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.

BrianDavion wrote:my concern is will these detachments give a massive advantage to horde armies. it's a lot easier to plunk down 6 squads of IG vets then it is to plunk down 6 GKT squads

Then maybe that's a good reason to run some GKs in power armor, isn't it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anyway, I love these changes.

It rewards people who run "balanced," "well rounded" lists and SIGNIFICANTLY punishes people who run gimmicky and spam lists.

That's a good move on GW's part.

 Traditio wrote:
Do you think that space marines are going to be able to take rhinos as fast attacks?

I don't think so, I think they'll be additional transport options to be bought with units. So if you buy a TAC or Assault Squad you can also purchase the Rhino, but it will be part of the unit and whatever it counts as just as dedicated transports are now. That's complete conjecture, though, and it's only based on the fact that transports have their own slot in the new FOC types they teased.

 Traditio wrote:

It rewards people who run "balanced," "well rounded" lists and SIGNIFICANTLY punishes people who run gimmicky and spam lists.

That's a good move on GW's part.

+1

The more benefits well-rounded armies receive the better. Gimmicks and spam are powerful options, and so well-rounded armies probably need natural benefits to keep them on par.

One final point:

Did anybody notice how these FOCs somewhat resemble the scaling FOCs presented in the proposed rules section a while back?

Probably a complete coincidence, but still interesting to think about.

I think transports are their own thing for this particular set of FoCs, I don't think that will be the case for all FoCs. Think of it as the bonus for taking this particular style of FoC. Other FoCs might focus on different classes of units and have different advantages.

For instance, some kind of Sam Hain/ravenwing style fast attack as compulsory (instead of troops) is practically required to be able to host many of the current armies. I don't think they will get "Slotless" dedicated transports, and will instead have some other kind of advantage.

 rollawaythestone wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

It rewards people who run "balanced," "well rounded" lists and SIGNIFICANTLY punishes people who run gimmicky and spam lists.

That's a good move on GW's part.

+1

The more benefits well-rounded armies receive the better. Gimmicks and spam are powerful options, and so well-rounded armies probably need natural benefits to keep them on par.

Could this be the rebirth of the Take-All-Comers list? I hope so

-

One final final point:

Where do you think the flyrant is going to go? HQ or flyer?

 Traditio wrote:
One final final point:

Where do you think the flyrant is going to go? HQ or flyer?

Interesting question.
In AoS a huge leader model may be considered both a Behemoth, and a Leader (based on the keywords in its profile).
So it counts against both the number of leaders you may have, and the number of behemoths you may have.
I wonder if single units could take up multiple detachment slots here.

 rollawaythestone wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

It rewards people who run "balanced," "well rounded" lists and SIGNIFICANTLY punishes people who run gimmicky and spam lists.

That's a good move on GW's part.

+1

The more benefits well-rounded armies receive the better. Gimmicks and spam are powerful options, and so well-rounded armies probably need natural benefits to keep them on par.

We'll see. I'd say my list is well-rounded even though my main detachment is 100% fast attack. I have a large variety of weapon and unit types considering that almost everyone is on a bike, and I'm already paying an 11-26 point premium per marine when compared to the cost of each TAC marine. That's before you count weapons, too. If specialized, yet fluffy lists like mine suddenly become garbage compared to cookie-cutter CAD builds with a bunch of basic troops I'd consider that a major failure on the part of GW. There's nothing really stopping a troops-based list from being spammy, anyway. In fact, it's kind of the point, isn't it?

I don't think we should be concerned about punishing anyone for their playstyle, just making sure that cheap spam and gimmicks aren't the all or nothing gambits that they are now.

As long as there is a 3 LoW Detachment ill be happy
(So i can refield the Kytan-Trinity of Blood)

 Traditio wrote:
One final final point:

Where do you think the flyrant is going to go? HQ or flyer?

I'm hoping that winged creatures go back to being jump. rather than flying. Then it'd definitely be HQ. A man can dream.

 Luciferian wrote:

 rollawaythestone wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

It rewards people who run "balanced," "well rounded" lists and SIGNIFICANTLY punishes people who run gimmicky and spam lists.

That's a good move on GW's part.

+1

The more benefits well-rounded armies receive the better. Gimmicks and spam are powerful options, and so well-rounded armies probably need natural benefits to keep them on par.

We'll see. I'd say my list is well-rounded even though my main detachment is 100% fast attack. I have a large variety of weapon and unit types considering that almost everyone is on a bike, and I'm already paying an 11-26 point premium per marine when compared to the cost of each TAC marine. That's before you count weapons, too. If specialized, yet fluffy lists like mine suddenly become garbage compared to cookie-cutter CAD builds with a bunch of basic troops I'd consider that a major failure on the part of GW. There's nothing really stopping a troops-based list from being spammy, anyway. In fact, it's kind of the point, isn't it?

I don't think we should be concerned about punishing anyone for their playstyle, just making sure that cheap spam and gimmicks aren't the all or nothing gambits that they are now.

