40k New Edition Summary - 14th June 17: Lord Duncan paints Primaris in Gravis/non-codex SM focus

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.

**JohnnyHell**

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:
What was so inherently broken about formations concept?

Points are supposed to mean balance.

Yet buy these units and get free units/rules too!

That breaks balance in an instant.

**Imateria**

Ragnar Blackmane wrote:
Imateria wrote:
v0iddrgn wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
v0iddrgn wrote:
I personally LOVE the part about "well rounded" armies receiving benefits. This puts more of an emphasis on TAC armies thus making it more accessible to new players who most likely don't have tons of $$$ to invest in this little hobby of ours. Plus it's another step away from Unbound abomination.

You could make just as nasty lists using Battleforged for the powerful army books as you could in many cases for Unbound.

Thats why 7th wasn't nearly fun enough to waste time on for a lot of players. Formations going away plus benefits for TAC = big win IMHO.

Isn't going to do a thing to make it cheaper though, cheap hobbies aren't easy to find.

It is going to make it cheaper for people, because most of the factions are part of the Imperium (and I think the now 4 Eldar factions will work similarly as well as all the Chaos factions amongst themselves). That means if you are a newish player who only got 750 points of Space Marines and then says: "I want to start Sisters of Battle!", he can just get 750 points of Sisters and already has a working 1500 points army which, thanks to the way that all factions are limited to the same detachements, won't be hamstrung because you get awful formations that get roflstomped by that guy with the Gladius Strike Force and other OP formations, while the lack of command points and likely keyword dependant synergies and buffs will keep your list balanced even though you get to cherry pick from two factions.

Compare that to the 5.Edition where if you wanted to play 1500 points with sisters you had to built up an entire 1500 points army of them. Remember what a massive problem building up an Imperial Guard army was because everything was so cheap pointswise and you had to buy a massive number of vehicles and infantry boxes to even get to 1500 points, making it unaffordable for many? Now you can just toss 600 points or so into a Marines army and still enjoy playing them (which is actually the case for me). It also massively increases the value of the starter box: Sure you start with non-legal amounts of models of an army you might not necessarily want in the long run but as long as you want to build up any army from the same alliance you can use them to efficiently fill up points.

So, completely unchanged from 7th then. And it absolutely wont make it cheaper. It doesn't matter whether your making a single faction army or pick and mixing from various factions you're still looking at roughly £500 for a 2000pt army (assuming army sizes will remain roughly the same in 8th, I doubt they'll get smaller). And a mixed faction army is probably the worst way to go about things, if Sigmar is any indication then most abilities wont work against IMPERIUM but against Sisters of Battle, or Blood Angels etc, making mixed armies horribly ineffective.

**Yodhrin**

Kirasu wrote:
Great choice for GW to nuke formations and put people back to using battle forged without unlikely allies. Hopefully this brings sanity back to the game,

HOWEVER, as usual.. there is a bizarre decision.

The most common restriction is that all units in a single Detachment must share a faction keyword (Tyranid, Blood Angels or Imperium for example).

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.

I imagine it will work like AoS, in that the benefits you get from your chosen Detachment get stronger the more specific you are with your Keyword adherence. So using total asspull numbers, a Patrol Detachment with only Astartes keyworded units might get 10 Command Points, whereas one containing Astartes, Guard, Skitarii, and SoB could only claim the reward of the Imperium keyword of say, 7 Command Points. They could even have a scaling system, where each additional army keyword reduces the reward you get from the metafaction keyword.

Frankly this is one of the few changes we've seen so far I have almost no reservations about at all. If they distribute the Detachment rewards properly and in tandem with the various anti-Deathstar changes being made, this seems like it will give even more flexibility than the Allies system with few or no downsides, and without the unit selection anarchy that characterised early AoS.

**Liberal_Perturabo**

ClockworkZion wrote:
Liberal_Perturabo wrote:
Desubot wrote:
Liberal_Perturabo wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

Spoiler:

ClockworkZion wrote:
Liberal_Perturabo wrote:
warboss wrote:
Liberal_Perturabo wrote:
Oh nice, another moronic decision from GW. I wonder how far they will go in their idiocy?
"Hey Dave, since we are completery rebalancing every unit in our game maybe we should do the same for all the formations and detachements so we won't lose on huge amount of variety while simultaneously fixing balance issues they caused?
Nah, man, that would require actual effort on our part! Besides, fitiing your army into formation will make you spend more than 5 minutes on building a list and force strategical decisions and that's a no-go. And do I even need to tell you that all this will be too hard to play for lil Timmy who can barely tell left from right?
I guess so.
Yup. So just trow in in the pile, there is still some room left between armor values, proper melee and interesting setting. We'll make a nice campfire out of all of that once we are finished gutting our franchise into oblivion."

