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.

Would seventh still be alright if you used classic force org? Or would it still be unbalanced.

I had a lot of fun doing quick hammer with my roommate. https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/726892.page We both used marines.

But when we played with detachments. I won over and over with the sky hammer. It seemed really one sided.

But using force org seemed the way to go. THe games were fun and always balanced. How might this work for other armies?


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/727041.page Quick hammer 2.0 Tac Nuke.

 ForceChoke wrote:
Would seventh still be alright if you used classic force org?

No.

-The main rules are an utter clusterfeth
- Tons of things rely on random tables
- Psyker powers and Warlord Traits are unbalanced and random
- There is WAAAAYY too much book keeping
- Wraithknights and Scatterbikes are a thing
- Some codicies are still useless
- There is no internal or external balance with anything
- Most viable armies require 2-5 armybooks to play
- Allies shenanigans
- Too much rules bloat
- Nothing makes any sense
- Too much to keep track of in terms of armies

IMO no there is too much wrong with the base system (eg Psykers) and internal and external balance as well as too many random parts of army creation.

7th is a garbage heap. Trimming down the list building of garbage is still garbage.

It wouldn't solve the problem of codex imbalances. Eldar were over the top even without any formations, Necrons as well. CSM on the other hand could only compete with the formations and special abilities they got in Traitor Legions.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
It wouldn't solve the problem of codex imbalances. Eldar were over the top even without any formations, Necrons as well. CSM on the other hand could only compete with the formations and special abilities they got in Traitor Legions.

And some armies never even got formations or abilities of worth.

7th Ed is best forgotten.

 Lance845 wrote:
7th is a garbage heap. Trimming down the list building of garbage is still garbage.

Still better than 8th though.

Removing detachments and making it "one CAD only" would only favor those armies that had good troops while penalizing armies with tax troops. It would nerf CSM even more, while Eldar get by elatively unaffected.

Not all Formations were bad, and worst comes to worst they were generally *specific* combinations of units. Eliminating them should have been a gradual process rather than turning the game into pseudo-Unbound.

7th was a dumpster fire from the first, let it die.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
7th is a garbage heap. Trimming down the list building of garbage is still garbage.

Still better than 8th though.

Lol, thats almost a funny joke.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
7th is a garbage heap. Trimming down the list building of garbage is still garbage.

Still better than 8th though.

I disagree but each to their own I guess.

There were so many bad things about 7th ed which have been highlighted above.

The issues with 8th ed rules are minor or actually not a issue for many people (abstractions of cover, vehicles etc) and they are actually adressing things that actually seem to be a problem through the community / FAQs.

Other fun systems such as Dragon Rampant abstract even more and work fine.

 Imateria wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
7th is a garbage heap. Trimming down the list building of garbage is still garbage.

Still better than 8th though.

Lol, thats almost a funny joke.

"Thank you folks! I'll be here all edition!"

*Perry sobs into napkin*

 Selym wrote:

 ForceChoke wrote:
Would seventh still be alright if you used classic force org?

No.

-The main rules are an utter clusterfeth
- Tons of things rely on random tables
- Psyker powers and Warlord Traits are unbalanced and random
- There is WAAAAYY too much book keeping
- Wraithknights and Scatterbikes are a thing
- Some codicies are still useless
- There is no internal or external balance with anything
- Most viable armies require 2-5 armybooks to play
- Allies shenanigans
- Too much rules bloat
- Nothing makes any sense
- Too much to keep track of in terms of armies

The main rules themselves weren't that bad. Movement was functional, shooting worked, etc. The fundamental 3e engine was still intact, and other than the odd all-character deathstar, I feel the 7e shooting system was the best out of that lot of systems, but then again that's because I remember how idiotically easy 50% cover was to abuse in 5th.

Most the issues came from GW's crack-addled release schedule, sloppy "It's not the end times, promise" release schedule, and the aforementioned random chart bloat. Strip those away and you still have a workable system. The fact GW did release a giant comprehensive set of FAQs for 7e, only to disregard the lessons learned from it for 8th, is particularly perplexing. Had they done just an index reset, and stripped down 7e so it didn't have redundant USRs and extraneous random charts, that would have been ideal.

8e flyers in particular just baffle me. Forget the "antiaircraft flamethrowers" bit, but the fact flyers use the same "move" restrictions as other Fly models and vice-versa leads to a weird case of Shroedinger's Airplane, where it can be both in the air and on the ground at once. Footsloggers cannot move past it, because it violates the 1" rule, but cannot assault it because it flies. 2 Stormravens effectively become a mobile forcefield if you cannot Fly.

