Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XLIII: "This Is A New LoW For Us All"

[Cheesegear]

I wouldn't really call it a 'do whatever you want' meta. I'd call it a 'play what's good, and only what's good' meta. You have no reason to not just spam the most powerful units in your army. Or something that is a counter to what other people are taking.

As I mentioned previously; What I kind of mean is that list-building used to be hard.

In 8th Ed. you really wanted those Command Points. Your army basically had to start with two HQs and three Troops. This was non-negotiable to get the units you actually wanted. Then of course Command Points won games. So you had to pick up another Detachment to pick up two more HQs and three more Troops. Where are all my points going? I haven't even begun to take the units I really want. But how do I know I've picked the right Troops? The wrong HQs? Do I spend my CPs on extra Relics? Warlord Traits? Both? I just want to take Terminators. But you're telling me that before I even think about taking Terminators, I have to have 30 Scouts? 30 Intercessors? But I don't want Scouts. I don't want Intercessors. I just want the units I want.

Now? ...All of that's gone.

If you want your "theme" to be 9 Centurions? ...Do it.
Want 18 Aggressors on the table? ...Do it.
Hell. Maybe you want to go all out and put 45 Terminators on the table and do Deathwing right for once? ...Do it. There's not even any downsides.

Hey. Hey kid. Are you a Blood Angels player and want to run a full Assault Vanguard Squad army? Do it. You never need to take anything that doesn't have a Jump Pack ever again. "You can do that, that was always allowed." ...Yes. But now there's no downsides! Command Points aren't a consideration. Nobody even has Objective Secured. If you want to put it on the table, put it on the table. If you don't want to put it on the table...You don't have to! The rules of the game don't ask you to make decisions anymore.

The "core" of your army isn't 30 Scouts anymore. The core of your army is literally anything you want it to be. Whatever idea you have in your head, just buy it. "Tax units" are no longer a thing. You no longer have to pick up units you don't really want.

inb4 [x] months from now; "Battleline units are mandatory and have special traits that win games."

[Don Qui Ho Tep]

As I mentioned previously; What I kind of mean is that list-building used to be hard.

In 8th Ed. you really wanted those Command Points. Your army basically had to start with two HQs and three Troops. This was non-negotiable to get the units you actually wanted. Then of course Command Points won games. So you had to pick up another Detachment to pick up two more HQs and three more Troops. Where are all my points going? I haven't even begun to take the units I really want. But how do I know I've picked the right Troops? The wrong HQs? Do I spend my CPs on extra Relics? Warlord Traits? Both? I just want to take Terminators. But you're telling me that before I even think about taking Terminators, I have to have 30 Scouts? 30 Intercessors? But I don't want Scouts. I don't want Intercessors. I just want the units I want.

Now? ...All of that's gone.

If you want your "theme" to be 9 Centurions? ...Do it.
Want 18 Aggressors on the table? ...Do it.
Hell. Maybe you want to go all out and put 45 Terminators on the table and do Deathwing right for once? ...Do it. There's not even any downsides.

Hey. Hey kid. Are you a Blood Angels player and want to run a full Assault Vanguard Squad army? Do it. You never need to take anything that doesn't have a Jump Pack ever again. "You can do that, that was always allowed." ...Yes. But now there's no downsides! Command Points aren't a consideration. Nobody even has Objective Secured. If you want to put it on the table, put it on the table. If you don't want to put it on the table...You don't have to! The rules of the game don't ask you to make decisions anymore.

The "core" of your army isn't 30 Scouts anymore. The core of your army is literally anything you want it to be. Whatever idea you have in your head, just buy it. "Tax units" are no longer a thing. You no longer have to pick up units you don't really want.

inb4 [x] months from now; "Battleline units are mandatory and have special traits that win games."

So I don't usually like to indulge in armchair speculation because that's above my paygrade, and recognizing that no solution will make everyone happy, and recognizing that "making everyone happy" and "designing a balanced name that promotes interesting choices" are not the same thing, I feel like the force organization chart was a good way to at least guide list building towards something approaching balance. Going back to Dystopian Wars, there were mandatory minimums and maximums of points allowed for each size-class of units (Small, Medium, Large and Colossal, with bonus support aircraft and support infantry depending on the formation you took). Large and Colossal units were naturally very durable and very dangerous but had penalties to shoot at Infantry and Small Units. Small Units were surprisingly durable to Large and Colossal fire but had a hard time dealing damage to the same. Medium troops were jobbers in the middle but you could only spend so many of your points at a time.