I also love GW's jolly attitude with all that.
Like "Hey guys, check this out! We've made this super cool thing that we are going to show you right now! Ready? Ok, here it goes: all the books that we've released for several past months, the ones that you've been extremely exited about and spent your own money on ARE NOW COMPLETELY USELESS PIECES OF JUNK! Hahaha, amazing, right? Yeah, we are just a bunch of geniuses. Consumer friendly too!
Also buy our models, you fething loser."

Lol, always one masochist in the bunch. The formations and the books that you're lamenting the passing of were too intertwined. 7th edition was the attempt at taking the flaws of 6th and doubling down on them; yet another tweak that kept the crap that Gw's marketing team threw at us intact would fix nothing and just be moisturizer applied to the rotting corpse gw's flagship golden line.

So, with the whole overhaul thing I assume you are expecting broken units to be fixed. You know, things like scatterbikes, riptides and what have you. You don't expect them to be deleted from the game because they were broken, you just expect their rules to change. And that would be ok, right?
But when the same thing is said about formation rules it's suddenly "moisturizer applied to the rotting corpse" and can never-ever be fixed and should only be whiped out from the game?
Would you please explain the logic in that?

Jervis stated on a Twitch Stream that all armies where worked on at the same time to better grind out the core mechanics of the game and balance everything. Some of the nonsense we know of now will likely change.

Heck, we already know weapon profiles are changing. It looks like if a ranged weapon isn't specifically anti-monster/vehicle it may not have a rend value.

But you need something to exist to apply changes to. Weapon profiles are still here. Formations are not.
Also I'm expressing my opinion on the information GW gives us at the moment. Sure, things may change drastically in the future. Or they may not. That's not the point.

Dropping formations was a large change as it removed the free bonus rules gak that was ruining the game. The change is a full blown removal of free rules for formation builds and will likely be replaced by regular FOCs which can offer specific rules with unit taxes. Full on better change.

Why not just rewrite the rules that add bonus units/points/upgrades/whatever? Heck, they could have just removed those alone and it would have been fine. There are dosens of formations in 40k and only a part of them are broken. Removing the whole system kills a huge chunk of variety.

There is also a LOT of formations and for all we know some of them might end up breaking with the army updates.
it would be easier to nuke everything and start from scratch than taking a scalpel to it. 99% sure some of the formations will be coming back as book specific detachments.

There are several times more units in the game than formations. Each with their own special rules, wargear and so on. Many of them broken too.
Even still GW decided to rebalance the whole thing and not just nuke everything, since people are not particularly fond of their models suddenely becoming invalid.
Yes, making a good game is hard. Balancing is hard. It doesn't mean we should excuse developers for not doing so.

Formations were buffs to units on top of any broken rules they may have already had.

Balancing units is easier than balancing formations as the first can be done through points costs and rules tweaks, formations on the other hand can only be adjusted via rules tweaks. Formations could have been good if there were unit taxes built in, but then they might as well just been FOC bonuses for specific builds.

What's wrong with removing certain special rules from a unit in a formation to balance it out? What's wrong with formations putting limitations on the rest of your army or the formation itself? Heck, what's wrong with adding point costs for them?

**davou**

skarsol wrote:
Hurm...

"If your army is built using Formations right now, you’re going to be fine. In their place are a dozen new game-wide Detachments that are available to all factions."

I wait eagerly to see how they're going to make a generic Battle Forged layout that lets me replicate what the Infernal Tetrad allows (ie: 5 Demon Princes in 1850).

That seems to be possible using JUST whats been spoiled today, did you look?

**v0iddrgn**

JohnnyHell wrote:
Liberal_Perturabo wrote:
What was so inherently broken about formations concept?

Points are supposed to mean balance.

Yet buy these units and get free units too!

That breaks balance in an instant.

Yep, same reason we don't like the psychic summoning gak.

**tneva82**

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:
What's wrong with removing certain special rules from a unit in a formation to balance it out? What's wrong with formations putting limitations on the rest of your army or the formation itself? Heck, what's wrong with adding point costs for them?

