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.

 Nevelon wrote:
I do prefer soft controls like ramping points vs. hard caps.

It's also helpful that it's a targeted fix that can be scaled to whatever degree is necessary. Some units might rapidly get oppressive as soon as you have two, some might just be a little overtuned when taken in threes.

We might run into the same issue as RO3 where you can circumvent the mechanic by taking a nearly-identical datasheet, but the return of points for wargear might mean some consolidation is coming in that regard.

Voss wrote:
With the Xenos faction packs, the 'Support' role seems like a missed opportunity, especially after SM got a full pile (including LTs)

Votann: none (expected the strategist)
Tau: none (ethereals feel more support from a functional standpoint. I know they are The Leaders, but from a game perspective they're support)
Dark eldar: none (waves at army that needs an update)
Tyranids: none (Probably the one pass I'd give out here, but there's definitely design space)
Orks: new bannernob only (painboyz... aren't, i guess, despite being direct analogues of marine apothecaries).
Eldar: warlocks (makes sense)
Necrons: all crypteks (obvious, and they were already functioning that way in the rules)

Gene cults- four guys that probably make sense, but highlight what the other factions lack- they got their strategy guy, their apothecary guy, morale guy and bodyguard guy, but oddly NOT their banner guy.

They kinda just applied Support to stuff that already had an effectively identical rule.

The Painboy is definitely the odd one out in that regard.

Am I reading deathguard correct? None of the support characters actually got support added to them so lone tallyman is still a thing as all the characters are still leader.

Doohicky wrote:
Am I reading deathguard correct? None of the support characters actually got support added to them so lone tallyman is still a thing as all the characters are still leader.

Deathguard still have the rule in the codex allowing for 2 characters to join a squad, I assume that would be why the units haven't had any keyword changes.

I could have sworn I saw a rule that support units can not be deployed without being in a bodyguard unit, but I can't find that rule so I must have dreamt it

Doohicky wrote:
As I expected Deathshroud stealth nerfed with their deepstrike staying at 6" making them need a 7 now. But I expected it. Wonder if points changes will refect it though

To be fair, needing a 7 is kind of on-brand for Grandfather Nurgle's followers

That remained true for all the close range deep strike units.

 LunarSol wrote:
War Dogs not being able to be taken with other War Dogs detachments but the current War Dogs detachment not being a War Dog detachment is funny to me. There's not actually a lot of synergy there, but its funny.

They've said that the Munitorum Manual will, among other things, also include Detachment Keywords.
So I wouldn't be so shocked if they give the pre-existing War Dogs detachment the War Dogs keyword in that.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
Ugh. Why won't tomorrow come sooner, so I can figure out how to waste money on buying more Custodes... or beg a pretty lady from the distant northlands to part with her Telemon Dreadnought.

Oh, I'm not falling for that line again!

Doohicky wrote:
Am I reading deathguard correct? None of the support characters actually got support added to them so lone tallyman is still a thing as all the characters are still leader.

Yep. They kept the clunky rules text for the 'lesser' characters (same for ork boys and warboss +1) rather than switching the relevant characters to support.

The entire Chaos 'super-faction' got exactly _1_ support character. The master of executions... but only for generic chaos marines, not the World Eaters version.

I suspect Guard is going to see the priest as support and nothing else (Engineseer can't be, because support has to be part of a unit and can't Lone Op).
Sisters should get several, but after DG, I won't be shocked if they don't.
Ad Mech might get the Technoarcheologist swapped (there's a lot of overlap with one of the GSC support pieces), but may not. The current rules of the skitarii marshal are more support to me than leader, but thematically it would feel weird. They really need a Skitarii character that fits the multi-armed cyborg combat masters/hulks that live in the fiction.



At this point, I assume they're going to wait for each relevant codex to do support characters 'properly' (either reclassifying existing ones or making new ones), but they've certainly just shrugged for most factions so far. I shan't be surprised if a lot of army releases this edition are codex + 1-2 characters that step into the new design space. (And yet more detection range shenanigans)

 LunarSol wrote:
War Dogs not being able to be taken with other War Dogs detachments but the current War Dogs detachment not being a War Dog detachment is funny to me. There's not actually a lot of synergy there, but its funny.

Todays 'World Champion' reaction article has a little blurb at the end - apparently 'detachment unique keywords' are going to be in the MFM. It seems weird to not put them in the Rule Updates in the faction packs, but the faction pack /MFM division is just getting ever more confusing, just like the rules that aren't in the Core Rules.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-gb/articles/8dl5ikuv/new40k-world-champions-top-5-changes/

The Munitorum Field Manual will be released soon, containing unit points, wargear points, Force Dispositions, Detachment Points, detachment unique keywords, and Leader options

Voss wrote:

The entire Chaos 'super-faction' got exactly _1_ support character. The master of executions... but only for generic chaos marines, not the World Eaters version.

The CSM MoE effectively already had a rule to be a support character, while the WE version didn't.

Terrain template set sold pretty quickly on the UK webstore, good to see the cards are still available though. I'm always worried those are going to be hard to get hold of.

Cards are probably lasting longer because they are included in the launch box, so people may already be getting them or waiting for box break sales to see if they are less than retail

Is anyone else a little confused that they added Tags to the new detachments, but then didn't modify any of the older ones in the updates to include any? As it is, most of the Tags are completely redundant, though it seems obvious that they were intended to stop certain combos, like Thronebound Outriders with Spearhead at Arms.

warl0rdb0b wrote:
Is anyone else a little confused that they added Tags to the new detachments, but then didn't modify any of the older ones in the updates to include any? As it is, most of the Tags are completely redundant, though it seems obvious that they were intended to stop certain combos, like Thronebound Outriders with Spearhead at Arms.