As someone who took some time off between fifth and eighth edition, I was really surprised how much the points had dropped per unit. Not only did it make the game less accessible by increasing the currency spent and multiplying the time to get to a fully painted army (not that I don't enjoy painting, just that fully painted 2000 points in 5th will net you about half of an army in 8th), but it also increased the amount of spam possible per unit of troop tax. If I had my druthers I'd implement a similar force organization chart to 8th and 9th edition to unlock CP but using point values closer to fourth edition.

[Blackhawk748]

The "core" of your army isn't 30 Scouts anymore. The core of your army is literally anything you want it to be. Whatever idea you have in your head, just buy it. "Tax units" are no longer a thing. You no longer have to pick up units you don't really want.

KoW and other Tabletop games figured that out years ago. In KoW specifically there are very few units you can't spam (they're called Troops, Irregular units, Warmachines, and Heroes) but its stupid easy to get slots for them (literally pick a Regiment of something. Anything and you can have them). Most things can have an army built out of them.

Dwarves on Badgers? Sure! (this was, ironically the optimal Dwarf list in 2nd ed)
8 Billion Zombies? Sure, have fun.
Horses everywhere? Go nuts.

The big difference is, KoW (and the other games) where built for this from the ground up. 40k wasn't. So most Troops choices (or former Troops choices I suppose) kinda suck. Or at least suck more than non Troops. Like, Orks are happy to run their old Troops, Guard probably are, but why would you run a Tactical Squad when you can just pick the specialist guys over there and just be Power Armored Eldar with better stats?

[Cheesegear]

Sons of Sanguinius
Leader 1
Leader 2?
Leader...3!?

Vanguard Veterans w/ Jump Packs (x5) - 130 Points
Vanguard Veterans w/ Jump Packs (x5) - 130 Points
Vanguard Veterans w/ Jump Packs (x5) - 130 Points

Inceptors (x3) - 115 Points
Inceptors (x3) - 115 Points
Inceptors (x3) - 115 Points

Death Company w/ Jump Packs (x5) - 155 Points
Death Company w/ Jump Packs (x5) - 155 Points
Death Company w/ Jump Packs (x5) - 155 Points

Sanguinary Guard (x5) - 215 Points
Sanguinary Guard (x5) - 215 Points
Sanguinary Guard (x5) - 215 Points

Total: 1690 Points

...310 Points leftover for a few Leaders should be more than enough. You might have to do some playing around 'cause it might be worth taking a T11 Vehicle or two. Maybe you switch out for some Suppressors? But yeah. Why not? As long as your meta isn't deep into the T11+ spam, a list like this should be more than fine. As usual I can't stress enough that you shouldn't actually go out and spend money on this. I don't believe a list like this stays "fine" and/or even legal long-term. But...I do know that long-term Blood Angels players can already put this on the table.

[Forum Explorer]

As I mentioned previously; What I kind of mean is that list-building used to be hard.

In 8th Ed. you really wanted those Command Points. Your army basically had to start with two HQs and three Troops. This was non-negotiable to get the units you actually wanted. Then of course Command Points won games. So you had to pick up another Detachment to pick up two more HQs and three more Troops. Where are all my points going? I haven't even begun to take the units I really want. But how do I know I've picked the right Troops? The wrong HQs? Do I spend my CPs on extra Relics? Warlord Traits? Both? I just want to take Terminators. But you're telling me that before I even think about taking Terminators, I have to have 30 Scouts? 30 Intercessors? But I don't want Scouts. I don't want Intercessors. I just want the units I want.

Now? ...All of that's gone.

If you want your "theme" to be 9 Centurions? ...Do it.
Want 18 Aggressors on the table? ...Do it.
Hell. Maybe you want to go all out and put 45 Terminators on the table and do Deathwing right for once? ...Do it. There's not even any downsides.

Hey. Hey kid. Are you a Blood Angels player and want to run a full Assault Vanguard Squad army? Do it. You never need to take anything that doesn't have a Jump Pack ever again. "You can do that, that was always allowed." ...Yes. But now there's no downsides! Command Points aren't a consideration. Nobody even has Objective Secured. If you want to put it on the table, put it on the table. If you don't want to put it on the table...You don't have to! The rules of the game don't ask you to make decisions anymore.

The "core" of your army isn't 30 Scouts anymore. The core of your army is literally anything you want it to be. Whatever idea you have in your head, just buy it. "Tax units" are no longer a thing. You no longer have to pick up units you don't really want.

inb4 [x] months from now; "Battleline units are mandatory and have special traits that win games."

Funny enough, I actually find list building to be a lot harder now. Not out of choice paralysis or something like that, but because without upgrades and individual models, I find it painfully hard to actually get to 2000 points without leaving a 20 point gap or more in my list. And I hate that. Either I accept the deficit or I completely rework the list to get the unit points to line up better. While before I could just drop a model or two, or play around with upgrades to fill in or gain the needed points.


