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.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
GW increased the point costs in CA2017 without adjusting the power, likely so you couldn't feasaby take a warhound in a game of 1750 or 2K. IIRC the Eldar titans got adjusted as well to do the same. And titans are not worth their points at all compared to knights or most normal units unless playing with a double size or larger table.

That's what I am wondering. I just can't really see how a Warhound is worth the price of four Knights. Then again, a Space Marine is the price of three Guardsmen(for...+1 to basically all stats, but not 3x the shooting) so let's not pretend points ever made sense on them to begin with.

So new cover rules.
It's mentioned in the new narrative rules article that there are more in depth cover rules. This combined with the photo of the Ltd edition of chapter approved showing counters for hard and soft cover could indicate a major shift in these areas. Discuss..




Automatically Appended Next Post:
It does say the new cover rules are for all of your games. So could apply to matched play(?)

 KRakarth wrote:
So new cover rules.
It's mentioned in the new narrative rules article that there are more in depth cover rules. This combined with the photo of the Ltd edition of chapter approved showing counters for hard and soft cover could indicate a major shift in these areas. Discuss..




Automatically Appended Next Post:
It does say the new cover rules are for all of your games. So could apply to matched play(?)

We’ve also provided new narrative rules to try in any of your games, such as a new, deeper cover system, options for concealed deployment, battlefields infested with xenos beasts and more.

I’d read this more as only applying to the narrative play games, rather than open and matched play in addition. However, if it does work well, then there might be a couple of events that trial the use of the system in their games, but, I expect that it coming to all matched play games is a long way off.

Wait. Specialist detachment will not generate CP?

Kdash wrote:

 KRakarth wrote:
So new cover rules.
It's mentioned in the new narrative rules article that there are more in depth cover rules. This combined with the photo of the Ltd edition of chapter approved showing counters for hard and soft cover could indicate a major shift in these areas. Discuss..




Automatically Appended Next Post:
It does say the new cover rules are for all of your games. So could apply to matched play(?)

We’ve also provided new narrative rules to try in any of your games, such as a new, deeper cover system, options for concealed deployment, battlefields infested with xenos beasts and more.

I’d read this more as only applying to the narrative play games, rather than open and matched play in addition. However, if it does work well, then there might be a couple of events that trial the use of the system in their games, but, I expect that it coming to all matched play games is a long way off.

Battlezones in the last CA were in an appendix that could apply equally to any of the 3 ways to play. Not sure why GW would do it differently this time and restrict it to only narrative - although I imagine it will have far more uptake among narrative players than in tournaments. For reasons.

Kdash wrote:

 KRakarth wrote:
So new cover rules.
It's mentioned in the new narrative rules article that there are more in depth cover rules. This combined with the photo of the Ltd edition of chapter approved showing counters for hard and soft cover could indicate a major shift in these areas. Discuss..




Automatically Appended Next Post:
It does say the new cover rules are for all of your games. So could apply to matched play(?)

We’ve also provided new narrative rules to try in any of your games, such as a new, deeper cover system, options for concealed deployment, battlefields infested with xenos beasts and more.

I’d read this more as only applying to the narrative play games, rather than open and matched play in addition. However, if it does work well, then there might be a couple of events that trial the use of the system in their games, but, I expect that it coming to all matched play games is a long way off.

I would tend to agree with you but it's an interesting development. Adds more fuel to the +1 to cover vs always being in cover debate. And if its +1 to cover and assuming hard cover is +2 to saves could end up being +3 for some. It would move the meta toward high AP weapons again.

Gnollu wrote:
Wait. Specialist detachment will not generate CP?

From what I can see from the Warhammer Community article, the Specialist Detachments are something you pay CPs for. You pay a CP to add a keyword to one or more detachments in your army (which have already granted you however many CPs they normally do), which then grants you access to additional Stratagems which only affect those new keywords.

Gnollu wrote:
Wait. Specialist detachment will not generate CP?

