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.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Skitarii no longer exist. The only faction in the new 40k page is Adeptus Mechanicus, so Skitarii will have HQ. The ones of the Adeptus Mechanicus, as always should have been.

They said those lists were from a narrative standpoint and not to use them as a gauge of what factions are or are not in the game.

Having Ad Mech as one faction does solve the HQ problem, but it does also muck the fluff up since Techpriests are in orbit controlling the Skitarii, not PlanetSide.

Well it seems like they are pushing the story along to 1 second to midnight now so maybe they are getting desperate?

fluffwise i dunno but rules wise it makes sense. they are all technomancers in red (generally)

H.B.M.C. wrote:The question is does this new system allow for variant lists, or do they make new FOCs?

For instance, do they make a Deathwing FOC that has nothing but Elite and HS slots, and put a limit on Dreads (so you have to take Deathwing squads), or do they just say 'Deathwing Terminators count as Troops in a Deathwing army'?

I am envisioning an alternate detachment with no Troops required, only HQ and Elite. That way Deathwing don't need a special rule to bypass their role.

Galas wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Skitarii no longer exist. The only faction in the new 40k page is Adeptus Mechanicus, so Skitarii will have HQ. The ones of the Adeptus Mechanicus, as always should have been.

They said those lists were from a narrative standpoint and not to use them as a gauge of what factions are or are not in the game.

Having Ad Mech as one faction does solve the HQ problem, but it does also muck the fluff up since Techpriests are in orbit controlling the Skitarii, not PlanetSide.

I know that. But to me is just a confirmation of the unification of the two factions that have no reason to be cut in half.

I wouldn't be bothered by it at all if they did combine them. I have a Techpriest Dominus and Belasarius Cawl, so I am set in the HQ department.

There was no good reason for Skitarii and Cult Mechanicus to be separate factions in the first place other than to encourage people to buy two books instead of one. I would expect there to be an Adeptus Mechanicus keyword,with a Skitarii keyword, a Cult Mechanicus keyword and a Knight Household keyword within it or something.

 Desubot wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Skitarii no longer exist. The only faction in the new 40k page is Adeptus Mechanicus, so Skitarii will have HQ. The ones of the Adeptus Mechanicus, as always should have been.

They said those lists were from a narrative standpoint and not to use them as a gauge of what factions are or are not in the game.

Having Ad Mech as one faction does solve the HQ problem, but it does also muck the fluff up since Techpriests are in orbit controlling the Skitarii, not PlanetSide.

Well it seems like they are pushing the story along to 1 second to midnight now so maybe they are getting desperate?

fluffwise i dunno but rules wise it makes sense. they are all technomancers in red (generally)

Oh, absolutely. They can definitely come up with a good explanation quite easily. And I would be totally fine with that, as long as they don't try to say this is how it always has been.

And my Skitarii are technomancers in GREEN, TYVM!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The question is does this new system allow for variant lists, or do they make new FOCs?

For instance, do they make a Deathwing FOC that has nothing but Elite and HS slots, and put a limit on Dreads (so you have to take Deathwing squads), or do they just say 'Deathwing Terminators count as Troops in a Deathwing army'?

It's likely to be the latter, since that's the way AoS handles it. Usually you have to take a specific HQ choice or have that choice be your general/warlord. So for example for Bloodcrushers to become troops you need a Skullmaster (The weird-rebrand for a Khorne Herald on Juggernaut) to be your general. That's not to say you can't include Bloodthirsters or other heroes.

As long as it's not Special Character-based.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
As long as it's not Special Character-based.

That's why I would rather they just skipped the whole role-changing ability and made detachments that allowed the roles to be used more instead of Troops. BA and White Scars spamming Fast Attack over Troops, Deathwing and Farsight Enclaves spamming Elites over Troops, and the like. Obviously they wouldn't get as many command points, if at all.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
That's why I would rather they just skipped the whole role-changing ability and made detachments that allowed the roles to be used more instead of Troops. BA and White Scars spamming Fast Attack over Troops, Deathwing and Farsight Enclaves spamming Elites over Troops, and the like. Obviously they wouldn't get as many command points, if at all.

That, to me, does seem like a better idea.

I'm sure they'll mess it up somehow.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
*watches as the 6th/7th Ed Formation pyre burns into the night*

And nothing of any value, whatsoever, was lost.

Good riddance to one of the dumbest ideas to ever infest this game. Formations should have:

1. Cost points.
2. Stayed in Apoc.
3. Never, ever given free transports/upgrades to units. Ever!

Yup. Don't forget to roast any remaining finecast marshmellows while you're there along with the rest of Kirby's legacy as CEO.

Don't be silly, finecast marshmallows melt and fall off the stick 15ft from the fire, there's no way you can roast them!

(But at least they already have a hole for the stick, if you insist on trying.)