Inversely, fliers that cannot over cannot end their move over enemy infantry, and if they have nowhere they can legally move (because infantry are on the ground, or they would only be able to move on the table edge), they *die outright*.

If GW had solicited the advice of tournament gamers, they would have known that Plasma was always sidelined in favor of Grav. So why would they then keep Grav as the generally superior option, and change Gets Hot from "take a wound if you fail a save" to "you're dead"?

If tournament players were complaining 7e was taking too long and required too much dice-rolling, why would they make hordes cheaper and add far more dice to the equation? A Razorwing Flock in 7e was 20 points for 4 rending attacks (5 on the charge). In 8e, 7 points for 8 non-rending attacks, which generally only hit on 5+ now instead of 4+. Rather than strict Ld, a Beastmaster also grants re-rolls to hit. You could conceivably roll a max of 16 dice for a single 7 point model, and that's just to hit, with a bunch of non-rending S2! Why make regular Guard cheaper, and why make FRFSRF fire 4 shots at 12? Why throw in a T3 4++ bulletshield that only costs 2 points per model?

Really though, the thing that angers me most is how callous GW has been about "only making rules for models we make." The removal of Looted Wagons, Carapace Vets, etc may not have affected you personally, but the *attitude* behind it shows that the New GW is very much the Old GW with a cheeky Facebook page.

Aside from Aspect host Formations full of Warp Spiders, Eldar pretty much just used the basic Force Org (CAD).
So making all armies just use a single Force Org would actually widen the gap and make 7E Eldar unbeatable

This is coming from an Eldar player who won several local tourneys: 8E is way better

-

 MagicJuggler wrote:

Inversely, fliers that cannot over cannot end their move over enemy infantry, and if they have nowhere they can legally move (because infantry are on the ground, or they would only be able to move on the table edge), they *die outright*. Exactly the same as 7th? I know they fixed one instance of this post-FAQ, but flyers could still be insta-gibbed by not having anywhere you could set the model down, and in 8th there's really no excuse for losing one unless you place it wrong of your own accord, since the Vehicle Damage Table no longer exists.

If GW had solicited the advice of tournament gamers, they would have known that Plasma was always sidelined in favor of Grav. So why would they then keep Grav as the generally superior option, and change Gets Hot from "take a wound if you fail a save" to "you're dead"? In what universe is Grav the generally superior option over plasma in 8th? Currently plasma is the best all-round option for Space Marine special weapons, Leman Russ tank weapons, Imperial Guard and Militarum Tempestus special weapons. The only exception I know of where they aren't the best when you do have the option is Sentinels (unable to get rerolls of 1) and Devastators (missile launchers are really good.)

If tournament players were complaining 7e was taking too long and required too much dice-rolling, why would they make hordes cheaper and add far more dice to the equation? A Razorwing Flock in 7e was 20 points for 4 rending attacks (5 on the charge). In 8e, 7 points for 8 non-rending attacks, which generally only hit on 5+ now instead of 4+. Rather than strict Ld, a Beastmaster also grants re-rolls to hit. You could conceivably roll a max of 16 dice for a single 7 point model, and that's just to hit, with a bunch of non-rending S2! Why make regular Guard cheaper, and why make FRFSRF fire 4 shots at 12? Why throw in a T3 4++ bulletshield that only costs 2 points per model? The removal of warp charges in the psychic phase along with random table power generation and 7E deny the witch with random Perils table, Falling Back/Regrouping morale, challenges, Look Out Sir, Jink on prompt, Vehicle Damage Table, cover by TLOS to individual model, remove from the front, blast scattering, separate run in the shooting phase, etc, etc, etc etc still makes the game run much faster on the whole.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

The fact GW did release a giant comprehensive set of FAQs for 7e, only to disregard the lessons learned from it for 8th, is particularly perplexing.

This is why I brought up Flyers. They fixed fliers, broke them again in 8th, and broke them a little further by letting them also block enemy movement.

