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.

I guess it has been a long time since 40k rules actually had a use for spotters.

Video back up and GW put up the guard FF.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-gb/articles/p9kg7edm/warhammer-40000-faction-focus-astra-militarum/



We’ve seen a few things where you can spot units so their hidden range is bumped up 3”. How relevant do we think that is going to be? It’s not removing the ability to hide so targets can be shot from anywhere, but is that amount of distance going to make a difference?

I think it’s like they said in the video, some armies want to keep distance from stuff, like tau and guard. A small increase to that detection range will only help. Other armies it won’t matter as much.

If you think the positioning effect could work out to opponents having -3 on their charge rolls then maybe its quite good?

Normal detection range is 15”. I’m not going to say bumping that up to 18” will never make a difference. I just think it’s going to be a fringe benefit, and not a huge deal.

..unless you can further boos the detection range by further bonuses?

 tauist wrote:
..unless you can further boos the detection range by further bonuses?

Let's not hope the trivialise the new cover rules before they're even out.

 tauist wrote:
..unless you can further boos the detection range by further bonuses?

We’ll see. And I say that without sarcasm. I like the concept of hidden units, and the fact that they are willing to hook things off the mechanic to make it more engaging.

Right now, my initial impression, is that it’s probably not worth building for. IF you have a spotter unit deployed forward (possibly exposed and at risk of being charged) then you and spot a target unit, which may let another one of your units that was just barely out of range now target something. You need to have the right unit in your list, placed at the right spot, to support another unit also in the exact right spot.

Just seems a lot of things that need to line up just right for the payout.

If I’m taking the spotter unit for its other merits? Might happen.

Like the concept. But we’ll see how useful it is once we get some plastic being pushed around the table.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

 tauist wrote:
..unless you can further boos the detection range by further bonuses?

Let's not hope the trivialise the new cover rules before they're even out.

Yeah. I’d like the mods to the system to make it worthwhile to include, but not trivialize the whole thing. 3” seems barely worth it, but if we get a hypothetical “spot a unit, it’s no longer hidden” it better be rare and expensive. Otherwise it’s a must take and makes the whole cover system a joke.

Maybe it’s expressed as a positive modifier because other things apply negative ones (e.g. a unit with stealth is detectable at shorter distances). If there’s a night fighting scenario then it could be that +3 is effectively doubling detection range, maybe.

 Mr_Rose wrote:
Maybe it’s expressed as a positive modifier because other things apply negative ones (e.g. a unit with stealth is detectable at shorter distances). If there’s a night fighting scenario then it could be that +3 is effectively doubling detection range, maybe.

We know stealth is simply "gains the benefit of cover".

I'm very concerned about how my Tau are supposed to work in this new edition
It seems pretty trivial to completely hide yourself except at very short range. 15" isn't a hard charge for many units/factions.
Unless we return to 9th edition levels of Tau firepower "will happily remove an entire unit in one volley".
Tau certainly don't have that level of firepower now though.

I'm wondering if markerlight units will end up being more focussed on pushing forward, with ML's removing the hidden status from units? Would mean forcing a more aggressive play with Stealth Suits and Pathfinders, I can't see how else it could function with ease. Going to be very interesting come the Faction focus for them.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I'm very concerned about how my Tau are supposed to work in this new edition
It seems pretty trivial to completely hide yourself except at very short range. 15" isn't a hard charge for many units/factions.
Unless we return to 9th edition levels of Tau firepower "will happily remove an entire unit in one volley".
Tau certainly don't have that level of firepower now though.

I would assume that you can point a markerlight as something and it becomes unhidden for everyone. At least that's how markerlights work in every other strategy game I know.

As an opponent, your goal would be getting rid of markerlights to force the tau long-range units to close in.

Persistent battle shock may help "fear" based armies. The Coven units in my Drukhari army are happy about this.

Also REALLY stoked for the Abhuman Auxilia detachment with Guard.

It would not be the first time GW let a faction ignore whole swathes of the rules. And on-brand for Tau.

If they go this route it will be interesting to see how they balance things. The pendulum swing from broken to oppressively nerfed is a wild ride.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PenitentJake wrote:
Persistent battle shock may help "fear" based armies. The Coven units in my Drukhari army are happy about this.

Also REALLY stoked for the Abhuman Auxilia detachment with Guard.

The chance to battleshock will hopefully make it a lot more relevent. Hopefully. A lot of armies have fear based units/subfactions.

Warhammer 40,000
Loads of you have been asking about how these new Detachments combine.
We can confirm today, that all of the new Detachments featured in this series cost a single Detachment Point (DP). This means that you can take three in a 2,000pts Strike Force game, or combine them with your existing Codex Detachments to create all sorts of powerful and thematic combos.

GW posted on Facebook that all the previewed detachments are 1 pointers and that they can be combined with Codex ones (meaning those aren't 3 points as has been speculated).

 Asmodai wrote:

Warhammer 40,000
Loads of you have been asking about how these new Detachments combine.
We can confirm today, that all of the new Detachments featured in this series cost a single Detachment Point (DP). This means that you can take three in a 2,000pts Strike Force game, or combine them with your existing Codex Detachments to create all sorts of powerful and thematic combos.