Yeah, ultimately the goal of good design would be to attempt to equalize the power level between different playstyles, units, and lists.

 rollawaythestone wrote:


Yeah, ultimately the goal of good design would be to attempt to equalize the power level between different playstyles, units, and lists.

Indeed, which is a daunting task for any game designer. Hopefully they have the will to at least do the best they can.

Luciferian wrote:We'll see. I'd say my list is well-rounded even though my main detachment is 100% fast attack. I have a large variety of weapon and unit types considering that almost everyone is on a bike, and I'm already paying an 11-26 point premium per marine when compared to the cost of each TAC marine. That's before you count weapons, too. If specialized, yet fluffy lists like mine suddenly become garbage compared to cookie-cutter CAD builds with a bunch of basic troops I'd consider that a major failure on the part of GW. There's nothing really stopping a troops-based list from being spammy, anyway. In fact, it's kind of the point, isn't it?

I don't think we should be concerned about punishing anyone for their playstyle, just making sure that cheap spam and gimmicks aren't the all or nothing gambits that they are now.

I've played against a ravenwing list before. I used a crimson fists gun line.

I think you'll pardon me when I say that I hope that you get an all fast attack detachment...and I hope that it confers exactly zero command points.

 Traditio wrote:


I've played against a ravenwing list before. I used a crimson fists gun line.

I think you'll pardon me when I say that I hope that you get an all fast attack detachment...and I hope that it confers exactly zero command points.

I'll pardon you... for putting your personal preference and bias above your desire for good game design

BrianDavion wrote:

 Talamare wrote:
The 3 example Detachments... SUUUUUUUCK

It's basically... Everyone will be in Battalion unless you manage to squeeze enough in for Brigade.

I don't even see the point of them even existing.
Especially the Patrol Detachment, It's so bad it shouldn't exist.

my concern is will these detachments give a massive advantage to horde armies. it's a lot easier to plunk down 6 squads of IG vets then it is to plunk down 6 GKT squads

Patrol exists for 500ish point games. Also, for all we know horde armies will have their own problems. And if the command point buff effects target units, then having larger units might be a useful trade-off as while you have fewer command points your command points can carry further. Just theorizing, of course.

Luciferian wrote:I'll pardon you... for putting your personal preference and bias above your desire for good game design

Fair enough!

I will say this, though, and it's basically just me repeating what I've said several times before:

GW said that they're doing intensive play testing to ensure balance. I can only assume that at least one person used a ravenwing army.

I think that the majority of players are going to be happy with the result.

And I look forward to the weeping and wailing of the WAAC types* who realize that their net lists are suddenly trash tier...or, at the very least, simply mid-tier.




*Understand, I am not calling you or anyone else either on this thread or on this website a WAAC type. I am speaking very generally.

 Traditio wrote:

Fair enough!

I will say this, though, and it's basically just me repeating what I've said several times before:

GW said that they're doing intensive play testing to ensure balance. I can only assume that at least one person used a ravenwing army.

I think that the majority of players are going to be happy with the result.

And I look forward to the weeping and wailing of the WAAC types* who realize that their net lists are suddenly trash tier...or, at the very least, simply mid-tier.




*Understand, I am not calling you or anyone else either on this thread or on this website a WAAC type. I am speaking very generally.

No offense taken, I'm not a WAAC type at all, although just like everyone else I like having an optimal list for my playstyle and a fighting chance. Let's hope we all get exactly that

To be totally honest, my sole motivating factor in starting this army was that it was the cheapest way for me to get 1850 points after bartering with my DV set and scrounging for deals on eBay

 Vaktathi wrote:
Formations, as they existed in 7E, do indeed appear to be gone.

No more "hey take 3 aspect warrior units you were gonna take anyway and theyre all magically BS5" or "get a dozen free vehicles" garbage and the like.

We haven't seen the Datasheets for Eldar or Space Marines. For all we know, the basic Eldar Aspect is going to be WS2+ BS2+ and the basic 5-SM unit includes a "free" Razorback...

JohnHwangDD wrote:and the basic 5-SM unit includes a "free" Razorback...

Unlikely. The detachments that they revealed indicate a pattern of "limit 1 dedicated transport to two FOC selections."

 Traditio wrote:

Unlikely. The detachments that they revealed indicate a pattern of "limit 1 dedicated transport to two FOC selections."

Which is actually a pretty major incentive to field 5 man TAC squads over 10 man squads, as if there weren't enough already.

 Luciferian wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

Unlikely. The detachments that they revealed indicate a pattern of "limit 1 dedicated transport to two FOC selections."

Which is actually a pretty major incentive to field 5 man TAC squads over 10 man squads, as if there weren't enough already.

I'm not complaining.

This actually suits my army perfectly.

Roughly half of my army is a back-field gunline.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Talamare wrote:
The 3 example Detachments... SUUUUUUUCK

It's basically... Everyone will be in Battalion unless you manage to squeeze enough in for Brigade.

