All 8th Edition Detachments Unveiled - You Can Lose CPs With Some!

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.

**andysonic1**

MagicJuggler wrote:
It's as I expected, the whole "14 formations" is a load of hype and drivel, as 3 of the formations are copy pastes of the other, the only difference being if you want Elites, Fast Attack or Heavy Support.

The fact that taking a single Lord of War does not penalize your Command Points but taking anything else solo that's not a Lord of War *does* is also bs.

The "Lots of fortifications" and "Lots of flyers" formations are there. Interestingly, there remains no detachment that lets you turn a Vehicle into your Warlord (if you wanted to do a Space Marine Armored Company or a Crabthedral, you're out of luck).

Incidentally, did this game even *need* a Flyer Detachment like this? With so many other detachments allowing 2 flyers for minimal tax, this is fairly superfluous. I suppose if you wanted to do an "all Wraithknight and Crimson Hunter" build or something goofy like that, then more power to you...

Also, no-HQ builds like Leafstealer are illegal in this setup unless you want a lot of negative CP.

I think it's time to forget all the "builds" people used to use and get used to the new way of "building" armies. Getting caught up in how things used to be isn't going to help your army win a game.

**Galas**

G00fySmiley wrote:
so.... allied detachments actually hurt now, interesting. that makes me a little sad I picked up allies of most armies to throw in some flavor, now they will cost command points if I bring em

Actually no. You can bring normal detachments with other faction and gain even CP. The one that cost you Command Points is if you want to cherry pick only one unit.

**BlaxicanX**

MagicJuggler wrote:
Also, no-HQ builds like Leafstealer are illegal in this setup unless you want a lot of negative CP.

And what's wrong with that? Forgoing CP in favor of some OC Donutsteel build is a tactical decision.

**MagicJuggler**

GW gave us a sample mission and it included Slay the Warlord; it's now worth D3 points instead of 1, because if there's one thing scoring in 40k needs, it's more randomness.

I had two secondary armies planned, one which was going to be a simple conversion project/to build on my Word Bearers (the Crabthedral list), and the second was a War Rig army that used the Insurrection to avoid taking any HQs so I could have a Russ Warlord.

As written, both of the lists as written are 100% illegal, unless GW allows for a "zero HQ" clause or an "anyone can be the Warlord" clause.

Plus it's going to be a mess to go into a 40k game with 26 detachments of one unit and -26 Command Points. I guess I can be even more obnoxious about it and print each detachment on its own sheet.

**ross-128**

I will say that it's interesting and a bit weird that "Flying Circus" is now an entirely valid approach with its own dedicated detachment. Unless there ends up being a restriction on some of them (which I imagine the auxiliaries might have) along the lines of "this cannot be your primary detachment, it must be attached to a primary detachment".

Guess it could allow for some silly oddball games though, like a superheavy cage match, a Top Gun match (flyers vs flyers), or an HQ All-Stars match.

**Peregrine**

ross-128 wrote:
I will say that it's interesting and a bit weird that "Flying Circus" is now an entirely valid approach with its own dedicated detachment.

Only if you want to auto-lose for having no models on the table.

**Alpharius**

ALL CAPS title changed - there's really no reason for shouting in the title!

**Earth127**

That shouldn't be a big problem if they got the balance right but still a tad weird.

**SilverAlien**

Mud Turkey 13 wrote:
Sorry, if this seems like basic information, but I am new and do not yet fully understand all of this.

First, your force is made of multiple detachments, and each detachment must be made up of units from the same faction. Could the different detachments that make up your force then come from different factions?

Second, what would be the advantage of taking extra units in a brigade detachment when you could just add a new smaller detachment and get an extra commamd point? For example, I have a brigade detachment with three HQs and three elites. I also have a fourth HQ and three more elites I could add. Why would I just add them to the brigade detachement when I could make an entirely seperate vanguard detachment and get the extra command point?

Presumably you will be able to mix factions outside detachments. Whether any other restrictions exist is not (as far as I know) known.

Generally there isn't. Most of those open slots exist in case you can only afford to take 1-2 units more, not enough to fill another detachment (that offers points). They also allow you to bypass taking extra HQ choices to get more of whatever slot, which may be useful depending on how useful they are.

**Da-Rock**

It was my understanding that these detachments were going to be very generic and the ones with flavor would come when the actually army codex came out for each faction.

Are we stressing this early?

**tneva82**

Robin5t wrote:
Lance845 wrote:
Robin5t wrote:
Somewhat concerned that as things stand my army can play literally none of these.

I'm assuming they will address this somehow.

Which army would that be?
Harlequins. They currently don't have a HQ option and can only be played either in their formations, in a Masque detachment, or as Ynnari with a Dark Eldar or Craftworld Eldar HQ.

Or you have -10 cp

Or they get hq.