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
That's why I would rather they just skipped the whole role-changing ability and made detachments that allowed the roles to be used more instead of Troops. BA and White Scars spamming Fast Attack over Troops, Deathwing and Farsight Enclaves spamming Elites over Troops, and the like. Obviously they wouldn't get as many command points, if at all.

That, to me, does seem like a better idea.

I'm sure they'll mess it up somehow.

Fingers crossed for something decent. I wouldn't mind being able to ignore Tactical Marines in either of my SM armies. I still think they should have a Troops slot in those special detachments, but they wouldn't be the required units. And spamming Elites stacks up on points, so there is already a built in drawback.

Don't be cruel. Krell, Lord of Undead, had no choice in the material they made him with

And, try to fry THE MIGHTY SLAMBO, I wan't to see how that goes

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
As long as it's not Special Character-based.

That's why I would rather they just skipped the whole role-changing ability and made detachments that allowed the roles to be used more instead of Troops. BA and White Scars spamming Fast Attack over Troops, Deathwing and Farsight Enclaves spamming Elites over Troops, and the like. Obviously they wouldn't get as many command points, if at all.

They mentioned in one of the earlier previews that they will do exactly this. That there will be detachments that focus on Heavy Supports, etc.

 rollawaythestone wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
As long as it's not Special Character-based.

That's why I would rather they just skipped the whole role-changing ability and made detachments that allowed the roles to be used more instead of Troops. BA and White Scars spamming Fast Attack over Troops, Deathwing and Farsight Enclaves spamming Elites over Troops, and the like. Obviously they wouldn't get as many command points, if at all.

They mentioned in one of the earlier previews that they will do exactly this. That there will be detachments that focus on Heavy Supports, etc.

I know that, but I suspect they will just be something like 1HQ, 2T, 2HS required. I want some that have NO Troops required.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 rollawaythestone wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
As long as it's not Special Character-based.

That's why I would rather they just skipped the whole role-changing ability and made detachments that allowed the roles to be used more instead of Troops. BA and White Scars spamming Fast Attack over Troops, Deathwing and Farsight Enclaves spamming Elites over Troops, and the like. Obviously they wouldn't get as many command points, if at all.

They mentioned in one of the earlier previews that they will do exactly this. That there will be detachments that focus on Heavy Supports, etc.

I know that, but I suspect they will just be something like 1HQ, 2T, 2HS required. I want some that have NO Troops required.

If you want that, you can always, you know...

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 rollawaythestone wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
As long as it's not Special Character-based.

That's why I would rather they just skipped the whole role-changing ability and made detachments that allowed the roles to be used more instead of Troops. BA and White Scars spamming Fast Attack over Troops, Deathwing and Farsight Enclaves spamming Elites over Troops, and the like. Obviously they wouldn't get as many command points, if at all.

They mentioned in one of the earlier previews that they will do exactly this. That there will be detachments that focus on Heavy Supports, etc.

I know that, but I suspect they will just be something like 1HQ, 2T, 2HS required. I want some that have NO Troops required.

Lets wait and see

 rollawaythestone wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 rollawaythestone wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
As long as it's not Special Character-based.

That's why I would rather they just skipped the whole role-changing ability and made detachments that allowed the roles to be used more instead of Troops. BA and White Scars spamming Fast Attack over Troops, Deathwing and Farsight Enclaves spamming Elites over Troops, and the like. Obviously they wouldn't get as many command points, if at all.

They mentioned in one of the earlier previews that they will do exactly this. That there will be detachments that focus on Heavy Supports, etc.

I know that, but I suspect they will just be something like 1HQ, 2T, 2HS required. I want some that have NO Troops required.

Lets wait and see

I know. I am just speculating. It is quite easy to see how a FoC with required slots instead of Troops can help numerous armies out. No need to special rules on special characters allowing role changes. If objective secured is still a thing, that would be another trade off.

An FOC with all HS required could represent a tank company. All of these make a fair amount of sense.

It also lets them help balance things by giving our more/less command benefits.

I'm hoping so something similar as well. My Tau have always been Farsight Enclaves. Plus I have the complete Dark Angels first and second companies.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
That's why I would rather they just skipped the whole role-changing ability and made detachments that allowed the roles to be used more instead of Troops. BA and White Scars spamming Fast Attack over Troops, Deathwing and Farsight Enclaves spamming Elites over Troops, and the like. Obviously they wouldn't get as many command points, if at all.

That, to me, does seem like a better idea.

I'm sure they'll mess it up somehow.

If there's no generic Elite-focused Detachment, I could see there being one down the line for Deathwing with a Restriction saying "All units in this Detachment (excluding Dedicated Transports) must have the DEATHWING keyword."

