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.

 cole1114 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Oh…oh no.

If they add Detachments via Codex, I’m getting a Formations Fear.

Granted a big part of the flaw of Formations was them not all being equal (Marines and Ad Mech, you get loads of free stuff! Dark Eldar? You get an asthmatic paraplegic chimp called Colin!).

But even so….I hope it’s not the same road renamed.

Saw someone saying that there's basically three kinds of detachment:

1 point - buffs a single unit. so a terminator detachment would literally only buff them.

3 point - full army buff, like gladius.

They didn't specify what 2 point detachments are, but I got the implication they were "wider but not full army" buffs. Like the warcom article mentioned a detachment that specifically effects infantry, that kinda thing.

To use Tyranids as an example, I could see Assimilation Swarm being 1 point, Vanguard Onslaught being 2, and Invasion Fleet being 3.

My expectation is that they'll keep the most flexible codex detachments (gladius, invasion fleet, etc) at 3pts, and drop some of the niche / lesser-used ones down to 2pts. Then only the 70 new detachments will be 1pt, and have a much narrower focus (possibly also with fewer than 6 strats & 4 enhancements / upgrades).

So potentially you could throw a (1pt) daemon engine detachment in to support the narrowly-focused Possessed Slaughterband (2pts), but Berzerker Warband (3pts) would need to run solo as it buffs everything.

We could use another article with some solid examples to put a lot of these questions to rest.

But us chatting about them and wondering what’s going to happen is exactly the desired results of these teases, so mission accomplished GW.

I wonder if a few of the 70(!) generic detachments will be as simple as unit X gains battleline for 1 detachment point.

 Mr_Rose wrote:
I wonder if a few of the 70(!) generic detachments will be as simple as unit X gains battleline for 1 detachment point.

Probably one buff for a unit, one or two stratagems and a single enhancement.

 Nevelon wrote:
We could use another article with some solid examples to put a lot of these questions to rest.

But us chatting about them and wondering what’s going to happen is exactly the desired results of these teases, so mission accomplished GW.

Should be such an article today.

Warhammer Community, yesterday wrote: There’s loads more to talk about as far as missions are concerned, so check back in with us tomorrow for a first look. Otherwise, the rules for building your army will be comfortably familiar, so you can focus more on coming up with cool thematic armies and mixing Detachments that call to your hobbyist soul.

I’m torn on the 1 point detachments being used to battleline units.

IMHO if you are going to spam one kind of unit, it’s going to be a sizable chunk of your army. So the bulk of your army rules need to focus on it. That kind of dedication should be a 3 point detachment.

1 point splash dets are good if you want to include odd units, but still let them have some of their thematic fun, without dedicating a whole army to them. Add a unit of harlis to your craftworld, or have some scouts back up your battle company. That sort of thing.

Of course, it’s all guesses at this point.

xttz wrote: Then only the 70 new detachments will be 1pt, and have a much narrower focus (possibly also with fewer than 6 strats & 4 enhancements / upgrades).

Mr_Rose wrote:I wonder if a few of the 70(!) generic detachments will be as simple as unit X gains battleline for 1 detachment point.

I'll point out that it's been clarified that it's not 70 new Detachments, it's 70 new and revamped Detachments.

Just noting so you can manage your expectations better.

What I hope from this new edition is if you've got some fun minis in your army, you can tweak these detachments to actually use them. Rather than them being rendered redundant by some random change 6 months down the line.

It sounds like that's what they're going for which is great. Whether it pans out that away of course of course.

More on missions.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-gb/articles/oefzq9fg/new40k-how-your-army-affects-your-mission/

I won't be happy with this new edition unless they allow me to field my Loyal 32 Guardsmen in my army.


There's something else... a mystery deck?

All of the initial mission rules and deployment cards come in the new Chapter Approved mission deck, which will be included inside the Armageddon launch box alongside another mystery deck that we’ll talk more about soon.

Really wished they’d show off a detachment or three. Feels like we need them to really understand the mission stuff and that.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
I won't be happy with this new edition unless they allow me to field my Loyal 32 Guardsmen in my army.


There's something else... a mystery deck?

All of the initial mission rules and deployment cards come in the new Chapter Approved mission deck, which will be included inside the Armageddon launch box alongside another mystery deck that we’ll talk more about soon.

Return of psychic power deck confirmed!

Or maelstrom play mode? Although that space is filled with random secondary missions.

What else has had decks in the past?

Wargear cards?

Edit:
Cards for the core rulebook strats?

Cards to draw to determine which deck of cards you draw form to determine your Detachments?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Cards to draw to determine which deck of cards you draw form to determine your Detachments?

Ooh, maybe instead of dice we now will draw from the Emperor’s Tarot to determine outcomes!

 GaroRobe wrote:



The fact WBs get a head fills me with lots of hope

The sprue pics on Warcom look pretty cool. Also, that kit will take ages to build!

I assume its a deck for Spearhead style games.

SamusDrake wrote:
I assume its a deck for Spearhead style games.

Good call. If they just spearhead combat patrol I’ll be a happy camper.

