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.

Actually it requires an extra HQ and an extra troops.
Original FoC was just 1 HQ 2 Troops minimum.

 Luciferian wrote:

 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.

That's probably about as close as it gets.

 master of ordinance wrote:
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?

It is actually possible if you break everything up into MSU.
Its not points based but slot based, so you could theorhetical deploy the same models in two different detachments, you just need to tweak their squad sizes.

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

I can't tell you who buys them, but I've sold a number of fully painted armies on eBay. If you sell them approximately at-cost instead of at the ridiculous "pro painted" markup, there are buyers.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
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?

It is actually possible if you break everything up into MSU.
Its not points based but slot based, so you could theorhetical deploy the same models in two different detachments, you just need to tweak their squad sizes.

You will have to break up your squads with the new morale rules. The odds of getting a large squad wiped out completely is way too great.

If you have 10 tac marines in a squad and lose 5 in 1 go, you could easily find that 5 turned into a 9, because of morale. Meanwhile, if you combat squad them, your losses are minimized, you can split fire, etc.

Also, with the "troop tax" being increased for command points, I would imagine most people will run squads of 5.

Luciferian wrote:My main issue with Assault Squads is that they count as fast attack even without jump packs or transports. If I could take them as troop choices over TAC marines I would do so in a heartbeat, even if they were merely foot slogging across the board or in a lowly Rhino. Otherwise, there are just too many choices for fast attack which are a better points expenditure. But we'll see if that changes.

Well, that's how they are now. They have gone through some changes over time. It used to be at one point that they came with Jump Packs, and you traded them for a discount on their ride. Templar Assault Marines couldn't even do that. They had to be run as Jump Infantry.

Who knows, we may end up seeing some variations of this.

Traditio wrote:Never mind. Stupid question. Of course not. Dedicated Transports are now their own FOC slot.

Back to being their old FOC Role. The slots were just never set up like this before.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 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...

potentially possible, but hopefully this won't be the case.

*fingerscrossed*

Here's a thought:

Are we going to be able to take multiple detachments in 8th edition, perhaps of different factions?

 Traditio wrote:
Here's a thought:

Are we going to be able to take multiple detachments in 8th edition, perhaps of different factions?

From the official Warhammer Community post, at the bottom:

Matched play actually has a few extra rules too, designed for competitive events, which organisers can choose to use when setting the rules for Battle-forged armies – limits on the number of separate Detachments is one example.

This is a confirmation that indeed we will be able to take multiple detachments.

 Galas wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
Here's a thought:

Are we going to be able to take multiple detachments in 8th edition, perhaps of different factions?

From the official Warhammer Community post, at the bottom:

Matched play actually has a few extra rules too, designed for competitive events, which organisers can choose to use when setting the rules for Battle-forged armies – limits on the number of separate Detachments is one example.

This is a confirmation that indeed we will be able to take multiple detachments.

What's interesting is that they stated each detachment/foc needed to share a keyword like imperium; so you could have a foc with Space wolve hq and troops with guard heavy support for instances without having to have the hq/trroop tax for allies.

In addition you would expect as they what it to remain fluff driven that partial alliances like elder and space marines will be a thing but as they can't share a detachment as they lack a keyword we will need to run two detachments to have them play together. This also means we still need an allies chart to show which factions are buddies to stop you having
a foc with say grey knights a foc with demons and a foc with tyranids all in the same army.

Ya know what I got out of that press release?

1). Replace all instances of the word "formation" with the word "detachment".

2). Detachments are going to work the same way they do in AoS.

The Sigmafication of 40K is almost complete! Next week: The Hero phase...

 Vaktathi wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 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...

potentially possible, but hopefully this won't be the case.

*fingerscrossed*

Making the Aspects 2+/2+ wouldn't break anything, nor would inclusion of a Razorback. Assuming that they were costed appropriately...

 Tamwulf wrote:
Ya know what I got out of that press release?

1). Replace all instances of the word "formation" with the word "detachment".

2). Detachments are going to work the same way they do in AoS.

The Sigmafication of 40K is almost complete! Next week: The Hero phase...

Well I'd have no issue with a hero phase, imo AoS plays fine. Glad to see some changes being brought to 40k. Played 40k since 4th and currently it is almost unplayable. Anyway detachments in 8th aren't formation from 7th or AoS, which has formations as we know them from 40k 7th. These should be familiar to every 40k player or has everyone forgotten. These are Force organisation charts. That is all.

 Luciferian wrote:

 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.

This is half of my 5 companies of Marines. I teach high school, part time grad school, have 3 kids who do rock climbing, Kung fu, Irish Dance, gymnastics, volleyball, swim team, musicals, I coach, and run a gaming club. My hobby time can't be working forces up from bare plastic (I own every list in my sig). My HH Iron hands I'm doing by myself and it's been three years and not everything is primed. Via eBay clean up everything else except my GK is streaming tournament play ready.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit: Orks aren't ready either... but btw I like the direction the detachments are headed. But I'm wondering if you can't take any of them twice? I'd have made that rule if I was them.