They've said the new Munitorum Field Manual will have the tags for the pre-existing detachments.
From the end of this article

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

warl0rdb0b wrote:
Is anyone else a little confused that they added Tags to the new detachments, but then didn't modify any of the older ones in the updates to include any? As it is, most of the Tags are completely redundant, though it seems obvious that they were intended to stop certain combos, like Thronebound Outriders with Spearhead at Arms.

They've said the new Munitorum Field Manual will have the tags for the pre-existing detachments.
From the end of this article

Ah, I hadn't read that article, I just assumed it was aimed at tourny folk, thank you!

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
Cards are probably lasting longer because they are included in the launch box, so people may already be getting them or waiting for box break sales to see if they are less than retail

They are also insanely expensive. I'm usually not someone who complains about GW's newest price rises, but 52€ for a narrative mission deck is not ok. I have MtG decks costing less than that. I'm definitely waiting to pick them up second hand from people splitting boxes.

 Jidmah wrote:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
Cards are probably lasting longer because they are included in the launch box, so people may already be getting them or waiting for box break sales to see if they are less than retail

They are also insanely expensive. I'm usually not someone who complains about GW's newest price rises, but 52€ for a narrative mission deck is not ok. I have MtG decks costing less than that. I'm definitely waiting to pick them up second hand from people splitting boxes.

Is that for both decks? Each one is $35 USD pre-order new from GW, and I didn’t think the conversion rate was that bad.

So I heard they changed the detachment points at 1k to 3 as well, so you always have 3 detachment points to play with?

Wayniac wrote:
So I heard they changed the detachment points at 1k to 3 as well, so you always have 3 detachment points to play with?

No, you have 2 points to play with, but you are always allowed to take a single detachment whatever its normal cost is.

Essentially the 3DP detachments cost 2DP in 1k games.

It's not been patched in yet, just announced. Seems like a knee-jerk reaction to the Agents outrage, but a sensible one.

 Ashiraya wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
So I heard they changed the detachment points at 1k to 3 as well, so you always have 3 detachment points to play with?

No, you have 2 points to play with, but you are always allowed to take a single detachment whatever its normal cost is.

Essentially the 3DP detachments cost 2DP in 1k games.

It's not been patched in yet, just announced. Seems like a knee-jerk reaction to the Agents outrage, but a sensible one.

Ah gotcha, it wasn't explained fully to me by a friend. Thanks for clarifying!

 Ashiraya wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
So I heard they changed the detachment points at 1k to 3 as well, so you always have 3 detachment points to play with?

No, you have 2 points to play with, but you are always allowed to take a single detachment whatever its normal cost is.

Essentially the 3DP detachments cost 2DP in 1k games.

Yeah, that was a stupid fix. Just always allowing three points would have been better. Now at 1000 points you sorta have to use the better three point detachments or you're hurting yourself.

I have mixed feelings on the detachments, I think they keep trying to fix an issue that doesn't exist if they just went back to the Force Org chart and changing things to Troops like the old days (not sure how 30k does it now, but Rites of War were great). Everything since that has been trying to create a problem to solve.

Since there's always going to be a "meta" detachment, but that also locks you into a specific mission type for comparing to your opponent.. which will either fix itself or make every game the same missions (likely the latter, knowing competitive players)

Changing rules before the rules have even released is a tried and true GWism alright!

 Ashiraya wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
So I heard they changed the detachment points at 1k to 3 as well, so you always have 3 detachment points to play with?

No, you have 2 points to play with, but you are always allowed to take a single detachment whatever its normal cost is.

Essentially the 3DP detachments cost 2DP in 1k games.

It's not been patched in yet, just announced. Seems like a knee-jerk reaction to the Agents outrage, but a sensible one.

From the context of the post it sounds like that change will exclusively be an exception for doubles events, as those are typically 2 x 1000 = 2000pt lists on each side.

I'm not holding my breath for 3DP detachments being allowed in regular 1k points games. Perhaps they make a separate adjustment for some 1-2DP Agents detachments that are playable below 2k, but that would require the studio remembering that they printed an Agents codex.

I'd also imagine they could tone back some of the 3dp detachments and add more 1 dp ones as codices are released

Wayniac wrote:
I have mixed feelings on the detachments, I think they keep trying to fix an issue that doesn't exist if they just went back to the Force Org chart and changing things to Troops like the old days (not sure how 30k does it now, but Rites of War were great). Everything since that has been trying to create a problem to solve.

Since there's always going to be a "meta" detachment, but that also locks you into a specific mission type for comparing to your opponent.. which will either fix itself or make every game the same missions (likely the latter, knowing competitive players)

Dear god no! The force organisation charts were horrible every edition much prefer the freedom you get with the current system and am looking forward to playing with some options with the new system. We’d actually been taking about house ruling something similar for a while.

 Nevelon wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
Cards are probably lasting longer because they are included in the launch box, so people may already be getting them or waiting for box break sales to see if they are less than retail

They are also insanely expensive. I'm usually not someone who complains about GW's newest price rises, but 52€ for a narrative mission deck is not ok. I have MtG decks costing less than that. I'm definitely waiting to pick them up second hand from people splitting boxes.

Is that for both decks? Each one is $35 USD pre-order new from GW, and I didn’t think the conversion rate was that bad.

As far as I understand the narrative deck is not usable without the other one. If you want to play narrative missions, you have to play double.

The narrative deck isn’t about mission as such, it’s a system to string games together in a campaign, like crusade but in a a card format. I’ve got the decks in hand and you need both for a campaign but for one off narrative games you don’t need the dominion deck at all. It does handily suggest that each person in the campaign will need their own copy of the deck to get the most out of it.