**SilverAlien**

Peregrine wrote:
ross-128 wrote:
I will say that it's interesting and a bit weird that "Flying Circus" is now an entirely valid approach with its own dedicated detachment.

Only if you want to auto-lose for having no models on the table.

Or flyers can deploy normally, we honestly don't know. Not even clear where things like FMC will fit in.

**yakface**

Mud Turkey 13 wrote:
Sorry, if this seems like basic information, but I am new and do not yet fully understand all of this.

First, your force is made of multiple detachments, and each detachment must be made up of units from the same faction. Could the different detachments that make up your force then come from different factions?

Second, what would be the advantage of taking extra units in a brigade detachment when you could just add a new smaller detachment and get an extra commamd point? For example, I have a brigade detachment with three HQs and three elites. I also have a fourth HQ and three more elites I could add. Why would I just add them to the brigade detachement when I could make an entirely seperate vanguard detachment and get the extra command point?

They have already mentioned that players, and especially tournaments may want to put a cap on the number of detachments a player may take.

**Blacksails**

I for one welcome a return to saner army construction rules.

**Lord Kragan**

MagicJuggler wrote:
GW gave us a sample mission and it included Slay the Warlord; it's now worth D3 points instead of 1, because if there's one thing scoring in 40k needs, it's more randomness.

I had two secondary armies planned, one which was going to be a simple conversion project/to build on my Word Bearers (the Crabthedral list), and the second was a War Rig army that used the Insurrection to avoid taking any HQs so I could have a Russ Warlord.

As written, both of the lists as written are 100% illegal, unless GW allows for a "zero HQ" clause or an "anyone can be the Warlord" clause.

Plus it's going to be a mess to go into a 40k game with 26 detachments of one unit and -26 Command Points. I guess I can be even more obnoxious about it and print each detachment on its own sheet.

Or maybe you can take them all into the same detachment!

But seriously. You couldn't be more obnoxious even if you were trying. Calm down dude.

**SilverAlien**

Da-Rock wrote:
It was my understanding that these detachments were going to be very generic and the ones with flavor would come when the actually army codex came out for each faction.

Are we stressing this early?

Eh, tbh I don't think we will be seeing that many unique detachments. Unless the unique detachments act like formations with unique bonuses, I don't see much usage for them.

**MagicJuggler**

>Saner army construction.
>Triple Tau'nar or Triple Skatach
Pick one.

**Dakka Flakka Flame**

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Why does brigade offer so many more elite slots than support or fast attack?

There's some speculation that some of the HQ choices that currently don't use up a normal HQ slot, like commissars and mekboyz, will get changed to being Elites. As far as I know that's still entirely speculation with no mention of it in the teasers.

I'm kind of surprised that Patrol doesn't offer 1 CP, but maybe they figured it was too easy to farm command points with cheap HQ and Troop choices?

**MagicJuggler**

Lord Kragan wrote:
MagicJuggler wrote:
GW gave us a sample mission and it included Slay the Warlord; it's now worth D3 points instead of 1, because if there's one thing scoring in 40k needs, it's more randomness.

I had two secondary armies planned, one which was going to be a simple conversion project/to build on my Word Bearers (the Crabthedral list), and the second was a War Rig army that used the Insurrection to avoid taking any HQs so I could have a Russ Warlord.

As written, both of the lists as written are 100% illegal, unless GW allows for a "zero HQ" clause or an "anyone can be the Warlord" clause.

Plus it's going to be a mess to go into a 40k game with 26 detachments of one unit and -26 Command Points. I guess I can be even more obnoxious about it and print each detachment on its own sheet.

Or maybe you can take them all into the same detachment!

But seriously. You couldn't be more obnoxious even if you were trying. Calm down dude.

You realize every detachment listed has that "same faction" stipulation except the "solo Lord of War", "solo auxiliary", or fortifications (which don't have factions unless GW changes that).

The list in question has no HQ. None of the CAD-like detachments let you go without an HQ.

**tneva82**

Mud Turkey 13 wrote:

Second, what would be the advantage of taking extra units in a brigade detachment when you could just add a new smaller detachment and get an extra commamd point? For example, I have a brigade detachment with three HQs and three elites. I also have a fourth HQ and three more elites I could add. Why would I just add them to the brigade detachement when I could make an entirely seperate vanguard detachment and get the extra command point?

Assuming you aren't playing tournament etc that resticts detachmentcount max det count yes.

Back in start of 7th ed i actually thought similar many detachment idea(hs one, elite one etc). Ran into same issue

best solution i came with was point cost to each detachment

**Galas**

MagicJuggler wrote:
GW gave us a sample mission and it included Slay the Warlord; it's now worth D3 points instead of 1, because if there's one thing scoring in 40k needs, it's more randomness.

I had two secondary armies planned, one which was going to be a simple conversion project/to build on my Word Bearers (the Crabthedral list), and the second was a War Rig army that used the Insurrection to avoid taking any HQs so I could have a Russ Warlord.

