Extracted Rules from One of the New Detachments

[Cryptix]

Someone analyzed the video for the Vigilus book for one of the Detachments, an ork one that seems to focus on bikes and battlewagons.

 

BLITZ BRIGADE (UNLOCK COST) - ?CP (Hard to read)

Use this stratagem at the beginning of the game. Pick an ORK detachment from your army to be a Blitz Brigade Spearhead detachment. WARBIKERS, BATTLEWAGONS, BONECRUSHAS and GUNWAGONS in this detachment gain the BLITZ BRIGADE keyword.

 

Warlord Trait: Back-seat driver. When your Warlord is embarked within a BLITZ BRIGADE TRANSPORT, add 1" to that transport's move characteristic. In addition, while your Warlord is embarked within it, the transport gains the "ere we go" ability

 

Relic: Da Blitz Shouta. At the start of your shooting phase, if the bearer is embarked within a BLITZ BRIGADE BATTLEWAGON, pick an enemy unit that is visible to the BATTLEWAGON. Until the end of the phase, reroll hit rolls of 1 for attacks made for friendly BLITZ BRIGADE units within 6" of that BATTLEWAGON that target the enemy unit you picked.

 

Stratagem: 2CP - Hold on, boyz! Use this stratagem during your movement phase, before moving a <CLAN> BLITZ BRIGADE BATTLEWAGON in your army. Pick a friendly <CLAN> INFANTRY unit wholly within 3" of that model and remove it from the battlefield. After the BATTLEWAGON has moved, set the <CLAN> INFANTRY unit back up on the battlefield, wholly within 3" of the BATTLEWAGON and more than 1" from enemy models. (Note that the infantry unit is not placed within the Battlewagon and does not count towards the number of friendly models it can transport). The infantry unit cannot move further this phase, and counts as having moved this turn for all rules purposes and it cannot charge this turn.

 

Stratagem: 1CP - CRUSH YA! - Use this stratagem when a BLITZ BRIGADE BONECRUSHA from your army is chosen to fight. Roll an additional D6 for the Bonecrusha Ram ability and choose the highest result.

 

Stratagem, 1CP - Opening Salvo

Use this stratagem in your shooting phase in the first battle round. Choose a BLITZ BRIGADE GUNWAGON from your army. Double the range characteristic of that unit's ranged weapons until the end of the phase.

 

 

If all the Detachments are to this level, I can definitely see what they meant by it being more balanced - the only thing you get without paying more CP for is a warlord trait and relic, and the rest is stratagems.

[Panzer]

"Hold on, boyz!" is awesome as hell! :D

[redmapa]

All of that sounds amazing, cant wait to see what the rest looks like.

[Brother Captain Ed]

Did we confirm that these are for Matched Play and not just city fight one offs?

[MARK0SIAN]

Did we confirm that these are for Matched Play and not just city fight one offs?

Yeah, the designers said they are full matched play detachments.

[CaptainMarsh]

Very cool. I am very interested in the Scion one that was mentioned.

[MARK0SIAN]

Very cool. I am very interested in the Scion one that was mentioned.

I think the scion one will be one of the best. They said each detachment would only offer a bonus for a few unit types in that faction, the others would be unaffected. As scions have very few unit types, I think the bonus will be more universal than for some other factions :)

[Triszin]

hold on boyz is hilarious.

[toaae]

Hold on, boyz! allows the battlewagon to bring a screen with it, which is cool. It can fly off and still be protected from getting charged for a turn.

 

If this is what the detachments are going to look like (IE, circumstantial but very flavorful buffs with an appropriate cost), then cool. I just hope we don't get the same problem formations in 7th had. That is, some factions had really good ones and others didn't.

[D3L]

Ah good. The things that ruined 7th in 8th. How can this possibly go wrong.

[BlackTriton]

Its not so bad if the minor bonus is tied to command point.

That mixed with the yearly update we are in good shape to avoid the biggest problems of 7ed.

