dexes to boost them further and begrudgingly given out to any one else.

Now from those posts it looks like formations will still be there (its even in the first line!) just not called that.

100% agreed. Formations COULD have been awesome, but in practice created some massive power divides. I'm not a fan of free benefits with no downside. That downside could be a points cost (formations were free) or some other sort of restriction.

Putting it bluntly, the problem was very rarely the formations.
It was the way players utilized them.

Skyhammer, for example, could have been easily fixed by making it so that Independent Characters couldn't benefit from it. But people argued till they were blue in the face that it had to confer and GW caved.
Battle Demi-Company and the "free" Dedicated Transports?
Required Tactical Squad sizes of 10--boom, no freebie Razorbacks from the 6 Tactical Squads.

And let's not even start looking at the whole nonsense with "Superfriends" and Librarius Conclaves. That could have been avoided from day one if someone had written "Chapter Tactics" into DA, BA, and SW.

Wow, "blame the players" right off the back of "your argument is invalid, unlike mine, even though my opposite view is just as unsupported."

You're in form today Kan.

YES!!!!! Screw Formations!!!! [MOD EDIT - Please don't circumvent the expletive filter - Alpharius] (for free)

*Edit* in all seriousness formations we're a fun mechanic in Apocalypse and that's where they should have stayed.

 Asmodai wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
Looks interesting.

So long as they balance out the existing armies (i.e. they don't balance the tax of taking Fire Warriors against the boost of taking Eldar Jetbikes), this would go a long way towards evening the playing field and removing the worst of the formation abuses.

There will still be the Faction-specific detachments, if rumors/statements hold true, that might unbalance things one way or the other...

But yeah, I'm happy with this.

Provided Jetbikes remain Troops and don't shift back to Fast Attack.

That could be situational, e.g. "If all models in the detachment have the Sam Hain keyword, Jetbikes count as Troops."

Still allows fluffy get Jetbike armies, but also limits what you can combo them with.

Indeed. Though with wider slot availability, regardless of slightly increased minimum requirements, it may be we won't need so many 'if X then Y become Troops' exceptions, as you just choose the Detachment with the widest selection of FA/Elite/HS slots?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
This is quite exciting.

The doing away with Formations as we know them isn't unwelcome. They'd been dished out haphazardly after all.

But, I still expect to see army exclusive Detachment organisations, even if they ultimately match the above, but shifting what the minimums are (so for instance, Codex White Scars would hypothetically replace Troops with Fast Attack for minimum slots, but gain exactly the same benefits)

Hopefully not as as per fluff tac marines are core of white scars.

Overall good though prefer hh rites of war

Youn wrote:
I would assume stormravens are flyers. I doubt they will make Falcons into that same slot. Though fluff wise they actually can do more the hover.

Flyers isn't a Battlefield Role from what I'm seeing. It's a Unit Type/Keyword.

The reason I brought up Stormravens are, as mentioned, they are similar to Falcons. Neither one is a Dedicated Transport option for a unit--they are purchased separately and something can get into them.

Youn wrote:
They did say there are 14 formations in the main rules. That is kind of funny considering the main rules are 12 pages long. Those three will take up 1 page just in placement. So, we can surmise that 4 of those 12 pages are made up of the formation rules!

Except they told us in the live QaA that they wont be.