Then have it be something like 1-3 HQ, 2-12 Elites, 1 DT per other Selection, 0-X Heavy Support (in case Land Raiders aren't DTs) and maybe give a small number of Command Points.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
That's why I would rather they just skipped the whole role-changing ability and made detachments that allowed the roles to be used more instead of Troops. BA and White Scars spamming Fast Attack over Troops, Deathwing and Farsight Enclaves spamming Elites over Troops, and the like. Obviously they wouldn't get as many command points, if at all.

That, to me, does seem like a better idea.

I'm sure they'll mess it up somehow.

If there's no generic Elite-focused Detachment, I could see there being one down the line for Deathwing with a Restriction saying "All units in this Detachment (excluding Dedicated Transports) must have the DEATHWING keyword."

Then have it be something like 1-3 HQ, 2-12 Elites, 1 DT per other Selection, 0-X Heavy Support (in case Land Raiders aren't DTs) and maybe give a small number of Command Points.

That would work, but it seems like a generic one would cover more bases without needlessly creating a ton of Detachments for several armies. The ability to run an army with all Elites covers so many armies (Deathwing, Death Company, Farsight Enclaves, among others), that it would be silly to not do it.

...so...GW probably won't...

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
...so...GW probably won't...

And they'll make the amount of command points you get a random 2D6 roll while they're at it.

My daughter has gastro, not going to be able to keep up with the thread, if anyone has info to be added to the OP, please PM me (I am about 8 pages behind ATM.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
That's why I would rather they just skipped the whole role-changing ability and made detachments that allowed the roles to be used more instead of Troops. BA and White Scars spamming Fast Attack over Troops, Deathwing and Farsight Enclaves spamming Elites over Troops, and the like. Obviously they wouldn't get as many command points, if at all.

That, to me, does seem like a better idea.

I'm sure they'll mess it up somehow.

If there's no generic Elite-focused Detachment, I could see there being one down the line for Deathwing with a Restriction saying "All units in this Detachment (excluding Dedicated Transports) must have the DEATHWING keyword."

Then have it be something like 1-3 HQ, 2-12 Elites, 1 DT per other Selection, 0-X Heavy Support (in case Land Raiders aren't DTs) and maybe give a small number of Command Points.

That would work, but it seems like a generic one would cover more bases without needlessly creating a ton of Detachments for several armies. The ability to run an army with all Elites covers so many armies (Deathwing, Death Company, Farsight Enclaves, among others), that it would be silly to not do it.

...so...GW probably won't...

Oh for sure a generic one is preferred. Blood Angels should be able to field the Archangels, Salamander the Firedrakes etc as well. Deathwing should have all the fun!
Plus it would allow people to field Storm Trooper armies so that the 5 people that currently have pure Millitarum Tempestus armies can still field them without getting their own separate army book from the Guard.

Natfka has a rumor posted about FoCs going forward from the intial release: Decurion style bonuses for specific builds will apparently be a thing.

Not a shock and something many of us were guessing I believe. Time will tell on how balanced these end up actually being though.

At least we can file complaints with the insistance of someone sold a dead parrot if these turn out to be utter game breaking gak...

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Natfka has a rumor posted about FoCs going forward from the intial release: Decurion style bonuses for specific builds will apparently be a thing.

Not a shock and something many of us were guessing I believe. Time will tell on how balanced these end up actually being though.

At least we can file complaints with the insistance of someone sold a dead parrot if these turn out to be utter game breaking gak...

I think you want to say:

"Natfka has just invented something and say that it is a rumor to give it some credibility"

Not that I don't see posible GW making again the same errors. Is just that Natfka is full of

EDIT: Maybe this comment sounds more abrut against you that intendet, ClockworkZion. Please, this is not agains't you, only again'st Natfka!

 EnTyme wrote:

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

 kronk wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

That its better to fix things that needed work rather than ruining the whole system for the sake of nothing in particular?

Broken formations were a ruined system that needed to die a quick death. IMHO, YMMV, OMG, BBQ, WTF.

Ok.
So following your logic GW should have removed all wulfen, riptides, wraithknigts and so on because they were also aroken and needed to die?

What was it that you liked so much about formations?

The rules or the fluff? Both?

I'm not clear on that.

Why is that a binary choice? Why do formation bonuses have to be free? Why can't points be used to balance the bonus rules an army gets for taking a specific selection of units that represent how one (fluffy) aspect of an army works together? I keep seeing how formations killed variety, but I see the opposite. FREE formations were a bad idea. Costed formations give the player another option for how to build their army. You give up one bonus (extra command points in 8th) in exchange for some extra rules for your army (which you should pay for like you do in AoS). I except that this is the direction GW has gone for 8th, and it's damn sure not a deal breaker for me, but it doesn't mean I have to be happy with losing one of my favorite aspects of army creation in 7th edition and AoS.

You're going to have to explain how you're losing anything except imbalanced rules.