 

I wish they made these special thing narative play and left match play alone.

I feel they should use narative play to introduce flavor to the game and leave match play very much "vanilla".

[chapter master 454]

Ah good. The things that ruined 7th in 8th. How can this possibly go wrong.

 

Anything can go wrong when you put a bad designer behind the wheel really.

 

Formations are NOT a bad thing. Get that out of your heads, any of you who still think it. It wasn't formations itself that was bad, it was the fact the game designers have no idea of what is actually good and bad. Heck, it was only a select few formations that were at fault, the rest was wildly considered meh at best as far as I remember. 

[Beams]

 

Ah good. The things that ruined 7th in 8th. How can this possibly go wrong.

 

 

Anything can go wrong when you put a bad designer behind the wheel really.

 

Formations are NOT a bad thing. Get that out of your heads, any of you who still think it. It wasn't formations itself that was bad, it was the fact the game designers have no idea of what is actually good and bad. Heck, it was only a select few formations that were at fault, the rest was wildly considered meh at best as far as I remember.

Formations we're bad for two reasons:

1) Some were ridiculously powerful while others werent-- here's 750 pts of free upgrades and/or vehicles! Vs here's a CAD that lacks objective secured, but let's you reroll 1s on saves once a game!

And 2) armies didn't get equal access -- space Marines had upwards of 30 formations, even if only one was ever taken while some factions had none, or like sisters, got a terrible one (the aforementioned cad) right in time for 7th to end.

 

 

So there's a good reason to not want formations back --.GW isn't good about doing things equally, and instead focuses on certain codexes. (see: space Marines having more HQ options than some armies have options)

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

Ah good. The things that ruined 7th in 8th. How can this possibly go wrong.

 

Well formations in 7th didn't have a cost, and the broken ones either abused the psychic phase (Invisibility/summoning) or gave out a ton of free stuff.

 

These have a CP cost, and the main abilities seem to be tied to spending more CP. Which means if one is too good, they can raise the initial cost, or address a problematic stratagem. So I'm optimistic about these, that said they still need to improve the CP system.

[Panzer]

Its not so bad if the minor bonus is tied to command point.

That mixed with the yearly update we are in good shape to avoid the biggest problems of 7ed.

 

I wish they made these special thing narative play and left match play alone.

I feel they should use narative play to introduce flavor to the game and leave match play very much "vanilla".

 

I and my group would be much more interested in playing Narrative play if there weren't some broken things like spamming Stratagems and summoning for free and so on. It's much easier to play Matched play in a non cuthroat serious way than to play Narrative play and list all the things that you don't want to have in it.

[MARK0SIAN]

They were very keen to stress that these were not the same as the formations from 7th which he agreed were too good, he literally said they had no downsides to them.

 

I think they’re going to keep that in mind when they do these. For example, these new detachments only offer buffs to certain units in a detachment, they’re not universal buffs for the army and nothing is free. The Kastelan robot one will only buff those robots, nothing else will be any different and you’ve paid CP to upgrade to that detachment so they’re clearly trying to make these flavourful but balanced.

[Panzer]

For example, these new detachments only offer buffs to certain units in a detachment, they’re not universal buffs for the army and nothing is free. 

That alone is honestly not reassuring enough. One of the best formations in 7th was the Riptide Wing which literally only offered a bonus to the Riptides. The problem there was the whole design of "take three of an already good unit and make them better" lol

 

However it costing CP gives GW a chance to balance it properly without a complete rules re-write this time.

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

For example, these new detachments only offer buffs to certain units in a detachment, they’re not universal buffs for the army and nothing is free.

That alone is honestly not reassuring enough. One of the best formations in 7th was the Riptide Wing which literally only offered a bonus to the Riptides. The problem there was the whole design of "take three of an already good unit and make them better" lol

 

However it costing CP gives GW a chance to balance it properly without a complete rules re-write this time.