Fingers crossed.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
More on missions.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-gb/articles/oefzq9fg/new40k-how-your-army-affects-your-mission/

Interesting. However, I'm a little concerned this could lead to things getting stale pretty quickly. If you have a smaller group of players with only one or two armies each you could easily end up playing the same mission over and over and I'm not convinced the asymmetric nature of the missions will help too much since you're likely to be much more focussed on completing your own mission than stopping your opponent's. It feels like a good start, but maybe needs a little more to it.

Slipspace wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
More on missions.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-gb/articles/oefzq9fg/new40k-how-your-army-affects-your-mission/

Interesting. However, I'm a little concerned this could lead to things getting stale pretty quickly. If you have a smaller group of players with only one or two armies each you could easily end up playing the same mission over and over and I'm not convinced the asymmetric nature of the missions will help too much since you're likely to be much more focussed on completing your own mission than stopping your opponent's. It feels like a good start, but maybe needs a little more to it.

One thing that might help is they implied that most detachments would have more then one aspect. So even if you have 2 static armies, that should give you a few options on what missions to play. The twist they talk about will also mix things up.

How much it does we will have to wait and see.

 skrulnik wrote:
The sprue pics on Warcom look pretty cool. Also, that kit will take ages to build!

Good lord, is that three full-size sprues? That's literally twice what the Norn Emissary is built from and that one comes with a massive custom base!

Explains why it's expensive, and definitely less disappointing than the Red Corsairs Raiders (who come on two half-size sprues, for the same asking price as Sword Brethren who come on 3...)

Definitely need to know about Detachments before we really have much of a clue.

Which isn’t an attempt to shutdown conversation or criticism and that. Just…I currently like the concept as presented, but without seeing any Detachments, we’re missing important information to really digest things.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Definitely need to know about Detachments before we really have much of a clue.

Which isn’t an attempt to shutdown conversation or criticism and that. Just…I currently like the concept as presented, but without seeing any Detachments, we’re missing important information to really digest things.

Yhe game being designer around formal terrain layouts this time round is a big change. That's been a tournament thing historically that we assumed was considered but is now core rules.

Dudeface wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Definitely need to know about Detachments before we really have much of a clue.

Which isn’t an attempt to shutdown conversation or criticism and that. Just…I currently like the concept as presented, but without seeing any Detachments, we’re missing important information to really digest things.

Yhe game being designer around formal terrain layouts this time round is a big change. That's been a tournament thing historically that we assumed was considered but is now core rules.

That’s one of the tings that worries me. If the rules only work if you have a table of Official GW Terrain(tm) then that’s another barrier to entry. And locks you into the themes they make, or puts bars on your counts-as, as they will need to match the official specs.

I have a feeling a lot of people will just hand waves “close enough” if it’s too bad. As someone who started out with stacks of books, cans, and cut out green paper for forests I’d be saddened to see things get restrictively formal.

But I’m not going to worry until I see what’s actually happening. Might be a good thing. And formalization can make for smoother, more ballanced game play. (At the cost of narrative freedom, but they are going to break the rules for their fun stories anyway)

That feels like a bit of a leap to be honest.

Just because a given battle map may define shape, height and placement doesn’t mean you must therefore use only official models.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
That feels like a bit of a leap to be honest.

Just because a given battle map may define shape, height and placement doesn’t mean you must therefore use only official models.

Oh, I know. I might just be assuming the worst and jumping at shadows. But as soon as I heard the rumor that objectives were being replaced with terrain I knew there was going to be standardization. The last article specifies a “home objective” so we know there are going to be at least some placement restrictions. It might be as simple as spearhead’s bother players get a large and a small bit to put down. Or as formal as the tournament maps.

We just don’t know yet.

It’s not an unreasonable conclusion. But so much depends on overall context.

If the standardisation is to facilitate the balancing of mission? It’s not necessarily a bad thing. Just another cog in the overall effort.

But if it’s standardisation for the sake of it? Or, worse, if it ends up favouring a given approach (say, too dense for longer ranged shooting, or not dense enough for foot slogging armies)? It could be very very bad.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It’s not an unreasonable conclusion. But so much depends on overall context.

If the standardisation is to facilitate the balancing of mission? It’s not necessarily a bad thing. Just another cog in the overall effort.

But if it’s standardisation for the sake of it? Or, worse, if it ends up favouring a given approach (say, too dense for longer ranged shooting, or not dense enough for foot slogging armies)? It could be very very bad.

I know “wait and see” is often overused and taken too far, but it’s actually really appropriate for where we are right now. We have slivers of information and a lot of guesswork filling the gaps. At some point we will have enough hard facts to build a solid picture, but we are not there yet.

I try not to overthink the whole thing, but that’s kinda how I’m wired. And it can be hard waiting for the next info drip.

Oh well, deep breath and wait.

It’s definitely a frustrating drip feed! Especially as I think we’re all seeing potential in it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And in other news? Apocalypse rules coming in Eye of Terror.

See this? See this, right?



See that? That should be a standard 40K rule.

A blinder of a first turn will still hammer an enemy. But it wouldn’t entirely cripple them.