I don't even see the point of them even existing.
Especially the Patrol Detachment, It's so bad it shouldn't exist.

my concern is will these detachments give a massive advantage to horde armies. it's a lot easier to plunk down 6 squads of IG vets then it is to plunk down 6 GKT squads

sssssort of?

Yeah, you can get 6 naked vet squads for 360 points, but after kit, mandatory transport, and whatnot you're in about the same range as the typical 5/6 man GK deep striking strike squad and in many cases only a ~20-30 or so points less than a 5man kitted GKT unit

Though it does leave aome minmax issues in play.

I think perhaps both points and detachment type will be something to be agreed upon as opposed to just points level. I could see aome extreme min maxing to milk heavy support slots and command points coming into play if points alone are used for balance.

 Traditio wrote:

Luciferian wrote:I'll pardon you... for putting your personal preference and bias above your desire for good game design

Fair enough!

I will say this, though, and it's basically just me repeating what I've said several times before:

GW said that they're doing intensive play testing to ensure balance. I can only assume that at least one person used a ravenwing army.

I think that the majority of players are going to be happy with the result.

And I look forward to the weeping and wailing of the WAAC types* who realize that their net lists are suddenly trash tier...or, at the very least, simply mid-tier.




*Understand, I am not calling you or anyone else either on this thread or on this website a WAAC type. I am speaking very generally.

I'm personally looking forward to picking up a bunch of cheap space marine bikes , razorback and droppods on ebay when the waac space marines players move on to the next build... though that is going to b a lot of airbrushing time to repaint the "pro painted" ebay models that look like gak

 G00fySmiley wrote:


I'm personally looking forward to picking up a bunch of cheap space marine bikes , razorback and droppods on ebay when the waac space marines players move on to the next build... though that is going to b a lot of airbrushing time to repaint the "pro painted" ebay models that look like gak

NOS DV bike squads are already $15 a piece, can't get much cheaper than that.

This is, well, not all that fun by the looks of things. Very few people can, or even own enough models too, deploy a Battalion within an average game, whilst few are ever going to be that elite that they only ever deploy a Scout force, so the vast majority will be using the Brigade list.
What do command points do?

Going to miss Counter-Charge, RIP Wolf Claw Strike Force. Guess that's about it on the Space Wolves front.

I'm still not seeing any real benefit for a hoard like Green tide or swarming Nids, I do see a lot of benefit in MSU which is going to end poorly for assault armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 G00fySmiley wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

Luciferian wrote:I'll pardon you... for putting your personal preference and bias above your desire for good game design

Fair enough!

I will say this, though, and it's basically just me repeating what I've said several times before:

GW said that they're doing intensive play testing to ensure balance. I can only assume that at least one person used a ravenwing army.

I think that the majority of players are going to be happy with the result.

And I look forward to the weeping and wailing of the WAAC types* who realize that their net lists are suddenly trash tier...or, at the very least, simply mid-tier.




*Understand, I am not calling you or anyone else either on this thread or on this website a WAAC type. I am speaking very generally.

I'm personally looking forward to picking up a bunch of cheap space marine bikes , razorback and droppods on ebay when the waac space marines players move on to the next build... though that is going to b a lot of airbrushing time to repaint the "pro painted" ebay models that look like gak

Who does buy paint jobs off ebay? I mean genuinely. Who actually buys them because they like the paint job?

I've stuck with a CAD for all 3 of my armies so good riddance.

The only formations I've used are the Raptor Wing (for that guaranteed turn 2 flyers) and the CSM Cult of Destruction for Obliterator spam without a troops tax.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

Who does buy paint jobs off ebay? I mean genuinely. Who actually buys them because they like the paint job?

I know some people buy them and fix them up if the price is right. As long as all of the colors are in the right places, you can make them look 100% better by washing the entire thing and going a quick drybrush or highlight. So you might be able to pick up some units for cheap and skip basecoating everything, if you wait for the right items.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Very few people can, or even own enough models too, deploy a Battalion within an average game, whilst few are ever going to be that elite that they only ever deploy a Scout force, so the vast majority will be using the Brigade list.
What do command points do?

Whille, I'm not entirely sure about Command Points, are you sure you're using "Battalion" and "Brigade" properly?

If we look at the FOCs...

A Battalion is 2-3 HQ & 3-6 Troops; and
a Brigade is 3-5 HQ, 6-12 Troops, 3-8 Elite, 3-5 Fast & 3-5 Heavy.

I'm absolutely certain I can field a Brigade (3 HQ, 6 Troops, 3 Elite, 3 Fast & 3 Heavy) of Eldar or IG without batting an eye, but my Sisters would only be fielded as a Patrol.

Average game size is up in the air, but I think we can assume most games would be at the Battalion level, which looks like a regular FOC, except that it requires an extra HQ, but allows Flyers and a bunch more Elites.