True, but judging by those ork ones the buffs are interesting but not game breaking. The marine one that lets you upgrade them to veterans, hardly going to make them game changing, or the Imperial Fists siege breaker one which gives some rerolls to centurions and devastators is not really anything they can’t get from other sources, they just don’t need the aura bubble.

 

The only one that’ll worry me is the Eldar one for the pure fact that GW cannot help but overpower Eldar in everything they do. Although the guy running the stand said these detachments had been designed with an eye on the competitive meta to try and avoid buffing already great stuff.

[chapter master 454]

 

 

Ah good. The things that ruined 7th in 8th. How can this possibly go wrong.

 

Anything can go wrong when you put a bad designer behind the wheel really.

 

Formations are NOT a bad thing. Get that out of your heads, any of you who still think it. It wasn't formations itself that was bad, it was the fact the game designers have no idea of what is actually good and bad. Heck, it was only a select few formations that were at fault, the rest was wildly considered meh at best as far as I remember.

Formations we're bad for two reasons:

1) Some were ridiculously powerful while others werent-- here's 750 pts of free upgrades and/or vehicles! Vs here's a CAD that lacks objective secured, but let's you reroll 1s on saves once a game!

And 2) armies didn't get equal access -- space Marines had upwards of 30 formations, even if only one was ever taken while some factions had none, or like sisters, got a terrible one (the aforementioned cad) right in time for 7th to end.

 

 

So there's a good reason to not want formations back --.GW isn't good about doing things equally, and instead focuses on certain codexes. (see: space Marines having more HQ options than some armies have options)

 

 

Again. I will iterate on what I said. With EXTRA emphasis on the key, major, important, central aspect of what crippled, maimed, hindered and ultimately killed, ended, finished and obliterated formations as something good in 7th:

 

"Bad Designers"

 

All of those things were done by what is commonly known as "Bad Designers". What makes one of those now made abundantly clear points? Disconnected and ultimately pressured employees who are told to push money makers for a quick buck instead of creating good game health which was something that has in recent time has been solved (largely).

 

Formations are a cool idea if done right but when done by "Bad Designers" then what we get is what you listed in two points wrapped into one nice package. I take two points and give two words. I am at my wits end over this matter because I AGREE there were issues with formations in 7th but not because of the mechanic but because of how they were done. In your argument you mention how some got a million formations but then I will ask you: of those millions, how many did they use? Marine I believe only use 1 or 2 of their formations regularly, with the main one being Battle Company formation because yes, that was utter stupidity allowing players to take that many points worth of stuff FOR FREE! Yes, T'au was stupidly good because their good shooting units got to do the one thing they shouldn't of been allowed to do: Shoot twice!

 

However, the concept of formations is actually an awesome idea that is not only a fun aspect to list building but also for creating the possibility of counter play. 40k in 8th edition is really odd in that you have to organise your army into detachments at a wonky point, never really understood when it happens but it happens somewhere between the pencil and paper and the board. I think it is an awesome idea that an army could include a combination of overlapping units that can be put into a formation when they suddenly see a certain issue arise, sort of a "side deck" for the game of 40k (which is something it lacks and thus suffers imo because now lists need to take all comers, hindering list diversity but that is coming from someone who knows jack-screw all about tournaments so please give me the news and let me know).

 

Do NOT allow your viewpoint of a mechanic be clouded by poor implementation and try to look past it and see what they were trying to do. The idea of formations was an attempt at making fluff meet table in a meaningful way.

An example of a flawed system was the "make your own chapter tactics" from 4th edition I believe it was. What did that eventually come down to again? Nothing really because it was like you could make your own chapter tactic for every list as needed with no penalty because whatever drawbacks you picked didn't apply to you. A purely fluff "honest player" mechanic that was rampant abuse and really had no hope of working just because of the virtue of how it worked (it could of worked if certain perks FORCED particular drawbacks but even then, that would be dubious at best).