This list building format has its upsides, sure. And while I'm not a super big fan of it, it is barely on my list of problems with the edition. (Namely that I don't feel like lethality has decreased at all.)

[Cheesegear]

I find it painfully hard to actually get to 2000 points without leaving a 20 point gap or more in my list. And I hate that.

That's certainly a perogative.

But for me - a predominantly Space Marine player - 20 Points represents one Intercessor. One Intercessor - or the equivalent thereof - isn't what's going to lose me a game. Dropping my Oath of Moment on a unit, and focusing down a different unit, is what's going to lose me a game. There are plenty of ways to lose a game. And you having 1980 Points, instead of 2000, is not one of the things that will make you lose games - taking Incubi, is.

20 Points, unironically, is 1% of your army list. You'll be fine.

(Namely that I don't feel like lethality has decreased at all.)

Why would lethality decrease? ...We want games to go faster, not slower.
Re-roll to Wound into Devastating Wounds let's gooo... Joking not joking.

[Forum Explorer]

That's certainly a perogative.

But for me - a predominantly Space Marine player - 20 Points represents one Intercessor. One Intercessor - or the equivalent thereof - isn't what's going to lose me a game. Dropping my Oath of Moment on a unit, and focusing down a different unit, is what's going to lose me a game. There are plenty of ways to lose a game. And you having 1980 Points, instead of 2000, is not one of the things that will make you lose games - taking Incubi, is.

20 Points, unironically, is 1% of your army list. You'll be fine.



Why would lethality decrease? ...We want games to go faster, not slower.
Re-roll to Wound into Devastating Wounds let's gooo... Joking not joking.

Oh, I understand the math and logic of it. Those points don't matter all that much more than being at 1999 did in 9th edition. But man it drives me crazy. Particularly when I just need 10 more points and then I could take a whole other unit, but there is no flex in the list to find those 10 points. And thus list building takes me significantly longer then it did since 5th edition.


Decreasing the lethality was a stated design goal of the edition. So them failing to do so is, well, a failure.

[Cheesegear]

Decreasing the lethality was a stated design goal of the edition. So them failing to do so is, well, a failure.

GW: Let's make everything higher Toughness. That'll work.
Community: ...So we'll take higher Strength weapons? Meta solved.
GW: *Shocked Pikachu*

[Forum Explorer]

GW: Let's make everything higher Toughness. That'll work.
Community: ...So we'll take higher Strength weapons? Meta solved.
GW: *Shocked Pikachu*

GW: Let's make the game less lethal, by lowering AP and strength, particularly in melee!
Also GW: Also lets give Dark Eldar full rerolls to hit across their entire army. Alongside many other armies.
Future GW: Why is the game still so lethal?

[Cheesegear]

GW: Let's make the game less lethal, by lowering AP and strength, particularly in melee!

Uhh...They didn't do that. Unless you have specific examples?

Also GW: Also lets give Dark Eldar full rerolls to hit across their entire army. Alongside many other armies.

Re-rolls to hit have always been around. The real complaint about re-rolls isn't that they make the game more lethal; The complaint about endless re-rolls is that they slow down the game. Modifiers to Hit (and Wound) are much faster.

Sustained Hits is another rule I hate... I see what you're trying to simulate... But this ain't it, chief.

Future GW: Why is the game still so lethal?

Because nerds solve the meta in about a week to make the game lethal. There's maths. And spreadsheets.
You ditch all the things that aren't lethal, and you take the things that are.

GW: ...For this particular role; You can choose Assault Intercessors, or Assault Terminators.
Player: *Chooses Assault Terminators*
Other Player: ...I can't believe this turn of events. Shocking. I am shocked.

[Forum Explorer]

Uhh...They didn't do that. Unless you have specific examples?



Re-rolls to hit have always been around. The real complaint about re-rolls isn't that they make the game more lethal; The complaint about endless re-rolls is that they slow down the game. Modifiers to Hit (and Wound) are much faster.

Sustained Hits is another rule I hate... I see what you're trying to simulate... But this ain't it, chief.



Because nerds solve the meta in about a week to make the game lethal. There's maths. And spreadsheets.
You ditch all the things that aren't lethal, and you take the things that are.

GW: ...For this particular role; You can choose Assault Intercessors, or Assault Terminators.
Player: *Chooses Assault Terminators*
Other Player: ...I can't believe this turn of events. Shocking. I am shocked.

Mostly melee examples, as they are easier to find. Namely, Incubi (Big shock), as they lost a strength, ap, and a WS. But Tau does have some examples of ranged weapons getting weaker as a lot of their guns lost an AP. Some lost some range, others lost BS to hit. I think the Necron Gauss Cannon lost a Strength and an AP.