Where are you seeing that? They cost a Command Point to activate, but nothing has ever indicated they flat-oit stop you from gaining CP from that Detachment.

It does occur to me we use the same cover rules in All styles of play.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

Gnollu wrote:
Wait. Specialist detachment will not generate CP?

Where are you seeing that? They cost a Command Point to activate, but nothing has ever indicated they flat-oit stop you from gaining CP from that Detachment.

Well logically, if they cost CP to activate they wouldn't provide CP, as then they would cost nothing. Thus undermining the entire point of making them cost a resource.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

Gnollu wrote:
Wait. Specialist detachment will not generate CP?

Where are you seeing that? They cost a Command Point to activate, but nothing has ever indicated they flat-oit stop you from gaining CP from that Detachment.

Well logically, if they cost CP to activate they wouldn't provide CP, as then they would cost nothing. Thus undermining the entire point of making them cost a resource.

They are upgrades to detachments you have taken though, so you would still get the original cp.

 Trickstick wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

Gnollu wrote:
Wait. Specialist detachment will not generate CP?

Where are you seeing that? They cost a Command Point to activate, but nothing has ever indicated they flat-oit stop you from gaining CP from that Detachment.

Well logically, if they cost CP to activate they wouldn't provide CP, as then they would cost nothing. Thus undermining the entire point of making them cost a resource.

They are upgrades to detachments you have taken though, so you would still get the original cp.

This. If they made the Detachment not give CP AND cost a CP to activate, their bonuses would have to be insane.

broxus wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks that GUOs even with the 70pts reduction that at 255pts they are still to expensive to take in a list? I just don’t see the point in taking a model that is only T7 with a 5+ invul save. Especially since it will take multiple turns to get him into combat and can’t hide due to having more than 10 wounds. He doesn’t even hit that hard.

Uhh, well...5++/5+++ and deepstrike. A pair of them would give a Gallant quite a bit of trouble and wouldn't go down easily.

 KRakarth wrote:
It would move the meta toward high AP weapons again.

Or just to lasgun spam. A 1 still fails no matter how many cover bonuses you stack up, and you can get a lot more lasguns rolling against a 2+ save than high-AP weapons rolling against a 3+.

 Peregrine wrote:

 KRakarth wrote:
It would move the meta toward high AP weapons again.

Or just to lasgun spam. A 1 still fails no matter how many cover bonuses you stack up, and you can get a lot more lasguns rolling against a 2+ save than high-AP weapons rolling against a 3+.

My thoughts exactly. AP-1 lascannons aren't worth it. I really hope people are wrong about it granting an extra +1 to cover save and is instead going to grant cover bonuses in the open. Or at the very least they will fix the Tau and Tyranid tactics to match. Dalyth Tau would be pretty broken, 2+ armor saves on fire warriors if you go second or are already in cover on any other turn? Seems too good to be true.

My only idea to fix Greater Daemons is to allow Daemon troops of the same alignment to to take mortal wounds for them. Look out Sir style.

 dan2026 wrote:
My only idea to fix Greater Daemons is to allow Daemon troops of the same alignment to to take mortal wounds for them. Look out Sir style.

That would be a little nuts. Brimstones / nurglings anyone?

The current rumored prices are a good place for them. If troops drop, too they'll be rocking tables again.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 dan2026 wrote:
My only idea to fix Greater Daemons is to allow Daemon troops of the same alignment to to take mortal wounds for them. Look out Sir style.

That would be a little nuts. Brimstones / nurglings anyone?

The current rumored prices are a good place for them. If troops drop, too they'll be rocking tables again.

I think all of the Greater Daemons suffer more from fundamental rules problems rather than to expensive. They just don't bring much to the table. Their leadership aura is bad, they are only protected by a 5++, and they are not much better than your run of the mill daemon prince. Also I wouldn't expect daemon troops to get a points drop since they are some of the best troop choices in the game.

The Salt Mine wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 dan2026 wrote:
My only idea to fix Greater Daemons is to allow Daemon troops of the same alignment to to take mortal wounds for them. Look out Sir style.