Assuming the remaining FoC's allow for all the various combinations of units allowed by the old formations(they almost certainly will) and assuming GW actually have managed to hit on something approaching balance in terms of individual units and on the army scale(dubious, but it can hardly be worse than it is now where some units literally only function with a hideously OP buff formation to boost them), then where is the loss?

The intent here seems to be to standardise and generalise Formations using these new FoC and Command Points that let you do variuous things rather than specific "five of this unit is passable now, and if you take twenty they become UNSTOPPABRU!" cheesemongery. I'm sure we'll get some (hopefully very, very, very, extremely)specific FoC later for individual armies that might involve special boosts in exchange for a direct point cost or some other tradeoff, but right now GW are trying to take perhaps the most bloated and shoddily balanced wargame ever made and streamline it to hell, and Formations are both an easy and entirely rational way to contribute to that process.

We'll see if the final result is any good later, but this specific aspect of the new system seems great and entirely sensible to me.

 Galas wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Natfka has a rumor posted about FoCs going forward from the intial release: Decurion style bonuses for specific builds will apparently be a thing.

Not a shock and something many of us were guessing I believe. Time will tell on how balanced these end up actually being though.

At least we can file complaints with the insistance of someone sold a dead parrot if these turn out to be utter game breaking gak...

I think you want to say:

"Natfka has just invented something and say that it is a rumor to give it some credibility"

Not that I don't see posible GW making again the same errors. Is just that Natfka is full of

He doesn't make up stuff to posts but rather runs a very loose filter over any rumors submitted. At least the last batch of rumors got a proper looking at and were rejected by third party sources which lead to a proper retraction. If these are fake then I can see the same happening here.

Decurion style FOCs I think could work as long as they can't also get Command Points to spend from the FOC. If that's our big balancing factor between different FOCs and even taking multiples of the same FOCs then it shouldn't be a bonus for armies who are gaining other formation bonuses.

Regardless we'll see. So much is still up in the air and it's not like we can't see fast changes going forward if something slipped the net in testing.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Skitarii no longer exist. The only faction in the new 40k page is Adeptus Mechanicus, so Skitarii will have HQ. The ones of the Adeptus Mechanicus, as always should have been.

They said those lists were from a narrative standpoint and not to use them as a gauge of what factions are or are not in the game.

Having Ad Mech as one faction does solve the HQ problem, but it does also muck the fluff up since Techpriests are in orbit controlling the Skitarii, not PlanetSide.

That might be the fluff they wrote to justify releasing Skitarii solo with no HQ to try and double-dip the Mechanicus fanbase with two books, but it's directly contradicted by almost every bit of fluff that previously existed about the Mechanicus, and logically contradicted by the CultMech release since the Techpriests in that are perfectly willing to go planetside and the idea Skitarii and Robot Maniples never see combat together is silly. Explorators, Cybernetica Magi, Ordo Reductor Magi, Myrmidons, and Magisterium Magi would all, regularly, be leading Skitarii forces planetside. And before the Skitarii book, it had always been that way, so they're not rewriting the fluff by combining Skitarii & Cultmech, they're fixing it.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The question is does this new system allow for variant lists, or do they make new FOCs?

For instance, do they make a Deathwing FOC that has nothing but Elite and HS slots, and put a limit on Dreads (so you have to take Deathwing squads), or do they just say 'Deathwing Terminators count as Troops in a Deathwing army'?

I'm expecting there to be a core-FoC that uses Elites & HQ as its required choices and has a large upper number of Elites, rather than Troops & HQ and a focus on Troops as the basic ones do. I would then expect the Deathwing-specific rules to be on the actual Deathwing unit Datasheets. So, rather than picking a Deathwing formation that lets you take a selection of units you normally couldn't and makes them better, they'll just let everyone take that selection of units if they like using the appropriate FoC and the Deathwing will be inherently good at what they're supposed to do.

Assuming I've sussed their intent correctly ofc, and assuming they pull off the balance side of things fairly well.

Elite, Fast Attack, Horde and Tank Heavy FOCs I can see and understand being open to everyone (save non-GSC Nids on that last one) but some armies have traditionally been a little weirder in terms of composition (Harlequins, Inquisition) and I wonder if they'll be our first faction specific FOC releases.

I frankly wouldn't mind if they approached it by giving those armies access to unique detachments at the start of the new addition just to round them out without stuffing them into their respective higher factions (Imperium, Xenos, Eldar) to "fix" the problem until they get around to giving them a new FOC later.

That said it is possible this will become a non-issue by making said units change FOC slots to better fit the new detachements.

Also, anyone else hoping Inqusition gets a rule that shares the "Inquisition" keyword with units from the Imperium faction to sow how they take resources as needed for their various missions? I mean it doesn't even need to do anything rules wise, I just think it'd make for good flavor.