But yeah, you can find examples in pretty much non-Imperium armies which got off mostly unscathed (Poor Deathstrike Missile Launcher. You were awful, then you were interestingly bad, and now you are back to being awful)


I disagree about that. My biggest complaint about full-rerolls has always been that they make the game too lethal. When you reroll everything, even bad rolls become worth taking. Yes, it also eats up a lot of time, but my primary complaint is about the 'I pretty much don't fail.' that full rerolls gives you.


GW either has no understanding of their own game, or they don't care enough to try. Neither would surprise me.

[Cheesegear]

GW either has no understanding of their own game, or they don't care enough to try.

Having been away from Warhammer for nearly two years...I now understand that this isn't the case.

They care plenty. That's why we're participating in a beta test as we speak. I can only hope that whatever complaints you have about the game are made in a format or place where the people who can influence game design, actually read (i.e; Probably not here, for better or worse...Though I do have a fairly good assumption that at least one designer read at least one of my posts back in 8th Ed. But that could've just been Google traffic driving them to a forum post with some very SEO-friendly words).

Since the middle of 8th Ed., we know that the designers have very accurate information about the top end of the pool. GW absolutely knows what's working. I've seen the WarCom articles. GW does have an eye on tournament results. We know they do. Not only do they say they do; We have proof they do. And it's disingenuous to say otherwise.

Now. What is odd, is the turnaround time.
GW can change .pdfs whenever they want. Sometimes overnight. Up to two weeks, if we're generous. GW can do anything they want. At anytime. We know they can. We have proof. If GW wanted to turn a S5 into S6, they could. They want to change AP-3 to -2, they could. In my memory, GW have Errata'd printed books on the day of release. Twice.

If they wanted to change any number, to any other number...They could.
They don't, though.
Why?

In my opinion, they understand the game just fine. They don't understand the casual player:
...And casual players don't understand the game, or they don't care enough to try.

[Avaris]

Sons of Sanguinius
Leader 1
Leader 2?
Leader...3!?

Vanguard Veterans w/ Jump Packs (x5) - 130 Points
Vanguard Veterans w/ Jump Packs (x5) - 130 Points
Vanguard Veterans w/ Jump Packs (x5) - 130 Points

Inceptors (x3) - 115 Points
Inceptors (x3) - 115 Points
Inceptors (x3) - 115 Points

Death Company w/ Jump Packs (x5) - 155 Points
Death Company w/ Jump Packs (x5) - 155 Points
Death Company w/ Jump Packs (x5) - 155 Points

Sanguinary Guard (x5) - 215 Points
Sanguinary Guard (x5) - 215 Points
Sanguinary Guard (x5) - 215 Points

Total: 1690 Points

...310 Points leftover for a few Leaders should be more than enough. You might have to do some playing around 'cause it might be worth taking a T11 Vehicle or two. Maybe you switch out for some Suppressors? But yeah. Why not? As long as your meta isn't deep into the T11+ spam, a list like this should be more than fine. As usual I can't stress enough that you shouldn't actually go out and spend money on this. I don't believe a list like this stays "fine" and/or even legal long-term. But...I do know that long-term Blood Angels players can already put this on the table.

I think this list is more likely to stay legal than you think, judging from an article in the latest WD where the game designers were talking about the 10th ed design philosophy.

Force organisation charts are gone, making army lists much simpler to construct. The goal with this was clear - we want players to take the army that they want to field, not the army they have to build due to certain limitations. If you want to create a Blood Angels army loaded out with jump packs, so they can descend from the sky like avenging Angels of Death, you can! Commander Dante, Sanguinary Guard, Assault Marines, Inceptors - you can field an army just how the stories and artwork depict them.

I’m very amused you used the same example!

I suspect that what we’ll see when the Codexes come out is balancing via carrot, rather than stick. You can take anything you want, but certain Detachments have synergies if you take certain units. I like it as a concept, and am interested to see where things go. I especially like the explicit ‘you don’t need to paint your marines a specific colour to be able to take these rules’ they have going on now.

[Cheesegear]

You can take anything you want, but certain Detachments have synergies if you take certain units.

I don't want that.
I want Warlord Traits, Relics and Stratagems.

A Detachment that encourages specific units, is the opposite of "Doing whatever you want", because anything you do, that isn't taking those certain units, becomes bad. What's driving creativity in the game right now is people aren't being told what to do.

EDIT: ...The thing people find most distasteful about the edition is that GW dictates where your Leaders can go. The one thing people actually don't like about list-building is the thing you want to see more of?

[Avaris]

I don't want that.
I want Warlord Traits, Relics and Stratagems.