 

As it stands now, GW seems to be moving towards a much better time now. The biggest improvement overall to the game that is LEAGUES and WORLDS better is active adjustment of the game. If it wasn't for that alone we would still be having Tau Commanders, Tyranid Fly-rants and Culexus assassin bodyguard along with smash-masters being top tier until they go blue in the face. That or we would be stuck with smite spam (though it still happens but to a lesser extent from what I have heard). Thus now, we can actually implement new things into the game more readily and if they prove too much tone them back. Look at how they have been adjusting not just points but CP cost of stratagems and even adding rules, entire new rules to help mitigate issues (I wager many factory workers lost jobs due to the drop in demand for Kurov Aquilas!).

 

Formations were never a bad idea. However their implementation and balancing however...if I were to speak in complete and utter irony of the most extreme fashion, the implementation and balancing was perfect (that is to say: Utter garbage...like the grey knight codex!)

[Panzer]

 

 

For example, these new detachments only offer buffs to certain units in a detachment, they’re not universal buffs for the army and nothing is free.

That alone is honestly not reassuring enough. One of the best formations in 7th was the Riptide Wing which literally only offered a bonus to the Riptides. The problem there was the whole design of "take three of an already good unit and make them better" lol

 

However it costing CP gives GW a chance to balance it properly without a complete rules re-write this time.

True, but judging by those ork ones the buffs are interesting but not game breaking. The marine one that lets you upgrade them to veterans, hardly going to make them game changing, or the Imperial Fists siege breaker one which gives some rerolls to centurions and devastators is not really anything they can’t get from other sources, they just don’t need the aura bubble.

 

The only one that’ll worry me is the Eldar one for the pure fact that GW cannot help but overpower Eldar in everything they do. Although the guy running the stand said these detachments had been designed with an eye on the competitive meta to try and avoid buffing already great stuff.

 

 

Yeah I'm still optimistic about the whole thing so far. ;)

[Lexington]

Really looking forward to hopping a unit of Tankbustas onto a Battlewagon, dropping them off right in front of something large and flinging a small armada of Tankbustas Bombz at it.

[Beams]

 

 

 

 

Ah good. The things that ruined 7th in 8th. How can this possibly go wrong.

Anything can go wrong when you put a bad designer behind the wheel really.

 

Formations are NOT a bad thing. Get that out of your heads, any of you who still think it. It wasn't formations itself that was bad, it was the fact the game designers have no idea of what is actually good and bad. Heck, it was only a select few formations that were at fault, the rest was wildly considered meh at best as far as I remember.

Formations we're bad for two reasons:

1) Some were ridiculously powerful while others werent-- here's 750 pts of free upgrades and/or vehicles! Vs here's a CAD that lacks objective secured, but let's you reroll 1s on saves once a game!

And 2) armies didn't get equal access -- space Marines had upwards of 30 formations, even if only one was ever taken while some factions had none, or like sisters, got a terrible one (the aforementioned cad) right in time for 7th to end.

 

 

So there's a good reason to not want formations back --.GW isn't good about doing things equally, and instead focuses on certain codexes. (see: space Marines having more HQ options than some armies have options)

Again. I will iterate on what I said. With EXTRA emphasis on the key, major, important, central aspect of what crippled, maimed, hindered and ultimately killed, ended, finished and obliterated formations as something good in 7th:

 

"Bad Designers"

 

All of those things were done by what is commonly known as "Bad Designers". What makes one of those now made abundantly clear points? Disconnected and ultimately pressured employees who are told to push money makers for a quick buck instead of creating good game health which was something that has in recent time has been solved (largely).

 

Formations are a cool idea if done right but when done by "Bad Designers" then what we get is what you listed in two points wrapped into one nice package. I take two points and give two words. I am at my wits end over this matter because I AGREE there were issues with formations in 7th but not because of the mechanic but because of how they were done. In your argument you mention how some got a million formations but then I will ask you: of those millions, how many did they use? Marine I believe only use 1 or 2 of their formations regularly, with the main one being Battle Company formation because yes, that was utter stupidity allowing players to take that many points worth of stuff FOR FREE! Yes, T'au was stupidly good because their good shooting units got to do the one thing they shouldn't of been allowed to do: Shoot twice!