As for Grav vs Plasma. Plasma Cannons fire D3 shots, Grav fires 4. Plasma does 1 damage unless you overcharge, Grav does D3 vs targets with 3+ saves or better (which, barring Chaos Spawn and Eldar Bikes is most multiwound models). Grav is now S5 instead of wounding on saves, so its weaker vs Riptides or so, but those are overcosted enough anyway. Inversely, it's a better weapon for anti-infantry now, especially since cover is that much more meaningless in 8e. Don't forget that Rerolls come before roll mods, so don't overcharge vs a Stormraven

How does jink on prompt slow down 40k? "Do you want to jink?" "Sure" or "no thanks". I mentioned the random powers/charts already and LOS. 7e also did not have "roll FNP for each wound suffered for each individual model", or "casualties can be chosen from anywhere". Etc, etc. Warp Charge was a problem for scaled up armies but it only truly became notable with Wrath of Magnus. A 7e Lib Conclave cast 2 powers, period.

7E had lots of issues. Many were related to the detachment and formation shennanigans, but by no means all. The basic codex imbalances, were, well, insane. Even with basic pre-7E-style single FOC forces, armies like Necrons or Eldar simply did not have to exert thought or effort to defeat someone playing something like Dark Eldar, Imperial Guard, Chaos Space Marines, etc. Then there were all sorts of other core rules issues, issues with random tables for everything, too many required books, extremely poor vehicle rules, etc ad nauseum.

7E was just broken in too many ways.

8th > 7th overall.

8th needs some refinement but i'm sure that will come. Specifically cover rules. Some additional complexity there might be nice, for instance.

On top of the clustertruck of rules that made the game a mess, they also threw out the original balancing method for the FoC; i.e: Troops were suppose to be intentionally a tax on your stuff. A lot of the 7th ed stuff were slowly written without the FoC in mind, which is why there was so much FoC shenanigans in the latter part of 5th to the end of 6th, and then the complete shift to ditching it in 7th. Units like Deathwing Terminators and SM Bikers were basically written as if they were troops. Ever wonder why PAGKs, especially Strike Squads, suck so badly compare to Terminators? It was because they were never meant to share slots with Terminators. Purifiers didn't exist in the old Daemonhunter Codex and Terminators weren't troops there.

And that's just the design perspective. Some armies flat out couldn't function with the standard FoC due to not having HQ choices. Skitarii, Harlequins, Imperial Knights (although this one can be left to the wayside due to Superheavies always being an issue), and the Inquisition would be literally unplayable and unfieldable.

A fluffy. Mixed up imperial army can take 5-6 books...

That's a problem.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
On top of the clustertruck of rules that made the game a mess, they also threw out the original balancing method for the FoC; i.e: Troops were suppose to be intentionally a tax on your stuff. A lot of the 7th ed stuff were slowly written without the FoC in mind, which is why there was so much FoC shenanigans in the latter part of 5th to the end of 6th, and then the complete shift to ditching it in 7th. Units like Deathwing Terminators and SM Bikers were basically written as if they were troops. Ever wonder why PAGKs, especially Strike Squads, suck so badly compare to Terminators? It was because they were never meant to share slots with Terminators. Purifiers didn't exist in the old Daemonhunter Codex and Terminators weren't troops there.

And that's just the design perspective. Some armies flat out couldn't function with the standard FoC due to not having HQ choices. Skitarii, Harlequins, Imperial Knights (although this one can be left to the wayside due to Superheavies always being an issue), and the Inquisition would be literally unplayable and unfieldable.

It does raise a question though: If troops are so bad that a mandatory "tax" is the only way to make people field them, is that necessarily a good thing? The game should incentivize fielding boots on the ground for generalist TAC play, rather than punish players by forcing their inclusion. Inversely, you can't make them "too good" or else you end up with "big hordes and block-removers", akin to what happened in 8e WHFB.

It's also the same reason you don't see Fire Warriors in Tau armies, foot Guardians in Eldar armies, etc. If you give players the choice between gak infantry, or shiny toys with similar pointage, what do yoh believe they will take? Did anyone in their right mind ever think a init of 10 Fire Warriors in a Devilfish was the equivalent of a Riptide in 7e, for example?

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

The fact GW did release a giant comprehensive set of FAQs for 7e, only to disregard the lessons learned from it for 8th, is particularly perplexing.

This is why I brought up Flyers. They fixed fliers, broke them again in 8th, and broke them a little further by letting them also block enemy movement.