A Detachment that encourages specific units, is the opposite of "Doing whatever you want", because anything you do, that isn't taking those certain units, becomes bad. What's driving creativity in the game right now is people aren't being told what to do.

EDIT: ...The thing people find most distasteful about the edition is that GW dictates where your Leaders can go. The one thing people actually don't like about list-building is the thing you want to see more of?

It’s not necessarily what I want, just what I suspect we’ll see? They’ve explicitly talked about Detachments that support Tyranid Monsters for example. I can see two ways of going about that: either limiting the units that go into the Detachment, or limiting what units the abilities in that Detachment can be used on. Either way, it’s giving a trade off: are the benefits you get from complying with this Detachment worth the cost?

Ideally, it will remain very permissive in which units you can take in most armies: I feel there is a space for very specialist detachments, but they shouldn’t be the majority experience. What I mean by synergies with specific units is that most detachments should encourage a particular playstyle, and different units will thrive in different Detachments; it won’t necessarily be ‘you can only use this rule on this named unit’, nor do I think it should be!

Obviously, all speculation at this stage: the first codexes will give us a lot of info on where this edition is going.

[Cheesegear]

Either way, it’s giving a trade off: are the benefits you get from complying with this Detachment worth the cost?

If yes; Why do anything else?
Anything you do that isn't that Detachment is bad and you should feel bad. If you play Tyranids and are buying boxes of Gants to make bug carpets, you will be playing Tyranids wrong.

Either way, it’s giving a trade off: are the benefits you get from complying with this Detachment worth the cost?

When you say things like that, you're effectively Anti-What-Makes-10th-Accessible. The fact that we don't have to weigh the pros and cons of each unit's non-Datacard abilities, is a driving force.

"Unit X does X. It is worth 110 Points." ...Well ****. The benefits of taking Unit X, is X. And the cost is 110 Points. Anyone can do that math. What an accessible and fun game.

Ideally, it will remain very permissive in which units you can take in most armies

Benefits for one unit, and not-benefits for other units, is not permissive. It's an illusion of choice.

What I mean by synergies with specific units is that most detachments should encourage a particular playstyle

And currently there is no specific playstyle. Do whatever you want.

Do you understand that not having a particular playstyle is one of the best things 10th Ed. has going for it right now?

There is T11+ spam, causing problems. But there are many ways to skin that cat for most Factions. The second you pigeon-hole a Faction into playing a certain way...The "magic" of 10th Ed. is lost. Nobody is forced into playing a "particular" way. Not by list-building, at least.

I feel like people aren't actually seeing why 10th Ed. has made a lot of people come back. And I also feel like the people who backed Narrative and Open Play from previous editions are nowhere to be found. Isn't 10th Ed. what people who supported Power Rating, wanted? "The only limit is the same limit that we set for everyone; 200PL 2000 Points. Otherwise, do what you want."

This forum is supposed to be the casual one.
10th Ed. introduces the most casual "competitive play" has ever been..."Actually can we make it more restrictive by providing incentives and opportunity costs again? I want people to feel bad about the models they own, and make them feel like they bought the wrong ones because they didn't weigh the pros and cons of an option that wasn't on the unit's Datacard."

different units will thrive in different Detachments

So you're actively incentivizing players at the list-building army-buying stage to prioritise certain units over others?
Like we need to start comparing the pros and cons of buying models compared to other models again?
...Go back to 7th Ed.?

[Avaris]

You really are very good at assuming someone is advocating for/wanting something, when they are just discussing what is likely to happen, aren’t you?

There will be different types of detachment, we know this. We don’t yet know what form they will take: I am speculating as to what they will look like, based on available information. We also don’t know if each faction will have 5 options, or 20.

Ideally these will encourage a range of playstyles: a Tyranid player will be able to choose whether to take a big monsters list, or a horde list, or whatever, and be able to take a detachment that suits them. What we don’t know is how many options will be available for detachments, and whether there will be a handful that stand out - a bad outcome would be if every tournament level army for a particular faction uses the same detachment.

What I want (and this is the only place I am saying what I want, rather than speculating on what GW might do) is a situation where a player can look at the models in their collection and identify several Detachment options that will suit what they want to play with. And then play with different Detachments giving different play experiences with only minor tweaks to the models they need to bring. So they can do different things with even a small collection, and the models they own can each have their own space to thrive. There should be no ‘one true way’ to build a Marines list, as different Detachments should all be viable, and encourage different unit selection, depending on player preference.

[Cheesegear]

You really are very good at assuming someone is advocating for/wanting something

So what are you advocating for?

Are Detachments that force players into buying models they don't want, a good thing? Should people be forced to pay taxes? ...Bearing in mind that when I say taxes I mean "Spend extra money on a recreational game of toy soldiers."

