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.

 Apple Peel wrote:
Hey guys. We are expecting good points drops in Grey Knights now.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/11/24/breaking-news-from-the-vigilus-open-daygw-homepage-post-1fw-homepage-post-1/

Time for some crow to be eaten.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:
Hey guys. We are expecting good points drops in Grey Knights now.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/11/24/breaking-news-from-the-vigilus-open-daygw-homepage-post-1fw-homepage-post-1/

Time for some crow to be eaten.

Who?

 Quickjager wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:
Hey guys. We are expecting good points drops in Grey Knights now.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/11/24/breaking-news-from-the-vigilus-open-daygw-homepage-post-1fw-homepage-post-1/

Time for some crow to be eaten.

Who?

Frank Reynolds of course.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Except he didn't say they were top tier. Look at his next reply and he says the codex is bad and bland and not top tier. And that's supposed to be how it should be to him.

Caught up? Good.

He didnt say they were bad. You're doing it again.

Bland
Not top tier
They shouldn't be particularly competitive
UPPER mid tier with a soup

He said they were bad. Learn to read for context clues. You don't need to be an English major to do it.

I will literally lose my Gak if GK become relevant.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I will literally lose my Gak if GK become relevant.

Like in a good way?

 chimeara wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I will literally lose my Gak if GK become relevant.

Like in a good way?

I would. I would certainly like to build my Paladins standins without them being super mediocre at best and stuff.

 chimeara wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I will literally lose my Gak if GK become relevant.

Like in a good way?

Yeah like when you let one out and it's been stuck for 1 1/2 years. That is the best kind of losing of the Gak.

 Quickjager wrote:
They'll never make Draigo a Primaris right? When the feth would he get the operation.

The Newman wrote:
Good news for GK players.

"Marneus Calgar gets reborn as a Primaris": cue another 30 page discussion over whether old marines are getting squatted.

They said at the seminar today that Grey Knights weren't getting the Primaris treatment.

It's a shame, I was pretty saddened by it to be honest. :/

(If you're interested, here's a link to the MASSIVE infodump from the seminar I compiled when I was there: https://www.reddit.com/r/Warhammer40k/comments/a00l09/i_was_at_the_vigilus_weekender_and_live_reported/).

 CaptainBetts wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
They'll never make Draigo a Primaris right? When the feth would he get the operation.

The Newman wrote:
Good news for GK players.

"Marneus Calgar gets reborn as a Primaris": cue another 30 page discussion over whether old marines are getting squatted.

They said at the seminar today that Grey Knights weren't getting the Primaris treatment.

It's a shame, I was pretty saddened by it to be honest. :/

(If you're interested, here's a link to the MASSIVE infodump from the seminar I compiled when I was there: https://www.reddit.com/r/Warhammer40k/comments/a00l09/i_was_at_the_vigilus_weekender_and_live_reported/).

When you say GK aren't getting Primaris, is that a never or a not any time soon?

I'd be extremely surprised at the former but not at all at the latter.

 Stux wrote:
When you say GK aren't getting Primaris, is that a never or a not any time soon?

I'd be extremely surprised at the former but not at all at the latter.

So when I asked the question, the seminar presenter didn't hesitate to answer "No", unlike other questions where he thought for a few seconds before answering them. It was said immediately and with a very surprising degree of absolute certainty. After he talked about why they wouldn't for a bit, he said that there were no plans to do so.

Cool, thank you very much for all the info mrBetts.

Oh thank you. Interesting such a direct statement.

 CaptainBetts wrote:

 Stux wrote:
When you say GK aren't getting Primaris, is that a never or a not any time soon?

I'd be extremely surprised at the former but not at all at the latter.

So when I asked the question, the seminar presenter didn't hesitate to answer "No", unlike other questions where he thought for a few seconds before answering them. It was said immediately and with a very surprising degree of absolute certainty. After he talked about why they wouldn't for a bit, he said that there were no plans to do so.

Did you get any info on the formations thing?

I have the hunch we're getting the AoS rules for CP.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 CaptainBetts wrote:

 Stux wrote:
When you say GK aren't getting Primaris, is that a never or a not any time soon?

I'd be extremely surprised at the former but not at all at the latter.

So when I asked the question, the seminar presenter didn't hesitate to answer "No", unlike other questions where he thought for a few seconds before answering them. It was said immediately and with a very surprising degree of absolute certainty. After he talked about why they wouldn't for a bit, he said that there were no plans to do so.

Did you get any info on the formations thing?

I have the hunch we're getting the AoS rules for CP.

In AoS the formations GIVE CPs, from what i head in 40K formations will COST CPs.

For what it's worth, I think detachment benefits costing CP is how I would've wanted to approach it in the first place.

I mean, it just feels silly when you use your True Grit strategem and somehow none of your other Space Wolves are capable of using the same kinda technique.