As for Grav vs Plasma. Plasma Cannons fire D3 shots, Grav fires 4. Plasma does 1 damage unless you overcharge, Grav does D3 vs targets with 3+ saves or better (which, barring Chaos Spawn and Eldar Bikes is most multiwound models). Grav is now S5 instead of wounding on saves, so its weaker vs Riptides or so, but those are overcosted enough anyway. Inversely, it's a better weapon for anti-infantry now, especially since cover is that much more meaningless in 8e. Don't forget that Rerolls come before roll mods, so don't overcharge vs a Stormraven

How does jink on prompt slow down 40k? "Do you want to jink?" "Sure" or "no thanks". I mentioned the random powers/charts already and LOS. 7e also did not have "roll FNP for each wound suffered for each individual model", or "casualties can be chosen from anywhere". Etc, etc. Warp Charge was a problem for scaled up armies but it only truly became notable with Wrath of Magnus. A 7e Lib Conclave cast 2 powers, period.

But the grav gun is worse than the plasma gun now. Also, not all multi-wound models are 3+ save or better.
Orks
all Transports are 4+ save
Nobz, nob bikers, Buggies, Warbikes, Deffkoptas, all flyers and artillery are 4+ save
Most Characters 4+ save (8/11 Hq choices, and all elite level characters)
Tau
Krootox riders
Kroot Shapers
all non-suit HQ choices
Piranas
flyers
marksman

Tyranids
Rippers/skyslasher swarm
Hive Guard
lictors
zoanthropes
broodlord
venomthropes
pyrovores
deathleaper
shrikes
red terror
raveners
Harpies/hive crones
Mulcolid spores
Tyranocytes
sporocyst
Biovores

GSC
Rockgrinder
all characters
truck
scout sentinels
abberants

Daemons
All Heralds
All non-khorne chariots
Non-Khorne Greater Daemons
Blood Crushers
Flamers, Exalted Flamers, Screamers
Fiends, Beasts Of Nurgle, Plague Drones
Nurglings


That is just from 2 Indices. I'm sure elder have some non-3+ save models, as do IG.

the_scotsman wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

If tournament players were complaining 7e was taking too long and required too much dice-rolling, why would they make hordes cheaper and add far more dice to the equation? A Razorwing Flock in 7e was 20 points for 4 rending attacks (5 on the charge). In 8e, 7 points for 8 non-rending attacks, which generally only hit on 5+ now instead of 4+. Rather than strict Ld, a Beastmaster also grants re-rolls to hit. You could conceivably roll a max of 16 dice for a single 7 point model, and that's just to hit, with a bunch of non-rending S2! Why make regular Guard cheaper, and why make FRFSRF fire 4 shots at 12? Why throw in a T3 4++ bulletshield that only costs 2 points per model? The removal of warp charges in the psychic phase along with random table power generation and 7E deny the witch with random Perils table, Falling Back/Regrouping morale, challenges, Look Out Sir, Jink on prompt, Vehicle Damage Table, cover by TLOS to individual model, remove from the front, blast scattering, separate run in the shooting phase, etc, etc, etc etc still makes the game run much faster on the whole.

Let's not forget that not all games are against hordes, some people are fast with sorting out hordes, combat resolution is consistent (so when you do have to roll lots, it's not exactly difficult to do it quickly), and that 8e rules for all their oddities are MUCH clearer.

8e is as far as I am concerned just better in almost every way. I managed to get 3 games in about 4 hours, compared to 7e's 1 game in 5 hours. And I had to learn the rules while doing my 3 games.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
On top of the clustertruck of rules that made the game a mess, they also threw out the original balancing method for the FoC; i.e: Troops were suppose to be intentionally a tax on your stuff. A lot of the 7th ed stuff were slowly written without the FoC in mind, which is why there was so much FoC shenanigans in the latter part of 5th to the end of 6th, and then the complete shift to ditching it in 7th. Units like Deathwing Terminators and SM Bikers were basically written as if they were troops. Ever wonder why PAGKs, especially Strike Squads, suck so badly compare to Terminators? It was because they were never meant to share slots with Terminators. Purifiers didn't exist in the old Daemonhunter Codex and Terminators weren't troops there.

And that's just the design perspective. Some armies flat out couldn't function with the standard FoC due to not having HQ choices. Skitarii, Harlequins, Imperial Knights (although this one can be left to the wayside due to Superheavies always being an issue), and the Inquisition would be literally unplayable and unfieldable.

It does raise a question though: If troops are so bad that a mandatory "tax" is the only way to make people field them, is that necessarily a good thing? The game should incentivize fielding boots on the ground for generalist TAC play, rather than punish players by forcing their inclusion. Inversely, you can't make them "too good" or else you end up with "big hordes and block-removers", akin to what happened in 8e WHFB.