 

However, the concept of formations is actually an awesome idea that is not only a fun aspect to list building but also for creating the possibility of counter play. 40k in 8th edition is really odd in that you have to organise your army into detachments at a wonky point, never really understood when it happens but it happens somewhere between the pencil and paper and the board. I think it is an awesome idea that an army could include a combination of overlapping units that can be put into a formation when they suddenly see a certain issue arise, sort of a "side deck" for the game of 40k (which is something it lacks and thus suffers imo because now lists need to take all comers, hindering list diversity but that is coming from someone who knows jack-screw all about tournaments so please give me the news and let me know).

 

Do NOT allow your viewpoint of a mechanic be clouded by poor implementation and try to look past it and see what they were trying to do. The idea of formations was an attempt at making fluff meet table in a meaningful way.

An example of a flawed system was the "make your own chapter tactics" from 4th edition I believe it was. What did that eventually come down to again? Nothing really because it was like you could make your own chapter tactic for every list as needed with no penalty because whatever drawbacks you picked didn't apply to you. A purely fluff "honest player" mechanic that was rampant abuse and really had no hope of working just because of the virtue of how it worked (it could of worked if certain perks FORCED particular drawbacks but even then, that would be dubious at best).

 

As it stands now, GW seems to be moving towards a much better time now. The biggest improvement overall to the game that is LEAGUES and WORLDS better is active adjustment of the game. If it wasn't for that alone we would still be having Tau Commanders, Tyranid Fly-rants and Culexus assassin bodyguard along with smash-masters being top tier until they go blue in the face. That or we would be stuck with smite spam (though it still happens but to a lesser extent from what I have heard). Thus now, we can actually implement new things into the game more readily and if they prove too much tone them back. Look at how they have been adjusting not just points but CP cost of stratagems and even adding rules, entire new rules to help mitigate issues (I wager many factory workers lost jobs due to the drop in demand for Kurov Aquilas!).

 

Formations were never a bad idea. However their implementation and balancing however...if I were to speak in complete and utter irony of the most extreme fashion, the implementation and balancing was perfect (that is to say: Utter garbage...like the grey knight codex!)

I'm not going to read that whole rant but what makes you think GW doesnt still have any what you'd call *bad designers"?

[Lord_Caerolion]

Because at the very least, now they're tied to CP costs, and GW has shown that they're willing and able to respond to undercosted Stratagems by increasing their cost. If a Formation appears to be too overpowered, then GW can just jack the price up.

[Ratherdashing]

I played very little of 7th but my issue with formations was that they required such specific units that (1) you had to have a huge collection to actually be able to fill one and (2) your list was basically built for you. This appears to solve that issue by giving keywords and rules to certain types of units without requiring x number of this exact unit and y number of that exact unit.

 

As for balance worries, that's kind of putting the cart before the horse, eh? I mean, if your argument is "GW writes bad rules therefore new rules will be badly written therefore new rules are always bad"...I don't know what to tell you. You are saying these formations will be broken because entirely different formations were broken in an entirely different edition...not to mention that these formations are clearly quite different in what they cost and what they provide.

[Lord_Caerolion]

I played very little of 7th but my issue with formations was that they required such specific units that (1) you had to have a huge collection to actually be able to fill one and (2) your list was basically built for you. This appears to solve that issue by giving keywords and rules to certain types of units without requiring x number of this exact unit and y number of that exact unit.

 

Peoples complaints is that the old Formations came in two variations. They were either the massive, bloated ones like you describe, that basically wrote your entire army list, but there were also ones like the Riptide Wing, that required only 3 Riptides (that WAAC players already included), and gave them massive bonuses on top. Still, I'm not worried about a return to those dark days.