What is wrong with simply fielding same units without free bonus rules_

**BroodSpawn**

Being able to play a 'legal'/battle-forged army straight out of a start collecting box does make things cheaper, especially for new players.
Will it matter to the guys that have invested 100's into models? Not that much, but for newer players or people expanding into another faction it totally does.

**ClockworkZion**

Models aren't going away, wargear options aren't going away, even unit options aren't changing. What is changing is how we field those very same models, the way the weapons work and what they'll cost us to field.

Frankly this is all GOOD as they've gone forward with keeping armies legal while (hopefully) changing the things that made them broken.

**changemod**

Daedalus81 wrote:
streetsamurai wrote:

Great post. This phenomenon of having some posters who are adament on always defending GW from all kind of criticism, is weird to say the least, and also very annoying. Only explanation that I can guess is that they are a bit like groupies that live vicariously through some celebrities, but they are doing it through a company.

Yea that isn't the issue at hand at all. And you can easily see this problem demonstrated mere posts from yours

1) GW is perfect
2) I am happy with what I've heard so far and want to hear more.
3) I like most things, but I really need to know more before I can judge.
4) This all sounds terrible and I don't care to listen.
5) THIS IS THE WORST THING EVER. I QUIT.

People think #2 is the same as #1. When the real problem in my opinion involves #4 and #5.including several of your own posts.

That you've missed out "I dislike most things I've heard, and am leery of the direction this is taking." indicates a bias against negativity.

And frankly, 1 and 5 are perfectly viable to express as long as they aren't trying to shut one another down. Perhaps more reactionary than a simple stance of like or dislike open to rational discussion, but not a problem compared to -either- side getting hostile and trying to quash dissent.

**labmouse42**

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:
There are several times more units in the game than formations. Each with their own special rules, wargear and so on. Many of them broken too.
Even still GW decided to rebalance the whole thing and not just nuke everything, since people are not particularly fond of their models suddenely becoming invalid.
Yes, making a good game is hard. Balancing is hard. It doesn't mean we should excuse developers for not doing so.

My main army is a Tzeench army with a Warpflame host and Burning Skyhost.
This change will invalidate most of those units. I won't be able to field an army of flamers and screamers.

I'm OK with that. Better balance to the game is well worth having to bring a few horrors. I can still bring a ton of screamers and flamers, I just need to add some horrors as well.
Your army is likely the same way. You can probably still bring everything you have now, just in more balanced numbers.

**v0iddrgn**

Ah man, where's my sarcastic laden response, Liberal_Perturabo?

**labmouse42**

Daedalus81 wrote:
1) GW is perfect
2) I am happy with what I've heard so far and want to hear more.
3) I like most things, but I really need to know more before I can judge.
4) This all sounds terrible and I don't care to listen.
5) THIS IS THE WORST THING EVER. I QUIT.

I would love to see a poll where people rank these values and then add how often they play.
The number of people on this forum who say things like "I've not played since 5th edition" is staggering.

**ClockworkZion**

v0iddrgn wrote:
JohnnyHell wrote:
Liberal_Perturabo wrote:
What was so inherently broken about formations concept?

Points are supposed to mean balance.

Yet buy these units and get free units too!

That breaks balance in an instant.

Yep, same reason we don't like the psychic summoning gak.

We know that is changing at least. 40k Facebook confirmed (with snark) that free summoned units are a thing of the past.

**tneva82**

labmouse42 wrote:
My main army is a Tzeench army with a Warpflame host and Burning Skyhost.
This change will invalidate most of those units. I won't be able to field an army of flamers and screamers.

You don't? Where does it say? So far best we can say we don't know for SURE you can but...There's 11 detachments to be seen plus whatever they come up in future.

**Liberal_Perturabo**

Desubot wrote:
Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

Nuking as in completely removing from the game like they did with formations. GW oblosly wouldn't do that to something like a wraithknight.

I think you and i have completely different ideas of what nuking means.

They are completely redoing the game.

it makes no sense to bring something in from basically a whole another game as is

and for all we know formations will be in but in a completely different shape and form.

My whole argument is about them not bringing formations as is, but rather fixing them for 8th.

They are talking 14 and we've already seen 3 of them. There are more factions in 40k than this, so basically glorified FOCs, maybe one or two xenos/chaos/imperium specific. That's a huge downgrade from what was already in 40k and only needed, not gonna lie, sometimes significant improvements, but still.

**rollawaythestone**

Wonder what they are going to do with the Harlequins. Either they are stuck with a army-specific detachment, or they are going to have to give them an HQ unit.