That would be a little nuts. Brimstones / nurglings anyone?

The current rumored prices are a good place for them. If troops drop, too they'll be rocking tables again.

I think all of the Greater Daemons suffer more from fundamental rules problems rather than to expensive. They just don't bring much to the table. Their leadership aura is bad, they are only protected by a 5++, and they are not much better than your run of the mill daemon prince. Also I wouldn't expect daemon troops to get a points drop since they are some of the best troop choices in the game.

Yeah, whenever I get the thought in my head that I'd like one of the new Lords of Change as a big centerpiece to my demon detachment, I always get stuck on "what does this do that a DPtz from my Thousand Sons or a herald on chariot doesn't do better?

Character is still just so ludicrously broken and the captain aura out of the DP/strength aura out of the herald is so much better than his craptastic LD aura.

Their melee damage is pretty similar - 6 WS4+ S6 AP-3 D2 attacks from the chariot, 5 (or less) WS2+ S6 AP-1 D3 attacks from the LOC, 4 S7 WS2+ AP-2 D3 attacks from the prince.

The LOC has double the wounds...but no Character rule, so he will just get shot. And in a world where everyone and their brother has a 3++ knight and people are taking enough anti tank firepower to one round that sucker, I'm just serving them up a big blue turkey for dinner by bringing a LOC.

I guess he smites 30", so I can REALLY smash those D3 guardsmen from downtoooooooown.

He gets 3 psychic power casts, so I can cast all those AMAZING tzeentch daemon psychic powers like

..................

and lets not forget that OTHER amazing power

..................

New one up

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/12/06/6th-dec-imperial-specialist-detachments-rules-previewgw-homepage-post-4/

 Chris521 wrote:
New one up

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/12/06/6th-dec-imperial-specialist-detachments-rules-previewgw-homepage-post-4/

And look at that. They could have chosen one of the FIVE other chapters to highlight, but they had to bend over for UM like usual.

Field Commander does seem pretty nice though. It makes it pretty clear that you can't override a named character's Warlord trait with a Specialist Detachment's trait. Oh well. I will probably be using that Stratagem depending on what the trait is for the Liberator Strike Force or the Indomitus Crusaders.

Well I found a use for my FW vanquisher model. Now it can be a relic battlecannon. The improved overwatch is a nice buff I guess, nothing amazing. The two stratagems sounds nice, both very mobile focused. I wonder how useful the advancing one will be with Tallarn, hopefully it won't make either one redundant.

Field commander is unexpected, and really opens up the uses of these formations.

I'm quite happy with the tank company. Should be fun to turn a spearhead into one.

Though the thought has occured to me, does turning a Spearhead in an Emperor fist negate the rule giving Leman Russ's objective secured?

Blessed be the Omnissiah, Fistelan Robots have a chance of becoming a thing. Give your Detachment Cohort Cybernetica (1CP) DS 4 Robots with Lucius (1CP), charge 6" with Aegis protocol to soak the overwatch, fight a first time, tank the eventual Counter-Offensive, Binharic Override to switch to Fisty protocols (1CP) and continue punching whatever you wanted to punch.

Now we just need them to be cheaper than triple HPB (you know, the loadout which is actually useful and more safe to use).

A good day to be an Adeptus Mechanicus player.

 Trickstick wrote:
Well I found a use for my FW vanquisher model. Now it can be a relic battlecannon. The improved overwatch is a nice buff I guess, nothing amazing. The two stratagems sounds nice, both very mobile focused. I wonder how useful the advancing one will be with Tallarn, hopefully it won't make either one redundant.

Field commander is unexpected, and really opens up the uses of these formations.

I mean, considering that with Mordians and Defensive Gunners you can get up to a 75% chance to hit on overwatch, that's...pretty good...

Yeah field commander is really good.

The slightly irritating thing is to not have all the rules for any of these things. It’s interesting that the primaris detachment buffs inceptors as well as intercessors (but nobody else). I wonder what it does for them, as clearly they can’t become veteran intercessors.

