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.

On-topic for the thread, I am undecided how I feel about fliers. On the one hand, it makes thematic sense for flybys and such, but bombers have been severely nerfed by having to survive the response to the bomber turning up to be used, and I did enjoy using the fliers bases to deny objectives.

That all said, it was always very sucky to get cornered for a good firing line by the restrictive movement rules, and then have to fly off the board next turn to come back on a later turn.

I think that I may be experimenting with some fliers in my armies and seeing how they do before I judge.

I've also noticed that pivoting for extra movement on vehicles is back, so long, narrow units like Ork Trukks can deploy on the edge of their deployment zone and then pivot to get a little extra movement. Rhino and Chimera chassis'd vehicles can do this a little as well. Sorry Monolith.

Listened to a summary of changes and the idea of consolidation all happening at the end of the combat phase is better, IMHO, as it stops slowing things down.

Are Flyers allowed to arrive turn 1 now?
If not, bombers can't affect the enemy until after they've had two full turns, even three if the enemy went first. A bomber that can basically only hinder the enemy on their turn 4+ is really lacklustre.

I'm glad they can't moveblock anymore. That always felt arbitrary and silly

 Nevelon wrote:
It will be interesting to see how detachments look in the first codex. Right now I’m getting a lot of “just slap some numbers on the old stuff to patch things and get them playing 11th”. Not making real updates to the legacy stuff that’s going to be replaced soon.

Of course, some armies are going to be stuck with these for years.

It is going to make army building more complicated. But once the apps and list builders catch up, that should be eased.

I threw them into a spreadsheet and it made it a lot easier to parse. Starting with the glut of Marine options did no favors.

 some bloke wrote:
On-topic for the thread, I am undecided how I feel about fliers. On the one hand, it makes thematic sense for flybys and such, but bombers have been severely nerfed by having to survive the response to the bomber turning up to be used, and I did enjoy using the fliers bases to deny objectives.

That all said, it was always very sucky to get cornered for a good firing line by the restrictive movement rules, and then have to fly off the board next turn to come back on a later turn.

I think that I may be experimenting with some fliers in my armies and seeing how they do before I judge.

I've also noticed that pivoting for extra movement on vehicles is back, so long, narrow units like Ork Trukks can deploy on the edge of their deployment zone and then pivot to get a little extra movement. Rhino and Chimera chassis'd vehicles can do this a little as well. Sorry Monolith.

Listened to a summary of changes and the idea of consolidation all happening at the end of the combat phase is better, IMHO, as it stops slowing things down.

Sadly, I still think that airplanes were a bad idea for a game of 40k's scale. They just don't fit the rest of the game terribly well, and not just because the game wants something like a sergeant's choice of pistol to matter. Even if we accept that a battle on the scale of a 2k game could/should feature air support from flyers, they probably shouldn't be so close to the ground and moving so slowly that the enemy is figuring out how to kill them with infantry. They shouldn't be doing donuts like a banshee from Halo. The models are cool, and I totally get the appeal, but they really belong in something more like Aeronautica or epic.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 some bloke wrote:
On-topic for the thread, I am undecided how I feel about fliers. On the one hand, it makes thematic sense for flybys and such, but bombers have been severely nerfed by having to survive the response to the bomber turning up to be used, and I did enjoy using the fliers bases to deny objectives.

That all said, it was always very sucky to get cornered for a good firing line by the restrictive movement rules, and then have to fly off the board next turn to come back on a later turn.

I think that I may be experimenting with some fliers in my armies and seeing how they do before I judge.

I've also noticed that pivoting for extra movement on vehicles is back, so long, narrow units like Ork Trukks can deploy on the edge of their deployment zone and then pivot to get a little extra movement. Rhino and Chimera chassis'd vehicles can do this a little as well. Sorry Monolith.

Listened to a summary of changes and the idea of consolidation all happening at the end of the combat phase is better, IMHO, as it stops slowing things down.

Sadly, I still think that airplanes were a bad idea for a game of 40k's scale. They just don't fit the rest of the game terribly well, and not just because the game wants something like a sergeant's choice of pistol to matter. Even if we accept that a battle on the scale of a 2k game could/should feature air support from flyers, they probably shouldn't be so close to the ground and moving so slowly that the enemy is figuring out how to kill them with infantry. They shouldn't be doing donuts like a banshee from Halo. The models are cool, and I totally get the appeal, but they really belong in something more like Aeronautica or epic.

I totally understand the scifi "helicopters" like the Valkyrie and Vendetta. They fit the IG theme and they worked VTOLing around the tabletop.

What didn't fit was the Marauder Bomber lumbering across the tabletop... or that nightmare Tau Orca that just kinda ate up all the real estate on the table....


(I can get behind the Manta though, it's essentially a set piece for giant games).

The Manta is just an aura farming tool, as the kids put it these days.

If you bring one you win the game just on style points.

The Thousand Sons detachments look pretty usable, but I'm left even more perplexed by the DP values being assigned. Grand Coven being 3DP makes sense as it was generally agreed to be the most powerful and most generally useful detachment. But they also made Phalanx 3DP despite all the anti-synergy it has.