Are Detachments that imply that players are wrong for not buying into them, a good thing? Should people be made to feel bad about the choices they make?

Should a player - new or otherwise - have to "do research", beyond looking at the unit's (free) Datacard, before they buy a unit?

There will be different types of detachment, we know this.

We do know this. So how do you feel about it?

Ideally these will encourage a range of playstyles

Not necessary. The game already supports a range of playstyles.
What it doesn't do, is encourage a range of playstyles. It doesn't say one playstyle is better than another. It doesn't say one playstyle gains disproportionate benefits with off-Datacard effects that make your army greater than the sum of its parts.

Tyranid player will be able to choose whether to take a big monsters list, or a horde list, or whatever, and be able to take a detachment that suits them.

They can already do that.

a bad outcome would be if every tournament level army for a particular faction uses the same detachment.

We agree. Since the designers are still the same ones GW have been using for years...I find it very, very, very hard to believe that this wont be the case.

What I want (and this is the only place I am saying what I want, rather than speculating on what GW might do) is a situation where a player can look at the models in their collection and identify several Detachment options that will suit what they want to play with.

So a player should ideally have a large collection, that way they can't make bad choices, because they can make any choice? And since they have the ability to make any choice, any "Bad" choice they make, is on them.

I agree. Players should have large collections and be able to put anything they want on the table.

However I also feel that that's unreasonable, and inaccessible; It's anti-10th Ed., and it's anti..."Macroeconomic conditions."

So they can do different things with even a small collection, and the models they own can each have their own space to thrive.

I'd love to see an example.

There should be no ‘one true way’ to build a Marines list, as different Detachments should all be viable, and encourage different unit selection, depending on player preference.

Correct! We agree again.
There is nothing in the rules that say [Detachment] are the best at riding Bikes. There is nothing in the rules that say [Detachment] have the best Terminators. There is currently nothing in the rules that say "If you don't run [Detachment], your Bikes are worse than your opponent's. Don't run Bikes unless you're going to run [Detachment], idiot."

What if you don't want [Detachment], but you still want Bikes? Are you wrong, now? ...Yes.

[Avaris]

In terms of people with small collections, I guess what I want to see is a situation where if you have a random collection of models, there is an ‘all rounder’ detachment that you can use, ideally several of them. This is the niche all the current Detachments play in, ‘All rounder with a shooting benefit’ or ‘all rounder with a melee benefit’ for example. So with your small collection, you can take roughly the same list, but have a different emphasis. All units should ideally be viable in those detachments.

From there, as a player builds their collection, they’ll naturally want to specialise based on the models they like. ‘I like bikes’ for example. So they buy more bikes. Once they’ve done so, I’d expect that different detachments start to look appealing to them, and they can give those a go as well. Or they can see how the bikes do in the detachment they’re used to.

The point is, a player should have options for both lists that go all in on a particular unit, and that are all rounders. There should be no currency cost in trying out a different detachment, but there will naturally be some that suit your collection or playstyle better than others. There will likely be instances where a player feels they need specific models to make a particular detachment work well, but I think it is unlikely that many players will look at a detachment and love the concept without also loving the associated models?

The detachments should hopefully be rewards for what players are already wanting to do, not a ‘you must pay this tax to have a good time’. But until we know how many options people will have, and how varied they will be, it’s difficult to say how it will shake out. There is a big difference between a detachment that says ‘you must have 3 units of X to take this detachment’ (bad) and ‘here is a bonus for [specific unit]’ (ok) and ‘here is a bonus that is useable by everyone, and synergises with what [unit] is already doing’ (good).

[Cheesegear]

In terms of people with small collections, I guess what I want to see is a situation where if you have a random collection of models, there is an ‘all rounder’ detachment that you can use, ideally several of them.

This is what currently exists. Right now.

EDIT: I'm having a pretty decent time with this...

Spoiler: Adeptus Astartes

Show

Gladius Strike Force
Leaders
Primaris Captain; Plasma Pistol, Power Fist - 105 Points
+ Enhancement: Bolter Discipline

Captain in Terminator Armour; Chainfist, Thunder Hammer - 110 Points
+ Enhancement: The Honour Vehement

Primaris Librarian - 70 Points
Primaris Librarian - 70 Points
Primaris Librarian - 70 Points

Chaplain on Bike; Warlord - 90 Points
+ Enhancement: Artificer Armour

Primaris Apothecary - 55 Points

Units
Assault Intercessors (x10); Thunder Hammer - 180 Points + [Librarian]
Assault Intercessors (x10); Thunder Hammer - 180 Points + [Librarian]
Assault Intercessors (x10); Thunder Hammer - 180 Points + [Librarian]

Sternguard (x10); Sternguard Heavy Bolters (x2) - 210 Points
+ [Primaris Captain & Apothecary]

Dreadnought; Assault Cannon, Missile Launcher- 160 Points

Terminator Assault Squad (x5) - 200 Points
+ [Terminator Captain]

Outriders (x6); Invader ATV - 310 Points
+ [Chaplain on Bike]

Total: 1990 Points

...That list, goes away in a heartbeat if anything changes. Such as...