Finaly!!!

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

You can field it if there's 1 LOW detachment as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Traditio wrote:
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.

You realize if they did their playtesting right even your hated WAAC players list will still be viable and not trash...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 master of ordinance wrote:
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?

Of course you are only looking at 3 out of 14 detachments...Plenty people will likely use choices from the remaining 11 as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:
You will have to break up your squads with the new morale rules. The odds of getting a large squad wiped out completely is way too great.

Good for shooting, bad for h2h though.

And btw your comment about split fire could be totally off. So far nothing has said anything one way or other does rules follow AOS(every model selects target on it's own) or not.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 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...

Spoiler:

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.

I'd agree with that, though I think I can field a Brigade of Tyranids at low point values. Depends if Mucolids stay in troops. I'm actually a little sad now. Running through my army in my head, I don't think I actually own much in the FA slot to qualify...hmm. I need to finish this house so I can devote my hobby money back to plastic and not drywall.

Good riddance. Best change so far.

And who cares if stuff is imported from AoS. As a game, currently, it functions much better than 40K.

I guess only people who are stuck in what AoS used to be. And 40K is going to be more complex in the end anyway, as they have also stated.

The detachments also are nothing like formations, as they just give the same bonus in different amounts.

Ofcourse, everyone who can read knows this anyway.

 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.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! No. There's not gonna be any whining from 'WAAC types', or if there is it's mostly just because some are very loud. The people you accuse of being WAAC aren't attached to their lists, they're attached to power, and power will always exist. Finding the new power combo is the best part of the game for plenty of people and using that powercombo is the best part for plenty of others.

WHAT that power combo actually IS almost never matters. FAAC people get attached to their armies, WAAC players go with the flow.

There are always going to be differences in power.

The disparity is just ludicrously large right wich is the issue. An optimised list being 10-20% more powerfull in a dice based game is not an issue, 70-80% now that is an issue.

Messy formation and codex balance was a a huge contributing factor to that.

Earth127 wrote:
There are always going to be differences in power.

The disparity is just ludicrously large right wich is the issue. An optimised list being 10-20% more powerfull in a dice based game is not an issue, 70-80% now that is an issue.

Messy formation and codex balance was a a huge contributing factor to that.

By the end it was conceivable that you could build a list that would never lose a single model against a sub-tournament level list even across multiple games. Which is why it needed to die and 8th is already awesome.

Well I thought saying a 100% was over the top but apparently not.

 Lobukia wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:

 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.

This is half of my 5 companies of Marines. I teach high school, part time grad school, have 3 kids who do rock climbing, Kung fu, Irish Dance, gymnastics, volleyball, swim team, musicals, I coach, and run a gaming club. My hobby time can't be working forces up from bare plastic (I own every list in my sig). My HH Iron hands I'm doing by myself and it's been three years and not everything is primed. Via eBay clean up everything else except my GK is streaming tournament play ready.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit: Orks aren't ready either... but btw I like the direction the detachments are headed. But I'm wondering if you can't take any of them twice? I'd have made that rule if I was them.

Wow, that's a packed schedule. I'm impressed you find time for gaming at all.
I substitute High School History, do Kickboxing, work about ten hours a week in a resteraunt and have no family commitments, I still struggle to get games in.

This would feel, to me, like GW are *pushing* MSU as standard practice. Since as I understand it the tournament playtesters and ITC writers chose to favor MSU over any alternative this would make sense if it is colouring the feedback they're getting.

That said; if Indie Characters can't join units any more, what exactly would be the *point* of large units, that isn't provided by a number of small units?

1. Template weapons are gone, so there's no benefit to grouping them together to maximise damage output
2. Tarpits are potentially more useful if they're split up if buffs are AOE and not joined to the unit for damage allocation
3. the whole accelerated play thing favors small units that don't have to be constantly checked and measured for coherency + movement issues

Am I missing the counterargument?

 malamis wrote:
This would feel, to me, like GW are *pushing* MSU as standard practice. Since as I understand it the tournament playtesters and ITC writers chose to favor MSU over any alternative this would make sense if it is colouring the feedback they're getting.

That said; if Indie Characters can't join units any more, what exactly would be the *point* of large units, that isn't provided by a number of small units?

1. Template weapons are gone, so there's no benefit to grouping them together to maximise damage output
2. Tarpits are potentially more useful if they're split up if buffs are AOE and not joined to the unit for damage allocation
3. the whole accelerated play thing favors small units that don't have to be constantly checked and measured for coherency + movement issues

Am I missing the counterargument?