GW posted on Facebook that all the previewed detachments are 1 pointers and that they can be combined with Codex ones (meaning those aren't 3 points as has been speculated).

Interesting. I really want the fine print on how they all fit together. Can you attach characters to units from other detachments?

 Nevelon wrote:

 Asmodai wrote:

Warhammer 40,000
Loads of you have been asking about how these new Detachments combine.
We can confirm today, that all of the new Detachments featured in this series cost a single Detachment Point (DP). This means that you can take three in a 2,000pts Strike Force game, or combine them with your existing Codex Detachments to create all sorts of powerful and thematic combos.

GW posted on Facebook that all the previewed detachments are 1 pointers and that they can be combined with Codex ones (meaning those aren't 3 points as has been speculated).

Interesting. I really want the fine print on how they all fit together. Can you attach characters to units from other detachments?

As far as I can tell, units don't belong to detachments like in 8th or 9th. Detachments are all army-wide rules (though some may be keyworded to only apply to certain things).

So you wouldn't run into a conflict having a Librarian benefitting from Conclave buffs join an Intercessor Squad and then use Gladius Assault Doctrine to give the combined unit advance and charge.

That strikes me as an easy way to break the game wide open with unintended combinations.

I don’t trust to GW devs to balance that many moving parts.

Flashbacks to superfriend ally lists.

 Asmodai wrote:
Detachments are all army-wide rules (though some may be keyworded to only apply to certain things).

Detachments are currently all Army Wide. GW has already said some will be army wide bonuses and other will be single Keyword Bonuses that don't affect things without that Keyword.

 Nevelon wrote:
That strikes me as an easy way to break the game wide open with unintended combinations.

I don’t trust to GW devs to balance that many moving parts.

Flashbacks to superfriend ally lists.

Presumably that's why they've added tags to detachments, to prevent the worst combos.

 Nevelon wrote:
That strikes me as an easy way to break the game wide open with unintended combinations.

I don’t trust to GW devs to balance that many moving parts.

Flashbacks to superfriend ally lists.

I honestly think once any proportion of the player base as is needed can stop viewing warhammer as a balance striving competitive sport and stop expecting it from the company, the healthier the game will be once it's accepted as the mess around it is.

Dudeface wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
That strikes me as an easy way to break the game wide open with unintended combinations.

I don’t trust to GW devs to balance that many moving parts.

Flashbacks to superfriend ally lists.

I honestly think once any proportion of the player base as is needed can stop viewing warhammer as a balance striving competitive sport and stop expecting it from the company, the healthier the game will be once it's accepted as the mess around it is.

I know we will never get true balance. What I hope for is enough internal/external balance that people can play a game and not have to worry about if they are sabotaging their army with trap pics or must-haves.

Good balance helps both casual and tournament players.

My guess is we'll see most detachments from 10th priced at 2 with a few of the stand outs like Gladius and the like cost 3. That or they literally just start them all at 2 and wait to slap a 3rd point on the ones that overperform initially. Seeing this new batch as entirely augmentations certainly makes sense, though until we fully see them I'm not sure a trio of 1 pointers is really a valid plan.

In any case, its not going to be perfect but it'll be fun to see how it breaks and how GW addresses it beyond the wild west era of the first 3-4 months.

 LunarSol wrote:
My guess is we'll see most detachments from 10th priced at 2 with a few of the stand outs like Gladius and the like cost 3. That or they literally just start them all at 2 and wait to slap a 3rd point on the ones that overperform initially. Seeing this new batch as entirely augmentations certainly makes sense, though until we fully see them I'm not sure a trio of 1 pointers is really a valid plan.

In any case, its not going to be perfect but it'll be fun to see how it breaks and how GW addresses it beyond the wild west era of the first 3-4 months.

3 point detachments aren't playable in 1000 point games though, so it would be odd for something like Gladius (which fills the role of the default Marine detachment for new players) not being playable at 1000.

Given GW's habit of reducing the game's scope, has anything actually been said about it supporting 1,000 point games?

 Nevelon wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
That strikes me as an easy way to break the game wide open with unintended combinations.

I don’t trust to GW devs to balance that many moving parts.

Flashbacks to superfriend ally lists.

I honestly think once any proportion of the player base as is needed can stop viewing warhammer as a balance striving competitive sport and stop expecting it from the company, the healthier the game will be once it's accepted as the mess around it is.

I know we will never get true balance. What I hope for is enough internal/external balance that people can play a game and not have to worry about if they are sabotaging their army with trap pics or must-haves.

Good balance helps both casual and tournament players.

Good balance does yes, but GW aren't ever really going to manage good, so instead people should be aiming for "good enough" where theres no instant win/loss conditions but otherwise there is some wonkiness.

 Dysartes wrote:
Given GW's habit of reducing the game's scope, has anything actually been said about it supporting 1,000 point games?

The article showing the chart of what you get at each points level only shows 1,000 points and 2,000 points, so I'd say they're still supporting 1,000 point games.

Fair enough - don't remember seeing that.

Anyone seen anything either way about Combat Patrol remaining as a format?

 Dysartes wrote:
Fair enough - don't remember seeing that.

Anyone seen anything either way about Combat Patrol remaining as a format?

The only mention of it so far was in terms of box contents, no rules connotations.