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.

Answering the original question. I play mono custodes without FW tanks (but with non-telemon dreadnoughts, saggitarium, jumpack guys, etc...) or imperial soup with mostly custodes supported by tempestus Scions so I expect for my armies to be just as bad as they are right now.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Working under the assumption that we get a single battalion with all it's current requirements and restrictions at 2k points it looks like I'll end up losing a Talonmaster and a trio of minimum cost scout units and gaining something new. Possibly a pair of fliers or a Deredeo plus some support units.

That's assuming points stay close to what they are now and none of the new units seem like more fun than the stuff currently in my list.

I don't think its a good assumption that we need to have a Battalion with its current restrictions. The Q&A certainly left me with the impression that you can go all Deathwing if you want and get the CPs. They kept making the point that they don't want you to bring Troops just to unlock CPs. I think we'll have more freedom to work within our Codex, but will pay to have a "food court" approach to army building.

If that's the case I may have even more freedom to tailor my list, but it's unlikely that I'll be bringing 4 HQ choices in a single detachment that can also bring three fast attack choices and three elite choices so it's likely my planned list will still change some even if it functions the same as it would right now.

Okay. I get that it's likely that we'll have to pay for detachments; we did previously, and GW tends to hang on things they don't need to hang onto to smooth transitions between editions.

But in a mono-dex, mono sub-faction army, I'm curious if anyone thinks we SHOULD pay for detachments and if so, why?

THEY NOW CONFER ZERO GAME BENEFIT!

So why should they have a cost?

PenitentJake wrote:
Okay. I get that it's likely that we'll have to pay for detachments; we did previously, and GW tends to hang on things they don't need to hang onto to smooth transitions between editions.

But in a mono-dex, mono sub-faction army, I'm curious if anyone thinks we SHOULD pay for detachments and if so, why?

THEY NOW CONFER ZERO GAME BENEFIT!

So why should they have a cost?

The only argument would be If they wanted to reward balanced forces with more CP than hyper specialized. So that they do confer an in game benefit.

An army that filled out a Brigade would have more CP than 3 spearheads.

The Detachments we have are so flexible that without a cost they would just be window dressing for unbound.

I didn't get a vibe of a preference for balanced forces or Brigades/Battalions from the Q&As. I think all we know is that forces will get equal CP and that taking allies will definitely cost CP.

 Eldarain wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
Okay. I get that it's likely that we'll have to pay for detachments; we did previously, and GW tends to hang on things they don't need to hang onto to smooth transitions between editions.

But in a mono-dex, mono sub-faction army, I'm curious if anyone thinks we SHOULD pay for detachments and if so, why?

THEY NOW CONFER ZERO GAME BENEFIT!

So why should they have a cost?

The only argument would be If they wanted to reward balanced forces with more CP than hyper specialized. So that they do confer an in game benefit.

An army that filled out a Brigade would have more CP than 3 spearheads.

The Detachments we have are so flexible that without a cost they would just be window dressing for unbound.

But every detachment has optional slots that aren't required to be filled, and you can slot your extra units into those. So a Brigade requires 3 HQ and 6 Troops. But if I take three spearheads and cram two troops into each, along with one FA and one Elite, why is your brigade more "Tactically Balanced?" Answer: It isn't. We have the exact same force, model for model. It's just that you used one set of containers for units and I used another. The actual unit composition is identical.

It's like a mover charging by the number of boxes of stuff that go into the van, rather than just charging for the van.

PenitentJake wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
Okay. I get that it's likely that we'll have to pay for detachments; we did previously, and GW tends to hang on things they don't need to hang onto to smooth transitions between editions.

But in a mono-dex, mono sub-faction army, I'm curious if anyone thinks we SHOULD pay for detachments and if so, why?

THEY NOW CONFER ZERO GAME BENEFIT!

So why should they have a cost?

The only argument would be If they wanted to reward balanced forces with more CP than hyper specialized. So that they do confer an in game benefit.

An army that filled out a Brigade would have more CP than 3 spearheads.

The Detachments we have are so flexible that without a cost they would just be window dressing for unbound.

But every detachment has optional slots that aren't required to be filled, and you can slot your extra units into those. So a Brigade requires 3 HQ and 6 Troops. But if I take three spearheads and cram two troops into each, along with one FA and one Elite, why is your brigade more "Tactically Balanced?" Answer: It isn't. We have the exact same force, model for model. It's just that you used one set of containers for units and I used another. The actual unit composition is identical.

It's like a mover charging by the number of boxes of stuff that go into the van, rather than just charging for the van.