It's also the same reason you don't see Fire Warriors in Tau armies, foot Guardians in Eldar armies, etc. If you give players the choice between gak infantry, or shiny toys with similar pointage, what do yoh believe they will take? Did anyone in their right mind ever think a init of 10 Fire Warriors in a Devilfish was the equivalent of a Riptide in 7e, for example?

That was the rationale I remember from the old GW (like, 2004 old. Where they didn't stuff a sock in the mouth of their designers and actually gave them interviews). Your standard bread and butter troops were suppose to be boring. Everything else was suppose to have some shiny bits. This was also due to the rules shift; if I remember back in 4th edition you couldn't just shoot whoever you wanted within range; you had to hit the closest thing and if you wanted to shoot something behind there, you had to take a LD test. This meant that troops could act as a shield for your shinier toys (which is why Fast Attack units were considered glass cannons; they were more often than not faster than the "bubble wrap"). Unfortunately in actual play this didn't translate well; either you had good enough LD to make the test a formality at best, or your combat units could just charge in, rearrange the face of whoever was closest, then consolidate into the actual thing you wanted to mess up on the sweep advance. Another issue was that 40k, unlike Fantasy at the time, gave you a flat tax rather than a scaling one; you paid 1 HQ 2 troops to unlock everything, rather than a handful of FA, HS and Elites choices per troop choice.

It worked in theory, just execution required some refinement. Unfortunately they sort of forgot all of this and started refining in the other direct; i.e: took the piss.

Overall 7th lacked tactical depth, and that was my main concern. Even when I was setting up a friendly game, were we balanced our lists before hand, did a bit of list tailoring so that outliers in formations and OP units didn't play a role, the main problem was, that you actually had to do very few tactical decisions. 7th ed. was watching an action movie, nothing more. And it wasn't one of the action movies were you have to think, it was a Michael Bay action movie.
People who are missing vehicle arcs and armor values seem to have forgotten, that those were never relevant in 7th ed. Vehicles were either supersquishy and then it didn't matter from where the S7 weapons hammered them down, or they were superheavies, which ignored most of the downsides of being a vehicle. Pivoting on the spot however you liked meant firing arcs were largely irrelevant.
Jink was a dumb rule. Yes, it was one of the few decisions you could possibly make - however only, when your jinking unit was actually a shooty unit. Why would my Nurgle DP ever not jink?
Don't get me started with movement and unittypes which I had to look up every damn game, as they mostly didn't make sense or there were only tiny tiny differences. The movement value in 8th be praised.
Yes, cover rules in 8th are not perfect, but they weren't in 7th. If you played against Tau, every cover was irrelevant, if you played against others, cover made most AP weapons irrelevant (let's not forget that the only APs that actually were relevant were Ap3 and Ap2.).

I started in 3rd, and remember the "Starcannons in a blob of Conceal Guardians, vs BA Rhino Rushes", as well as there being separate damage tables for glancing hits, penetrating hits, and Ordnance Penetrating Hits. I remember playing Guard, one player made the mistake of taking Terminators in a Land Raider, and getting a Basilisk hit dead center, then rolling a 6. "Vehicle Annihilated."

"Yup. All your Terminators are dead. Yeah, they normally would have gotten a save versus an Earthshaker. Maybe vehicles shouldn't be lined with Vortex Grenades..."

Of course, I remember a 4e game when I lost 2 Chimeras to the same flamer, because my opponent rolled 2 6s to glance, and 2 6s to wreck. :(

As much as I hated the idea and implementation of Formations in 7e, *some* were interesting enough that I softened up a little om them. Things like the Raven Guard Talon/Pinion Demi-Company were *fluffy* yet relatively effective while having tradeoffs compared to just running a CAD (Loss of Obsec, and mixing Scouts&Tacticals). Could such bonuses have been rolled up into the core unit abilities? Sure, and that would be ideal, but the idea of mixed armies having mutually supporting bonuses was cool. In theory, had Formations been less a way to sell bundle kits and more to reward "fluff builds" (ex: The Aspect Host was the "spam BS 5 Warp Spiders" Formation, but could easily have been "non-duplicated Aspects, each Exarch can benefit units from the same formation within 6" or so), there arguably would have been less overall hate.