Is there any word on the release date for CA? We've had some minor leaks, and now nothing for more than a week :(

What the hell is a formation and what the hell are "detachment benefits"?

Gryphonne wrote:
Is there any word on the release date for CA? We've had some minor leaks, and now nothing for more than a week :(

Not listed for next week's pre-orders, so the earliest it could be would be pre-order on the December 1, release December 8 - but it could still be later than that.

ThePorcupine wrote:
What the hell is a formation and what the hell are "detachment benefits"?

In 7th and in AoS it's a set of units you take and you get some sort of benefit.

These seem similar, but sound like they'll have some distinct differences.

ThePorcupine wrote:
What the hell is a formation and what the hell are "detachment benefits"?

I'm guessing you didn't play 7th?
Basically it's a detachment with mostly preselected models, and you gain certain effects for them.

For example, two of my favorites were the Cult Of Destruction and Terminator Annihilation Force. The Cult Of Destruction was 1-3 Warpsmiths and 3 or more Obliterators/Mutilators. In exchange for being locked into these units for that detachment, the Warpsmiths allowed Obliterators to fire twice or Mutilators to attack twice if they were in a certain range.

Meanwhile, the Terminator one consisted of a Chaos Lord or Sorcerer (who got free Terminator armor) and 3-5 Terminator units. You first nominate an enemy unit, and when you Deep Strike you get an extra round of shooting at that target. When it dies, you select a new target. As someone that loved Termicide, this formation almost spoke to me on a personal level.

ThePorcupine wrote:
What the hell is a formation and what the hell are "detachment benefits"?

It was supposed to be a way to encourage fluffy armies but it quickly became for a few armies (Marines, Ad Mech and Necrons) a massive power boost that allowed them to field extra forces and/or have broken combinations of rules.

They also did not bother to give these to most armies, never mind all of them.

Bringing them back would be a terrible terrible thing.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Bringing them back would be a terrible terrible thing.

GW giveth and then GW giveth again and again.

And lo! The players lamented for it was too much.

I'm cautiously optimistic, though, if they put proper costs to it. It could reward lists that stray from soup.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Bringing them back would be a terrible terrible thing.

GW giveth and then GW giveth again and again.

And lo! The players lamented for it was too much.

I'm cautiously optimistic, though, if they put proper costs to it. It could reward lists that stray from soup.

Except roumer is that they have already stated the formation benifits cost CP, hence the 32 douches will be inevitably fielded ecen if it is just to pay the CP cost of the formations.

A return of formations would be awful. We don't need armies running around with hundreds of points of free units/abilities/wargear again just for buying whatever new sales bundle went up on the GW webstore. If tied to CP, sounds like they're just gonna incentivize soup even more.

Formations were a great concept, just implemented badly with a few that were just too good, and a few with silly requirement that basically asked you to spam (and lots of overlap between two problem groups)

Most formations actually did encourage a fluffy force with great varaity of units, but they got drowned by the problem ones in competitive play.

I am usually optimistic, but I have now faith GW is any better positioned to make formations work now than they were in the past.

In theory making an army "match the fluff" and getting rules to that effect is great. I loved this all the way back in the 3.5 days. The practical effect of it - as seen in the chapter tactics rollout - is just codex creep, min/maxing and often rules interactions which have nothing to do with the fluffiness because GW doesn't think about it.

This is howling into the void and will never happen - but just as I am up for killing soup with a rusty spoon, I would love it if chapter tactics only applied to armies that were universally that chapter. In-faction soup might not be as game breaking, but it feels like a perversion of the reason its there. (I realise that would basically require DE to be re-done, but I'm okay with that.)

 Vaktathi wrote:
A return of formations would be awful. We don't need armies running around with hundreds of points of free units/abilities/wargear again just for buying whatever new sales bundle went up on the GW webstore. If tied to CP, sounds like they're just gonna incentivize soup even more.

This. I'm not really sure what they are thinking... oh wait.

Sir Heckington wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
A return of formations would be awful. We don't need armies running around with hundreds of points of free units/abilities/wargear again just for buying whatever new sales bundle went up on the GW webstore. If tied to CP, sounds like they're just gonna incentivize soup even more.

This. I'm not really sure what they are thinking... oh wait.

Could actually work if they required your force to be mono to get the benefits.

Lemondish wrote:

Sir Heckington wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
A return of formations would be awful. We don't need armies running around with hundreds of points of free units/abilities/wargear again just for buying whatever new sales bundle went up on the GW webstore. If tied to CP, sounds like they're just gonna incentivize soup even more.

This. I'm not really sure what they are thinking... oh wait.

Could actually work if they required your force to be mono to get the benefits.

It wouldn't. The mono codices would just be poorly balanced against each other. They can't balance CP or formations...

Who thinks they can balance both?

The idea of formations wasn't a bad one. The implementation of them was terrible in 7th though. I think as long as they cost CP and do not allow gak like 400 pts of free razorbacks. I think formations could add a lot to the game if done right.