That's not how Brigades work.
We don't. You have 9-18 Heavy Support. I'm maxed out at 5.
Just because you can use them to build things in the way you describe doesn't mean people will. If there's not an incentive to do so, armies will just be the best units with a screen here and there.

If that's what they want, so be it but the detachments will just be the bare minimum attempt at making unbound look organized.

If they assign a cost to detachments, every mono army will just be a brigade with extra slots maxed out. Rule of 3 is still out there to my knowledge.

What I'm getting at is that without cp rewards being contingent upon detachments, almost any army a player might want to build can be built by filling the extra slots in pretty much any combination of detachments

But I guess if you want more than 5 HQ, Heavy or FA, or more than 8 elite, or more than 2 flyers, you do need more than one detachment to do it.

I don't know- guess I just wait and see.

Matched play and "Tournment suggested matched play" rules should never have been separate. Matched Play rules should have been the tourny community standard, and all other modes of play optional.

PenitentJake wrote:
If they assign a cost to detachments, every mono army will just be a brigade with extra slots maxed out. Rule of 3 is still out there to my knowledge.

What I'm getting at is that without cp rewards being contingent upon detachments, almost any army a player might want to build can be built by filling the extra slots in pretty much any combination of detachments

But I guess if you want more than 5 HQ, Heavy or FA, or more than 8 elite, or more than 2 flyers, you do need more than one detachment to do it.

I don't know- guess I just wait and see.

Like you say, we'll have to wait and see, but my guess is that the intention is twofold:

First, that charging for detachments will lead to more balanced forces (it might be that the make-up of detachments changes too)

Second, the CP charge is a trade off for unlocking a second army trait or additional warlord abilities etc.

IMHO Detachments were a nice idea but showed they were a bad idea. I'd have rather seen Rites of War like 30k has where yeah you get a benefit but there's a drawback too. The 8th edition detachment system made it too easy to min-max.

I don't think theres a problem with the detachment system, the problem comes with how CP are distributed that basically makes nearly all the armies the same with mandatory batallions, etc...

I believe the new CP system will be much less prone to min/maxing if just "buying" another faction or subfaction will cost you CP, or having multiple detachments.

And I also expect for detachments like batallions and brigades to be cheaper than vanguard, spearhead, etc...

Maybe not with most detachments, but the supre command one should, in my opinion, go. It is too easy to abuse. all it takes is for a codex to get more then 1 good character.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Matched play and "Tournment suggested matched play" rules should never have been separate. Matched Play rules should have been the tourny community standard, and all other modes of play optional.

No, they should be distinct, but they should've been defined in the core rulebook from day 1, not added in partway through the edition in a Big FAQ.

While all tournament games should be matched play, as far as I'm aware, not all matched play games are tournament games, and therefore shouldn't need to have those restrictions forced upon them.

PenitentJake wrote:
Okay. I get that it's likely that we'll have to pay for detachments; we did previously, and GW tends to hang on things they don't need to hang onto to smooth transitions between editions.

But in a mono-dex, mono sub-faction army, I'm curious if anyone thinks we SHOULD pay for detachments and if so, why?

THEY NOW CONFER ZERO GAME BENEFIT!

So why should they have a cost?

So if you don't need more slots why would you TAKE detachment?

And if you need more slots than your free detachment how is that not benefit? You get more slots than you would have got.

Not sure why everyone has a hard time getting this.

A supreme command detachment is no more powerful than three battalions that each take an extra HQ. Or three patrols that do the same thing.

Seriously. Try it. Without multi-dexing or multi-subfactioning (because I can understand why detachments that do that have a cost) make the most broken army you can using whatever detachments you want. Then rebuild the exact same army, using a Brigade- fill ALL the slots in said brigade, and just see how much is left over. Dollars to donuts, whatever is left over will probably fit into any of the other detachments if you use all the extra slots in that detachment as well.

You can take up to 5 of anything with brigade, and up to 8 elites. Keep in mind Ro3 isn't going away, and that if you choose to take zero troops, your opponent will obsec you to death.

The only exception might be aircraft, because only the Airwing lets you take more than 2 aircraft. So if you are sticking to the arbitrary limit of 3 detachments, that's a max of 6 non-transport aircraft UNLESS you take an airwing.

I'm prepared to be wrong, and I will certainly cop to it if I am. Earlier I did a direct comparison of a Brigade vs. 3 spearheads; someone pointed out that while my 3 spearheads were able to contain all of the units that the brigade contained, I did end up with 9 heavies, where the most that could fit in the brigade was 5. Any other detachment except a patrol could have held 3 extra heavies, bringing it down to a one heavy differential.