This is the niche all the current Detachments play in, ‘All rounder with a shooting benefit’

No that's "The Shooty Detachment." Any Melee model you put in that Detachment is wasting their points. You could take another Shooty unit, instead.

or ‘all rounder with a melee benefit’ for example.

...and that's "The Melee Detachment." Any Shooty unit you in tha- ...You get it.

From there, as a player builds their collection, they’ll naturally want to specialise based on the models they like. ‘I like bikes’ for example. So they buy more bikes.

They can already do that.

The point is, a player should have options for both lists that go all in on a particular unit, and that are all rounders.

Okay. We're getting somewhere. You're effectively saying that the only good units in the game, should be units that can Melee and Shoot - such as Aggressors. You can never make a bad choice because Aggressors will always be good. I agree. But I'm not going to tell Marine players that the only good unit in the Index are Aggressors. Some people might not like Aggressors.

There should be no currency cost in trying out a different detachment

No the currency cost comes in buying the models in the first place.
The risk you take, is buying the wrong models. The risk you take is the opportunity cost.

There should be no risk in trying a different Detachment. But there is. 'Cause this game will never - and can never? - be equal.

but there will naturally be some that suit your collection or playstyle better than others.

But your playstyle, is your choice. Currently, in the "Do Anything You Want" meta, your imagination is the limit.

Once you have a Detachment that says "Blood Angels with Jump Packs gain bonuses", you're saying that Blood Angels without Jump Packs, don't, have bonuses. Baal Transports? Gone. Those cool Blood Angels Terminators? Gone. Painting your Primaris Marines in Death Company colours? Gone. Drop Podding Flesh Tearers? Dumb.

Now. Narratively. We all know that Sanguinius had wings and Blood Angels with Jump Packs has always been a thing. Except that's only because the rules said so. Similarly, White Scars and Bikes. Now? Kor'sarro doesn't even have a Bike. Blood Angels with [Scouts] can get into Melee pretty quick, without Jump Packs. Assault Intercessors can come in from the board edge and roll hard because 9th Ed. gave out Assault Intercessors in like every box.

...Blood Angels do Melee. There are many ways to do that. Blood Angels don't do "Jump Packs only", because that's lame, because there's really only one way to do that. Blood Angels can have Jump Packs. And that's the players' choice. I can't even tell you that Vanguard are the best Blood Angels unit, because "Heirloom Weapons" is a thing that's happened.

There will likely be instances where a player feels they need specific models to make a particular detachment work well, but I think it is unlikely that many players will look at a detachment and love the concept without also loving the associated models?

You didn't play 7th Ed., obviously. You will buy models you hate, and you will like it.
Much toxic.
Very ********.
Wow.

The detachments should hopefully be rewards for what players are already wanting to do, not a ‘you must pay this tax to have a good time’.

Again. I want to ask how you feel about Blood Angels (read; Flesh Tearers) on foot, Charging out of Land Raiders. If this exact Detachment doesn't exist, but "Blood Angels with Jump Packs", does, have we/you/GW done something good for Blood Angels who like Jump Packs; Or have you disenfranchised Blood Angels players with Land Raiders?

'Cause currently neither player is disadvantaged or disenfranchised. You want to spam Land Raiders? Do it. In fact I'd recommend it in the current meta. If you want to spam models with Jump Packs and Storm Shields; You can do that too. In fact I'd recommend it in the current meta.

But until we know how many options people will have, and how varied they will be, itÂ’s difficult to say how it will shake out.

If we're talking about the same GW...Probably not very many.

There is a big difference between a detachment that says ‘you must have 3 units of X to take this detachment’ (bad) and ‘here is a bonus for [specific unit]’ (ok) and ‘here is a bonus that is useable by everyone, and synergises with what [unit] is already doing’ (good).

So you want to go back to 8th Ed. Stratagems and extra Command Points? ...Not 7th Ed. Detachments? I agree in spirit. 7th Ed. Detachments were actually bad.

...I agree. 8th Ed. was great. But do we really want to go back to counting Command Points? And if so, how do we get them? 'Cause I have no interest in going back to fixed Detachments - especially ones that are objectively worse than other ones.

I like, that currently Battleline doesn't mean anything. There's a bit of a bonus with OC. And maybe some abilities proc off of Battleline. But as far as building your list? You don't have to take any. No-one makes you take any unit you don't want to take.