**ClockworkZion**

tneva82 wrote:
labmouse42 wrote:
My main army is a Tzeench army with a Warpflame host and Burning Skyhost.
This change will invalidate most of those units. I won't be able to field an army of flamers and screamers.

You don't? Where does it say? So far best we can say we don't know for SURE you can but...There's 11 detachments to be seen plus whatever they come up in future.

There are also faction specific FOCs coming too (though likely not until well after the initial release).

**Vaktathi**

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

Nothing you've mentioned couldn't be fixed with a rewrite and a proper restriction as a requirement for you having a formation. Formations consisting of formations I can agree with, but just removing those would fix that problem.

The issue is that there is no good way to appropriately cost many if not most of these things.

How are you going to balance those bonuses? Especially in formations that dont have fixed freebies or unit counts? How would you appropriately cost something like a War Convocation with no Gets Hot and synergizing with free plasma and wargear across multiple units and BS enhancing abilities to boot? How would you cost something like Aspect Warriors getting Bs5 or Ws5 with no fixed unit types or sizes? Is BS5 something that should be easily available for the entire duration of a game to something like Fire Dragons in the first place?

If bonuses of certain types are warranted, why not just build it as a fundamental unit upgrade? Why add the extra layer of Formations on top?

Also, I do not belive that more playstyle variety is something unnecessary for a game to have.

The issue is that they didnt add playstylr variety, we got different armies than we did before, but the variety amongst them wasnt any better. Go to any event and cookie cutter would reign just as hard, or harder, than in previous editions.

I mean...how many non Decurion Necron armies have you seen of late? I havent seen a single one on a table in over two years.

**skarsol**

davou wrote:
skarsol wrote:
Hurm...

"If your army is built using Formations right now, you’re going to be fine. In their place are a dozen new game-wide Detachments that are available to all factions."

I wait eagerly to see how they're going to make a generic Battle Forged layout that lets me replicate what the Infernal Tetrad allows (ie: 5 Demon Princes in 1850).

That seems to be possible using JUST whats been spoiled today, did you look?

Based on the examples, to get 5 HQ it would require 6 troops choices, 3 elite, 3 fast attack, and 3 heavy support. That's not going to fit in 1850 unless point values are all kinds of crazy.

**kronk**

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

There are several times more units in the game than formations. Each with their own special rules, wargear and so on. Many of them broken too.
Even still GW decided to rebalance the whole thing and not just nuke everything, since people are not particularly fond of their models suddenely becoming invalid.
Yes, making a good game is hard. Balancing is hard. It doesn't mean we should excuse developers for not doing so.

Models will not become invalid. Their first FAQ said so: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/04/22/the-new-edition-of-warhammer-40000-your-questions-answeredgw-homepage-post-2/

Is my army still valid?
Yes, it certainly is! You’ll still be able to use your army in the new edition of Warhammer 40,000. All current armies will be supported with new rules.

Can I still use all my models?
Yes. Every Warhammer 40,000 miniature we sell today will be usable in the new edition of Warhammer 40,000. What’s more, they’ll be supported with new rules, which will be available from the get go in handy, low-cost books.

Even Forge World models?
Yes, even all of your Warhammer 40,000 Forge World models**.

**changemod**

Anyhow my opinion is that formations as a list building tool were rarely a problem, just the free rules given out by them.

The concept of formations minus extra rules is excellent for structuring themed armies such as ravenwing, deathwing, a necron destroyer cult etcetera.

I sincerely hope that the other force organisation charts include ones where elites, fast attack and heavy support consist the tax units rather than troops, as that'd much more readily allow for creative theme building where you don't have to explain why your deathwing have 5 tactical marines hanging out with them for no apparent reason.

**tneva82**

rollawaythestone wrote:
Wonder what they are going to do with the Harlequins. Either they are stuck with a army-specific detachment, or they are going to have to give them an HQ unit.

Or some of the 14 detachments don't have minimum HQ...

I mean you don't think all 14 are same except bigger? What 14th would look like? minimum 30 troops, 10 HS, 10 FA, 15 HQ with 50 command points?-)

**Desubot**

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:
Desubot wrote:
Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

Nuking as in completely removing from the game like they did with formations. GW oblosly wouldn't do that to something like a wraithknight.

I think you and i have completely different ideas of what nuking means.

They are completely redoing the game.

it makes no sense to bring something in from basically a whole another game as is

and for all we know formations will be in but in a completely different shape and form.

My whole argument is about them not bringing formations as is, but rather fixing them for 8th.