That said, a veteran intercessor battalion can quickly eat all of its own CPs. 1 to have the detachment, three to upgrade the squads and maybe another one to give a character its warlord trait – whatever that may be. So you almost have to have a battery detachment just to have any CPs in the game at all.

It does incentivise taking squads of 10 intercessors though. If the stratagems for them are worth using (unlike the one that lets you have very expensive CP-eating snipers with 3 attacks each in combat…) then it could be pretty interesting. If the auto-rifle stratagem is decent then maybe it’ll even be worthwhile fielding some of them.

 Chris521 wrote:
I'm quite happy with the tank company. Should be fun to turn a spearhead into one.

Though the thought has occured to me, does turning a Spearhead in an Emperor fist negate the rule giving Leman Russ's objective secured?

The stratagems that upgrade detachments don't actually change them, they just add keywords to the units. So it should be safe.

 Aaranis wrote:
Blessed be the Omnissiah, Fistelan Robots have a chance of becoming a thing. Give your Detachment Cohort Cybernetica (1CP) DS 4 Robots with Lucius (1CP), charge 6" with Aegis protocol to soak the overwatch, fight a first time, tank the eventual Counter-Offensive, Binharic Override to switch to Fisty protocols (1CP) and continue punching whatever you wanted to punch.

Now we just need them to be cheaper than triple HPB (you know, the loadout which is actually useful and more safe to use).

A good day to be an Adeptus Mechanicus player.

Usually you either stand or walk 1 turn with Kastelans before you turn into an immobile turret.
So turning heavy into assault makes them more mobile for 1 turn, allowing an advance/no -1 hit.
Only thing I can see right now is the 3" extra charge if Fistelans become a thing with CA18 and a massive price drop on their melee weapons... we are in agreement here.

Roll badly on your one-time-use warlord trait and there goes your entire benefit. Unless the relic, if there is one AND it is good, which I doubt, Id rather use that CP to get an extra relic and use the Autocaduceus...

Overall this detachment seems pretty weak to me.

Mandragola wrote:
Yeah field commander is really good.

The slightly irritating thing is to not have all the rules for any of these things. It’s interesting that the primaris detachment buffs inceptors as well as intercessors (but nobody else). I wonder what it does for them, as clearly they can’t become veteran intercessors.

That said, a veteran intercessor battalion can quickly eat all of its own CPs. 1 to have the detachment, three to upgrade the squads and maybe another one to give a character its warlord trait – whatever that may be. So you almost have to have a battery detachment just to have any CPs in the game at all.

It does incentivise taking squads of 10 intercessors though. If the stratagems for them are worth using (unlike the one that lets you have very expensive CP-eating snipers with 3 attacks each in combat…) then it could be pretty interesting. If the auto-rifle stratagem is decent then maybe it’ll even be worthwhile fielding some of them.

Yeah, I was really hoping I wouldn't have to upgrade a Stalker Bolt Rifle Intercessor Squad into Veterans in order to use the Sniper Stratagem. That is 3CP right there to use. Definitely need ten Stalker Bolt Rifles in that squad. Though really, they will be next to a Captain/Chapter Master and a Lieutenant. With the SBR laying down Mortal Wounds, not many Characters would be able to survive.

I am really hoping that the Liberator Strike Force is good. I want a very fluffy Crimson Fists detachment. If it doesn't really work well with my Primaris-focused army, I will likely run Indomitus Crusaders instead.

The really sad thing about these Specialist detachments, is that the Outrider, Spearhead and Vanguard detachments already pay a heavy CP tax to be used already (because you only get 1CP instead of say 3-5) and making them a Specialist Detachment just to add a freaking Keyword robs them of that CP entirely.
And on top of that, once you've traded that CP, you still have to pay another just to use the special Stratagem that buying that Keyword is for.

Until CPs are related to being Battle Forged and give more than a measly 3CPs, these Specialist Detachments are a hard pass on that for me.

-