As written, both of the lists as written are 100% illegal, unless GW allows for a "zero HQ" clause or an "anyone can be the Warlord" clause.

Plus it's going to be a mess to go into a 40k game with 26 detachments of one unit and -26 Command Points. I guess I can be even more obnoxious about it and print each detachment on its own sheet.

They have said that every army legal in 7th will be legal in 8th. You can ask them in facebook about this. And I'm not being sarcastic.

EDIT: No reason to be hostile. Sorry.

**MagicJuggler**

Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Why does brigade offer so many more elite slots than support or fast attack?

There's some speculation that some of the HQ choices that currently don't use up a normal HQ slot, like commissars and mekboyz, will get changed to being Elites. As far as I know that's still entirely speculation with no mention of it in the teasers.

I'm kind of surprised that Patrol doesn't offer 1 CP, but maybe they figured it was too easy to farm command points with cheap HQ and Troop choices?

Dark Eldar got that covered. 30 points for 3 Llhameans, 3 Command Points. Enjoy.

**master of ordinance**

Well I uh...
I need to buy more baneblades

**tneva82**

Peregrine wrote:
ross-128 wrote:
I will say that it's interesting and a bit weird that "Flying Circus" is now an entirely valid approach with its own dedicated detachment.

Only if you want to auto-lose for having no models on the table.

Thats assuming flyers start off board. If they did would there be need for fly off board, you die rule?

**blaktoof**

Iirc there are 14 generic detachments, the OP has 12.

Will be interesting to see how valuable command points are and if anything gets new roles, as well as cost changes.

It's very possible things like harlequins and skitarri will have their 7th edition 2 wound characters as HQ options and not part of the unit in 8th.

**Lord Kragan**

MagicJuggler wrote:
Lord Kragan wrote:
MagicJuggler wrote:
GW gave us a sample mission and it included Slay the Warlord; it's now worth D3 points instead of 1, because if there's one thing scoring in 40k needs, it's more randomness.

I had two secondary armies planned, one which was going to be a simple conversion project/to build on my Word Bearers (the Crabthedral list), and the second was a War Rig army that used the Insurrection to avoid taking any HQs so I could have a Russ Warlord.

As written, both of the lists as written are 100% illegal, unless GW allows for a "zero HQ" clause or an "anyone can be the Warlord" clause.

Plus it's going to be a mess to go into a 40k game with 26 detachments of one unit and -26 Command Points. I guess I can be even more obnoxious about it and print each detachment on its own sheet.

Or maybe you can take them all into the same detachment!

But seriously. You couldn't be more obnoxious even if you were trying. Calm down dude.

You realize every detachment listed has that "same faction" stipulation except the "solo Lord of War", "solo auxiliary", or fortifications (which don't have factions unless GW changes that).

The list in question has no HQ. None of the CAD-like detachments let you go without an HQ.

You realize that "same faction" can encompass a miriad of codexes by what they are saying? As in, Imperium and Chaos as a whole are a faction each,

**StarHunter25**

I suddenly want an army of BEHNBLEEHDS

**Blacksails**

MagicJuggler wrote:
>Saner army construction.
>Triple Tau'nar or Triple Skatach
Pick one.

Yes, I too can see the LoW only formation.

Any other obvious points you'd like to point out?

**MagicJuggler**

Galas wrote:
MagicJuggler wrote:
GW gave us a sample mission and it included Slay the Warlord; it's now worth D3 points instead of 1, because if there's one thing scoring in 40k needs, it's more randomness.

I had two secondary armies planned, one which was going to be a simple conversion project/to build on my Word Bearers (the Crabthedral list), and the second was a War Rig army that used the Insurrection to avoid taking any HQs so I could have a Russ Warlord.

As written, both of the lists as written are 100% illegal, unless GW allows for a "zero HQ" clause or an "anyone can be the Warlord" clause.

Plus it's going to be a mess to go into a 40k game with 26 detachments of one unit and -26 Command Points. I guess I can be even more obnoxious about it and print each detachment on its own sheet.

To be honest, I find hard to believe that at every new about 8th edition it hurts all of your personal army/proyects/etc...
But well. They have said that every army legal in 7th will be legal in 8th. You can ask them in facebook about this. And I'm not being sarcastic.

This was my main planned project after Traitor Legions came out and once I took a glance at the Word Bearers Warlord Traits. Notice the original posting date:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/711836.page.

I already have most the Cultists on deck (leftover Marauders and Guard bits) and wanted an excuse to model a giant enemy crab cathedral. Of course, personal life got in the way and between a subsequent job change and move the project ended up on hold.

**kronk**

G00fySmiley wrote:
so.... allied detachments actually hurt now, interesting. that makes me a little sad I picked up allies of most armies to throw in some flavor, now they will cost command points if I bring em

You could take a small patrol detachment for your allies and not have negative CP.