They are talking 14 and we've already seen 3 of them. There are more factions in 40k than this, so basically glorified FOCs, maybe one or two xenos/chaos/imperium specific. That's a huge downgrade from what was already in 40k and only needed, not gonna lie, sometimes significant improvements, but still.

All we have are speculations. but its probably only 14 for the base rules probably specific things for general play. anywhere from kill teams to apoc sized games. attack and defend that add fortifications to FOC. very much 100% sure that they will add faction specific ones for all the armies. like a FOC designed for a drop pod army. or one that is nothing but foot soldiers for guards.

**tneva82**

ClockworkZion wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
You don't? Where does it say? So far best we can say we don't know for SURE you can but...There's 11 detachments to be seen plus whatever they come up in future.

There are also faction specific FOCs coming too (though likely not until well after the initial release).

Yep

No doubt. That's why I specified whatever they come up in future as one thing we can be pretty damn sure is that it won't stop in first 14.

**kronk**

Spoiler:

Assuming the same points, and that you can take multiple detachments:

2 HQ +1 troop
2 HQ + 1 troop
1 HQ + 1 troop

Possible.

You just don't get any command benefits. Or your old formation benefits.

**tneva82**

skarsol wrote:
Based on the examples, to get 5 HQ it would require 6 troops choices, 3 elite, 3 fast attack, and 3 heavy support. That's not going to fit in 1850 unless point values are all kinds of crazy.

Or just 6 troops.

But again 3 out of 14. 4-14 are unlikely to be just same but bigger.

edit: Or just 3 troops as above poster noticed. So it's 3 extra troop and 3 command points or minimum troops and no command points.

**krazynadechukr**

kronk wrote:
Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

people are not particularly fond of their models suddenely becoming invalid.

Models will not become invalid. Their first FAQ said so: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/04/22/the-new-edition-of-warhammer-40000-your-questions-answeredgw-homepage-post-2/

Is my army still valid?
Yes, it certainly is! You’ll still be able to use your army in the new edition of Warhammer 40,000. All current armies will be supported with new rules.

Can I still use all my models?
Yes. Every Warhammer 40,000 miniature we sell today will be usable in the new edition of Warhammer 40,000. What’s more, they’ll be supported with new rules, which will be available from the get go in handy, low-cost books.

Even Forge World models?
Yes, even all of your Warhammer 40,000 Forge World models**.

Key words - CURRENT & TODAY

So, all current armies & all models we sell today. Nice and ambiguous so that if they change it tomorrow it still holds true! Watch how many models on their web store become "out of stock" and/or "discontinued."

**davou**

skarsol wrote:
davou wrote:
skarsol wrote:
Hurm...

"If your army is built using Formations right now, you’re going to be fine. In their place are a dozen new game-wide Detachments that are available to all factions."

I wait eagerly to see how they're going to make a generic Battle Forged layout that lets me replicate what the Infernal Tetrad allows (ie: 5 Demon Princes in 1850).

That seems to be possible using JUST whats been spoiled today, did you look?

Based on the examples, to get 5 HQ it would require 6 troops choices, 3 elite, 3 fast attack, and 3 heavy support. That's not going to fit in 1850 unless point values are all kinds of crazy.

I dont play demons granted, but I can do it easilly with my orks, passably with my marines and comfortably with my tau

**Liberal_Perturabo**

labmouse42 wrote:
Liberal_Perturabo wrote:
There are several times more units in the game than formations. Each with their own special rules, wargear and so on. Many of them broken too.
Even still GW decided to rebalance the whole thing and not just nuke everything, since people are not particularly fond of their models suddenely becoming invalid.
Yes, making a good game is hard. Balancing is hard. It doesn't mean we should excuse developers for not doing so.
My main army is a Tzeench army with a Warpflame host and Burning Skyhost.
This change will invalidate most of those units. I won't be able to field an army of flamers and screamers.

I'm OK with that. Better balance to the game is well worth having to bring a few horrors. I can still bring a ton of screamers and flamers, I just need to add some horrors as well.
Your army is likely the same way. You can probably still bring everything you have now, just in more balanced numbers.

It's not about the fact whether you can play or not. Of course you can play, I fully expect GW to have at least that covered. You will totally be able to get by in 8th.
The problem lies in the fact that if in 7th you usually had a nice variety of options if you wanted something really different with your models or try something new now you won't have that at all. Sure, some of those options were broken, some useless but it only begged the question to rebalance them, not straight up remove.