Without CP generation, there is no reason that any combination of three detachments is any more balanced than any other combination of three detachments.

In the abstract, sure, the only way to get 20 heavies in an army is to take a pair of spearheads, but you've got to follow Ro3, and without troops, most other armies will beat you on objectives, meaning there's no need to make spearheads cost more to prevent somebody from taking 20 heavies.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Matched play and "Tournment suggested matched play" rules should never have been separate. Matched Play rules should have been the tourny community standard, and all other modes of play optional.

No, they should be distinct, but they should've been defined in the core rulebook from day 1, not added in partway through the edition in a Big FAQ.

While all tournament games should be matched play, as far as I'm aware, not all matched play games are tournament games, and therefore shouldn't need to have those restrictions forced upon them.

I'm confused. Except for the "rule of three" all the tournament suggested rules are in the core rulebook as of day 1.

PenitentJake wrote:
Not sure why everyone has a hard time getting this.

A supreme command detachment is no more powerful than three battalions that each take an extra HQ. Or three patrols that do the same thing.

Seriously. Try it. Without multi-dexing or multi-subfactioning (because I can understand why detachments that do that have a cost) make the most broken army you can using whatever detachments you want. Then rebuild the exact same army, using a Brigade- fill ALL the slots in said brigade, and just see how much is left over. Dollars to donuts, whatever is left over will probably fit into any of the other detachments if you use all the extra slots in that detachment as well.

You can take up to 5 of anything with brigade, and up to 8 elites. Keep in mind Ro3 isn't going away, and that if you choose to take zero troops, your opponent will obsec you to death.

The only exception might be aircraft, because only the Airwing lets you take more than 2 aircraft. So if you are sticking to the arbitrary limit of 3 detachments, that's a max of 6 non-transport aircraft UNLESS you take an airwing.

I'm prepared to be wrong, and I will certainly cop to it if I am. Earlier I did a direct comparison of a Brigade vs. 3 spearheads; someone pointed out that while my 3 spearheads were able to contain all of the units that the brigade contained, I did end up with 9 heavies, where the most that could fit in the brigade was 5. Any other detachment except a patrol could have held 3 extra heavies, bringing it down to a one heavy differential.

Without CP generation, there is no reason that any combination of three detachments is any more balanced than any other combination of three detachments.

In the abstract, sure, the only way to get 20 heavies in an army is to take a pair of spearheads, but you've got to follow Ro3, and without troops, most other armies will beat you on objectives, meaning there's no need to make spearheads cost more to prevent somebody from taking 20 heavies.

The issue with comparing a brigade to anything is that a brigade requires you to bring 3 HQ units, 6 troops, 3 elites, 3 fast attack choices, and 3 heavy support choices. Those are a lot of mandatory choices to bring when you're trying to maximize the potential of some specific units and wish to minimize investment in anything else.

You're also ignoring that a list might be built to sweep objectives clean with overwhelming firepower while hiding their own minimal troops in reserve until they're killed enough of your forces that you can't easily contest them.

Your idea of balance is a complete fantasy that doesn't match up with the realities of high-level tournament play.

I've noticed it a few times, but folks seem to be confusing brigades from battalions.

Brigades require 3 HQ, 6 Troops, 3 FA, 3 Elites, and 3 Heavy Support. Used to net you 12 CP.

Battalions required 2 HQ and 3 Troops. Used to net you 5 CP.

PenitentJake wrote:
If they assign a cost to detachments, every mono army will just be a brigade with extra slots maxed out.

If these simple changes to CP actually result in the optimal army configuration becoming a relatively balanced list with a mix of HQs, Troops, Elites, Fast Attack, and Heavy Support, then GW will have converged fluff and crunch in a way never before reached in the history of the game.

Realistically, unless the non-Battalion/Brigade detachments cost a lot of CP, then armies built from those detachments will be better off than they are currently. But I don't see any problem with having the most generalist detachment with the highest number of compulsory choices confer the greatest CP benefit.

Ive just been thinking that some armies/faction can just flat out have more CP if what the "everyone starts with same CP" thing is what it sounds like at face value.

Here is what I mean.

If an ultramarines player takes G-man or Calgar. They would get what, adiditonal 2-3 Cp? I believe there are other units that gave this rule.

So now potentialy you could have an elite army all with the same faction in one detatchment that has double the CP of another which has to take multiple detachments to function(like DE) or armies which relied on making battalions so that they could fuel their army with CP and have that as an advantage.

I wonder if these will be addressed. It would not surprise me if nobody thought about this at all.