In contrast I feel like the 1DP Ritual of Regeneration detachment is almost as good on its own as the 3DP Phalanx detachment. I wonder if we're going to see a major re-pricing of detachments in a few months' time.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
The Thousand Sons detachments look pretty usable, but I'm left even more perplexed by the DP values being assigned. Grand Coven being 3DP makes sense as it was generally agreed to be the most powerful and most generally useful detachment. But they also made Phalanx 3DP despite all the anti-synergy it has.

In contrast I feel like the 1DP Ritual of Regeneration detachment is almost as good on its own as the 3DP Phalanx detachment. I wonder if we're going to see a major re-pricing of detachments in a few months' time.

I like the Ritual of Regeneration. I was thinking of playing a Ritual of Regeneration for infantry with the vehicle detachment for the vehicles. I think that could be pretty good.

I also like that the CSM psyker detachment is 1, and Vets is 2 so I can play them together as I love me some psykers.

I am ok with the psychic phase not coming back, although I think they could have used the TS book as a guide to how to do it in 11th. But I do like that psychic ignores the cover which does at least do something.

Not getting a lot out of the broader Chaos options. Always interested in the CSM/Daemons allied detachments, but nothing really strikes me as that interesting. But its perhaps because without playing them I struggle to see how things click together.

What I'm sort of getting is how important the 1 DP options are going to be for "Index 11th". And the factions that don't have good options are going suck. Which they'll resolve by codexes and maybe some Christmas options but idk.

Small but important change I noticed in the Deathguard Pack

Nurgle's Gift, Skullsquirm Blight
Change to:
‘Each time a model in this unit makes a melee attack, subtract 1 from
the Hit roll.’

Before it was just the hit roll now it is only in melee, so Skullsquirm Blight just got nerfed meaning that Rattlejoint will likely be taken even more often then it is now and I can't piss off my Ork friends anymore.

It'd annoy Guard more than Orks, I figure. That move seems intended to prevent it stacking with cover for an effective -2 to hit.

GW just dropped rules for imperial factions.

Agents detachments are all 3DP, which feels like satire. The faction straight up can't play Incursion. What an absolutely miserable book. Yeah sure GW, Veiled Blade is just as strong as Gladius, Liberator and Blade of Ultramar...

 Ashiraya wrote:
GW just dropped rules for imperial factions.

Agents detachments are all 3DP, which feels like satire. The faction straight up can't play Incursion. What an absolutely miserable book. Yeah sure GW, Veiled Blade is just as strong as Gladius, Liberator and Blade of Ultramar...

Well, if any of them were 2 DP GW would have had to have made a 1 DP to fill the gap and that requires putting some thought into Agents for the first time ever and no one is prepared for that. Realistically I think they probably could have made the Fleet and Blade 1 DP each and the others 2 DP each and actually had an interesting design, but its pretty clear they don't want 12 Strategem detachments in the mix no matter how bad.

If there are factions that don’t have 1 or 2 DP detachments that’s a pretty big issue. Not every game is 2k. Sure, you can hand waive it, but it should be adressed.

 Nevelon wrote:
If there are factions that don’t have 1 or 2 DP detachments that’s a pretty big issue. Not every game is 2k. Sure, you can hand waive it, but it should be adressed.

The list of issues with Imperial Agents that should be addressed is longer than the codex they phoned in for them. This is just the latest bit of negligence.

Though, now that I've seen the actual final design, I honestly don't see any reason to limit detachments to game size. It really doesn't do anything to improve 1k games IMO.

The detachment point system feels like the biggest miss of the new edition so far. They mess with list construction at different game sizes without much thought for design or balance. They seem balanced around 2000 points but break 1000 point balance. They have not said that higher point apocalypse games get higher budgets but adding more rules to keep track of is the last thing those games need.

Releasing the new detachments with a rule called something like "supplemental: this detachment can be taken in addition to 1 other detachment" and giving some old ones "solo: no supplemental detachments can be taken with this one" may have been cleaner. You lose the ability to take 3 1 pointers at 2000 points but who cares.

I suspect we'll all just play 3 DP at 1k since its not like anyone is regulating that game size anyway.

I did notice a couple cool things today.

The Vindicare Assassin gets an extra trick to negate the impact of Hidden - as well as ignoring Lone Operative, all enemy units have +15” Detection Range when a Vindicare shoots.

This might actually be useful to take now as my Custodes don't have a reliable way of picking out hidden units.

Just remember it only lasts until the Vindicare has shot. He doesn't expose them for any other unit.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Just remember it only lasts until the Vindicare has shot. He doesn't expose them for any other unit.

Oh, I totally miss read that then. Thanks.

Hmmm... back to the drawing board since I won't use Draxus (one of the dumbest looking models IMO, and I subscribe to the rule of cool. If the model looks really bad, I won't use it, even if it gives out free candy every turn.)

You could convert or kitbash your own Draxus, perhaps? Inquisitors are fun projects.

 Ashiraya wrote:
You could convert or kitbash your own Draxus, perhaps? Inquisitors are fun projects.