There isn't one.
The horde army can't survive without a complete rescaling of the game. They're just too cumbersome to move about in an hour-long 1850 match and anything they can't kill walks right over them.
Barkstar was the closest thing to a successful horde recently and most people cursed as a Deathstar.

 malamis wrote:
This would feel, to me, like GW are *pushing* MSU as standard practice. Since as I understand it the tournament playtesters and ITC writers chose to favor MSU over any alternative this would make sense if it is colouring the feedback they're getting.

That said; if Indie Characters can't join units any more, what exactly would be the *point* of large units, that isn't provided by a number of small units?

1. Template weapons are gone, so there's no benefit to grouping them together to maximise damage output
2. Tarpits are potentially more useful if they're split up if buffs are AOE and not joined to the unit for damage allocation
3. the whole accelerated play thing favors small units that don't have to be constantly checked and measured for coherency + movement issues

Am I missing the counterargument?

In AoS some units gain bonuses when they exceed certain thresholds. I can see them doing a similar thing for 40k in order to make big units attractive or even viable. Considering the new morale phase, some LD bonuses for horde armies are pretty much necessary.

BertBert wrote:

 malamis wrote:
This would feel, to me, like GW are *pushing* MSU as standard practice. Since as I understand it the tournament playtesters and ITC writers chose to favor MSU over any alternative this would make sense if it is colouring the feedback they're getting.

That said; if Indie Characters can't join units any more, what exactly would be the *point* of large units, that isn't provided by a number of small units?

1. Template weapons are gone, so there's no benefit to grouping them together to maximise damage output
2. Tarpits are potentially more useful if they're split up if buffs are AOE and not joined to the unit for damage allocation
3. the whole accelerated play thing favors small units that don't have to be constantly checked and measured for coherency + movement issues

Am I missing the counterargument?

In AoS some units gain bonuses when they exceed certain thresholds. I can see them doing a similar thing for 40k in order to make big units attractive or even viable. Considering the new morale phase, some LD bonuses for horde armies are pretty much necessary.

But is there anything actually desirable about making big units viable in the first place? If 50 ork boyz are in units of 10 and gain their horde bonuses from being with X inches of each other, why bother with a single unit of 50 at all?

If, say 10 is the maximum unit size as standard, suddenly the whole morale issue becomes "did you lose 70% of your unit? Roll low or just lose the unit" which isn't that big a deal.

 malamis wrote:

BertBert wrote:

 malamis wrote:
This would feel, to me, like GW are *pushing* MSU as standard practice. Since as I understand it the tournament playtesters and ITC writers chose to favor MSU over any alternative this would make sense if it is colouring the feedback they're getting.

That said; if Indie Characters can't join units any more, what exactly would be the *point* of large units, that isn't provided by a number of small units?

1. Template weapons are gone, so there's no benefit to grouping them together to maximise damage output
2. Tarpits are potentially more useful if they're split up if buffs are AOE and not joined to the unit for damage allocation
3. the whole accelerated play thing favors small units that don't have to be constantly checked and measured for coherency + movement issues

Am I missing the counterargument?

In AoS some units gain bonuses when they exceed certain thresholds. I can see them doing a similar thing for 40k in order to make big units attractive or even viable. Considering the new morale phase, some LD bonuses for horde armies are pretty much necessary.

But is there anything actually desirable about making big units viable in the first place? If 50 ork boyz are in units of 10 and gain their horde bonuses from being with X inches of each other, why bother with a single unit of 50 at all?

If, say 10 is the maximum unit size as standard, suddenly the whole morale issue becomes "did you lose 70% of your unit? Roll low or just lose the unit" which isn't that big a deal.

All of this depends on how the rules will turn out, of course. If this hypothetical horde bonus depends only on the number of models in close proximity and is not restricted to a single unit that needs to contain a certian amount of models, then yes, MSU would probably be the better choice.

I expect, however, that these bonuses will be provided to single units instead.

Lot depends on how viable h2h will be as in h2h horde will swamp over msu. Also other things could be. Command points will likely help horde.

Oh and 5 units of 10 close to each other don't get horde bonus in aos at least. It's one unit or no bonus

Damn formations were one of the most interesting things they've done to the game in a long time. They gave different fluffy ways to play armies and made various armies that aren't imperial make sense. The CAD style makes no sense for a lot of forces. They made army construction so much more interesting and varied.

They made 2 OP formations and people gak their pants over "formations are awful" just because 2 out of 50 were poorly written. That's like being so low IQ that you see an ugly car and determine automobiles are a horrible idea. Those types confused poorly balanced execution with a bad concept. Using that logic all miniature war gaming is awful because some 7th ed 40k armies were imbalanced and poorly written.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and genestealer cult is going to be great without any of the things that made them cool. Can't wait to slowly walk up the board with them like an imperial army. This is a stupid change. Every army that was built around their detachment is fethed.