These rules cant come fast enough!

I just hope the FOC means something in this edition. The ability to add on new formations for virtually no expenditure of resources (another HQ? Ok!) meant that the 2 HQ/3 Elite/6 Troops/3 FA/6 HS standard meant absolutely nothing (and it hasn't since 7th, for that matter).

My fear is that GW will change the "typical" FOC for whatever the majority of 40K games is will be to the current Brigade formation (without the need for 6 Troops, maybe just 2 or 3, and without the need for the other compulsory slots).

The typical FOC is rubbish and it makes many armies unplayable. We are , and I'm very glad of it, pass that.


The old FOC was so bad that nearly half the codexs had characters that allowed you to ignore it , with things like making bikes troops, etc, etc...


Feth the idea of trop tax. 8th has accomplished something nearly no other edition did: Many factions play their troops because they are actually quite good and usable! Others use them as CP bots, ok, just like in nearly all edition many armies troops were trash that you would take only if you had no way to NOT take them.

If they're looking at changing the FOC I'd like to see different charts for each Codex and possibly even modified by which sub-faction you choose. Ignoring the units and the differences those bring there should be very real differences in which forces an Ultramarine force places emphasis on versus Dark Eldar or Tyranids.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
If they're looking at changing the FOC I'd like to see different charts for each Codex and possibly even modified by which sub-faction you choose. Ignoring the units and the differences those bring there should be very real differences in which forces an Ultramarine force places emphasis on versus Dark Eldar or Tyranids.

Like how the 3.5 csm codex allowed Night Lords to take more FA at the expense of less HS and the Iron Warriors vice versa? I like that idea.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Like how the 3.5 csm codex allowed Night Lords to take more FA at the expense of less HS and the Iron Warriors vice versa? I like that idea.

That's a terrible idea. Any change to army organisation where you have to give something up that you were never going to take in the first place is a bad idea. There isn't a single 3.5 Iron Warrior player who went "Arrgh! But I need those two FA slots!" because CSM FA was (and still is) garbage.

The same applied to the Guard Doctrine system (you mean I have to give up a bunch of terrible units I was never going to take and my army gets +1 Initiative and Deep Strike for free?) and the Marine Trait system (you mean I have to give up allies I wasn't taking anyway to take Furious Charge or Tank hunters?) from 4th Edition.

 Galas wrote:
The typical FOC is rubbish and it makes many armies unplayable. We are , and I'm very glad of it, pass that.

Unplayable? That's a bold claim.

I’m going to throw out an outlandish idea, if CP is going to be a fixed amount based on point size then does the detachment system as is really need to exist for mono-codex armies? It seems superfluous for them now. Seems like detachments should be a designation solely for allies.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Like how the 3.5 csm codex allowed Night Lords to take more FA at the expense of less HS and the Iron Warriors vice versa? I like that idea.

That's a terrible idea. Any change to army organisation where you have to give something up that you were never going to take in the first place is a bad idea. There isn't a single 3.5 Iron Warrior player who went "Arrgh! But I need those two FA slots!" because CSM FA was (and still is) garbage.

The same applied to the Guard Doctrine system (you mean I have to give up a bunch of terrible units I was never going to take and my army gets +1 Initiative and Deep Strike for free?) and the Marine Trait system (you mean I have to give up allies I wasn't taking anyway to take Furious Charge or Tank hunters?) from 4th Edition.

Right. You do realize that the current detachment system lets Iron Warriors do the same thing now for the price of a single HQ "tax"unit.

And as far as csm FA being garbage, my warp talons would like a word.

Well I for one hope Troops still matter in game.

Naturally I was excited at first with 8th Edition promising "Loads of Detachment options! Have all FAST ATTTACK!" promised, and it turned out to be the weak Outrider detachment with that pathetic 1 cp, gimping your whole army composition for a gimmick.

So when I hear the same about the next edition, I expect whatever Non Troops lists you can possibly make will be pretty gak, with some negative caveat and rarely considered fielding anyway.

All of a sudden there are Deathwing players? Playing some Terminator exclusive army? In 8th edition? Or are we just looking for things to hypothesize and complain about...

If you're purposely taking a skew and/or thematic armylist you should know it's not going to be preferable.

I'm building a Scout Vanguard marine list. Will it take down Imperial Knights? Or Eldar Flyers? No. But I'm taking suboptimal list choices on purpose for a fun game.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Right. You do realize that the current detachment system lets Iron Warriors do the same thing now for the price of a single HQ "tax"unit.

Yes, and as I said, the FOC is currently meaningless in 8th as there are no restrictions, only taxes.