By contrast, 3+detachment CPs, plus the spending limits per phase, mean lists are now DPT point-efficiency even more than before.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

As much as I hated the idea and implementation of Formations in 7e, *some* were interesting enough that I softened up a little om them. Things like the Raven Guard Talon/Pinion Demi-Company were *fluffy* yet relatively effective while having tradeoffs compared to just running a CAD (Loss of Obsec, and mixing Scouts&Tacticals). Could such bonuses have been rolled up into the core unit abilities? Sure, and that would be ideal, but the idea of mixed armies having mutually supporting bonuses was cool. In theory, had Formations been less a way to sell bundle kits and more to reward "fluff builds" (ex: The Aspect Host was the "spam BS 5 Warp Spiders" Formation, but could easily have been "non-duplicated Aspects, each Exarch can benefit units from the same formation within 6" or so), there arguably would have been less overall hate.

Totally agree here. Before we knew how 8th would turn out I even thought they'd transport formations over to the new edition, just with points costs for example.
Once we see the Codizes I'm pretty sure the new detachment boni for each faction will feel similar to formations in 7th (let's just hope there won't be OP stuff like the decurion, WarCon or free Razorbacks).

To the topic of the post: I do not know what "OK" means. I had great fun in 7th edition, but I did not play tournaments. But I will infer from your stipulation of limiting all armies to force org charts that by "OK" you mean "Competitively balanced."

The answer there is "Absolutely not." Eldar, Daemons, Tau (depending on FW yes or no), Corsairs, and Imperial Allied Death stars would most likely dominate a 7th edition only FOC meta entirely. And the more restrictions you piled on (OK no Forgeworld...OK no supplement material...OK no allies...) would just whittle your dominant factions farther and farther down to the inevitable Eldar monotheism. And if you then said "OK no eldar" then only Daemons would dominate. OK no daemons - only Tau, maybe Necrons. Ok no those two - Space Marines. etc, etc, etc. This is because 7th is fundamentally imbalanced between the codexes. There is no comparing the 7th edition Ork or Guard codex to the 7th edition Eldar or Tau codex on any level.

If you're willing to jump through that many hoops in the name of balance, why are you not willing to jump through the relatively fewer hoops it would take to get the same balance in 8th? What is your goal, what about 7th are you looking to preserve? It's your game after all, you're free to play it official support or not.

No.

7th was a horrible game. People who like it should feel horrible. (or realistically they should play a whole lot of other non-GW wargames...and then revisit that notion)

Breng77 wrote:

But the grav gun is worse than the plasma gun now.

And good fething riddance to it.

It may be the irritable CSM player in me speaking but for a faction who's reliant on ancient technology being rediscovered and not really that innovative the Imperium gets an awful lot of NEW TOYS every time a book of theirs comes out while the faction that has literally mad scientists and inventors, some of whom were exiled or banished for daring to break the taboo has had almost no new units or weapons in the same timeframe.

It appears not even 8th is immune with SM getting Primaris, an angry washing machine and floaty tank McGunBloat....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:


Totally agree here. Before we knew how 8th would turn out I even thought they'd transport formations over to the new edition, just with points costs for example.
Once we see the Codizes I'm pretty sure the new detachment boni for each faction will feel similar to formations in 7th (let's just hope there won't be OP stuff like the decurion, WarCon or free Razorbacks).

To be honest, they did transport across the formations - they're the alternative detachments. If you take apart the CSM formations from Traitor Legions they break down perfectly into the new detachments.

For example, the Terminator Annihilation Force required a Terminator Lord or Sorcerer and 3-5 Squads of Chaos Terminators. The Vanguard detachment literally requires 1 HQ and 3 Elites.

I hope the Detachment bonuses are kept minimal. Yeah, I'm sad that Chaos Marks have no real value at the moment and that Death Guard are in odd situations where their Terminators have to be Pepsi Death Guard at the moment but...I really think it's more a case of adapting and not just auto-expecting T5 and FNP on anything. After all, it's not as bad as it was in 6th and 7th where the marks had a point cost attached and their lack of meaningful bonuses were the reasons certain units sucked. T5 Terminators were so hideously expensive and being able to break and flee was a joke. Fearless T5 Terminators with FNP were wonderful at the same points cost.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jhe90 wrote:
A fluffy. Mixed up imperial army can take 5-6 books...

That's a problem.

A Chaos army trying to be vaguely capable and not a Turn 2 faceroll for any other army damn near required 6 books in 7th.