After the negative feedback I got when asking about using the HH Land Raider as a Venerable Custodes Land Raider in 40k, I'm a little hesitant to convert a named character.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
You could convert or kitbash your own Draxus, perhaps? Inquisitors are fun projects.

After the negative feedback I got when asking about using the HH Land Raider as a Venerable Custodes Land Raider in 40k, I'm a little hesitant to convert a named character.

Your takeaway from that thread was negative? It was overwhelmingly “sounds cool, but check with your opponents; I have no problem with it”

The thing is, we can’t promise that you won’t run into someone with a bee in their bonnet about 100% adherence to official models. Hypothetically those people are out there. Although very few people claim to have seen one in the flesh. And we don’t want to suggest slapping down the money for an expensive model and the hours to build/paint it, just to discover that jerk lives next door, and the owner of the FLGS has some weird house rules.

The Rule of Cool covers a lot of sins. As long as counts-as are vaguely the right size, and you are not playing in tournaments with strict rules, you are probably safe. And might be safe even in those circumstances.

But you will never get a 100% guaranteed answer. But should be like 98% safe.

GW needs to come out and just admit IA are not a real faction. It's kind of ludicrous they created a "Codex" for them just to put the rules for various add-on units behind a paywall.

The really stupid thing here is I can't see any problem with making all the IA detachments 2DP. I don't think you have to spend all 3 points on detachments in a 2k game so this is functionally the same as they are now, but makes them useable at less than 2k points. They couldn't even put that level of thought into them.

One of my first thoughts when they started talking about the new detachment system was Imperial Agents. It’s a great way to splash allies back into the game. Let you take a few units, give them a few tricks. Now with all detachments giving bonuses to everything it has some issues. You’d need to be real careful with keywords. Or break the system a little and say agents don’t get the other detachments bonuses and vice versus. Obviously not running that way now.

We have a book of hodge podge units gathered together. Give each little one a 1DP detachment. If you want to build an army out them, take the 3 that match the units you like the best and run with it. This is a codex that the new DP system could showcase. It’s perfect for it.

In the digital age I don’t know if we need an actual book to be the catch-all for all the random units, but we do need solid rules support for them. Hopefully GW will give them the love they need. With this new system of detachments, it could be the best edition ever for them.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
You could convert or kitbash your own Draxus, perhaps? Inquisitors are fun projects.

After the negative feedback I got when asking about using the HH Land Raider as a Venerable Custodes Land Raider in 40k, I'm a little hesitant to convert a named character.

What on earth kind of opponents are you playing against?

If someone wasn't cool with converting characters I'd find another game group. This is Warhammer, not checkers. The game has always been mediocre at best. The appeal here is the miniatures, which includes making them your own with conversions and paintjobs. Sure, if your converted Inquisitor rides a colossal Xeno-beast I could see the on-foot Draxus being less than suitable a profile to represent it, but otherwise an Inquisitor with WYSIWYG equipment should be something no one has any ground to stand on when complaining about.

 Nevelon wrote:
One of my first thoughts when they started talking about the new detachment system was Imperial Agents. It’s a great way to splash allies back into the game. Let you take a few units, give them a few tricks. Now with all detachments giving bonuses to everything it has some issues. You’d need to be real careful with keywords. Or break the system a little and say agents don’t get the other detachments bonuses and vice versus. Obviously not running that way now.

We have a book of hodge podge units gathered together. Give each little one a 1DP detachment. If you want to build an army out them, take the 3 that match the units you like the best and run with it. This is a codex that the new DP system could showcase. It’s perfect for it.

In the digital age I don’t know if we need an actual book to be the catch-all for all the random units, but we do need solid rules support for them. Hopefully GW will give them the love they need. With this new system of detachments, it could be the best edition ever for them.

Totally agree. To quote myself from another thread:

As someone who doesn't think imperial agents should really be looked at as an actual standalone army, I feel like imperial agents are actually one of the places where the new DP system could actually work really well. 1DP to splash in an inquisitor and some units associated with their ordo (or their merry band of henchmen) feels very fitting, and the 1DP detachments have just enough benefits to convey some of that flavor without being clunky. A primarily guard army with 1 DP of DW or GK or sisters splashed in, possibly lead by an inquisitor, would be a great way to represent those factions and make them feel more "elite."

I've had my reservations about the new detachment system, but I really thought imperial agents were where the new system was going to shine. It's bonkers to me that they fumbled what should have been a grand slam. Touchdown!

They may still end up that way eventually. It's pretty clear a lot of this stuff is dirty ported for compatibility rather than a design they really worked on. There may be something with a bit more effort with the codex(?) but 10th has given me VERY low expectations for Agents.

GW wrote: we've seen a lot of questions about whether you can use a 3DP detachment as your only detachment in your army at 1000 points (a common size for doubles games). Our intent is to let you do so and we will be making an update to clarify that in the first update to the Muster Army rules after launch. Effectively, you can always choose to pick any one, lone detachment, regardless of the mission size, even if it costs more Detachment Points than that game might normally allow.

In regards to the smaller games and DP issue, from today’s event article

This is such overcomplicated nonsense. I'm kind of entertained.