[Hootman]

If yes; Why do anything else?
Anything you do that isn't that Detachment is bad and you should feel bad. If you play Tyranids and are buying boxes of Gants to make bug carpets, you will be playing Tyranids wrong.

Detachment #1: Index (updated as needed). Play all-rounder style with flexibility at the table.
Detachment #2: Nidzilla. Monsters gain 6+++, and access to 3/6 strats that make them do a great Pacific Rim impression.
Detachment #3: Bug Carpet. Swarmy bugs with 1w gain +1 movement and lethal hits so they can punch up. And a strat that's like the current Send In the Next Wave one they have, but better, and allows spending 2cp to double the effect for bigger units of little gribblies.

The whole point of having about 4 Detachments per army would be to support existing playstyles that are already part of the identity of the army. If someone has pre-determined that they want the well-established Bug Carpet, there should be a Detachment that supports that more than it supports other styles like Nidzilla, and vice-versa.

And currently there is no specific playstyle. Do whatever you want.

Unless you play Orks. You'll take exclusively melee units or gain minimal benefit from your Army Rules or Detachment, and you'll like it.

Shooting? In Orks!? <laughingJamesWorkshop.jpg> No, that's ridiculous, no one wants that.

Obviously I can put Flash Gitz in my army, and will continue to do so. They even get exploding 6s in melee if someone wanders too close and I need to finish them off. It would just be neat if there was a Bad Moons Blasters Detachment to play in that made the dakka just that much better instead.

[Cheesegear]

The whole point of having about 4 Detachments per army would be to support existing playstyles that are already part of the identity of the army.

If you have a novel playstyle, maybe you want to be creative? **** you. You're dumb. If you don't play one of the pre-approved 4 playstyles, why are you even playing the army? Get good.

If someone has pre-determined that they want the well-established Bug Carpet, there should be a Detachment that supports that more than it supports other styles like Nidzilla, and vice-versa.

And I would contend that the way you would do that, is not by making Detachments. But by making better Leaders with Auras. You make Enhancements better. You put Warlord Traits back in the game. You make Stratagems not...Terrible?

You do not tell people which models people need to buy. That's why all the casuals were so mad in all previous editions all the time. You don't need to tell people what to buy anymore! They can make their own (informed) choices now!

It would just be neat if there was a Bad Moons Blasters Detachment to play in that made the dakka just that much better instead.

Or...OR...Hear me out...Why not just make Flash Gitz...Better? Why do you need a special Detachment when the real solution is just make Flash Gitz better for everyone who wants them. Not make Flash Gitz only good for those who want to invest in them. Because under "Bad Moons Detachment", the only people who benefit are those who like Bad Moons, and everyone who doesn't like Bad Moons can eat ****.

What if I like Flash Gitz, but I don't like Bad Moons? Ghazgkull's a pretty good egg. What if I run Ghazgkull but due to my meta I'd like a handful of Flash Gitz to stay in my backline to hold my castle. You're right. Because I'm not willing to shell out hard currency for a minimum of three units of Flash Gitz, I should get nothing. I understand.

GW could just make Datacards better and/or reevaluate the points costs.
Or...
Or...
They could add a whole bunch of caveats and limitations to the list-building process, that only serve to overwhelm new players, and disenfranchise existing players. I'm so excited to be able to predict someone's list just by when they tell me what Detachment they'll be running. ...Wait. We're in 10th Ed., right? Not 7th?

If you play Faction Alpha these are the X units you get for Army Y at Z points.
[...]
Not even sure if this should be in blue text, because I am half serious and half joking.

...Not gonna lie. I'm pretty annoyed that you were days ahead of the argument... Or was I days behind?

[Avaris]

They could add a whole bunch of caveats and limitations to the list-building process, that only serve to overwhelm new players, and disenfranchise existing players. I'm so excited to be able to predict someone's list just by when they tell me what Detachment they'll be running. ...Wait. We're in 10th Ed., right? Not 7th?

You're very much assuming that detachments will be all or nothing "If you want to play Flash Gitz you have to play 3 units of them to make it worthwhile". That may well be an optimum way of doing it, but outside of tournaments I don't expect it to be the norm.

And in terms of overwhelming new players... I would counter that just giving new players a list of units, without a framework, is much more overwhelming than giving them a choice of detachments, and then asking them to build a list to match. Not everyone, especially newbies, has the same ability to read and evaluate how datasheets will play as you do. Ideally, the detachments will function as signposts - "I like the sound of this detachment, which units from my collection/wishlist/local store will work well with it?"

The problem with this approach - which I hope GW will avoid - is when it becomes 'these are the only valid options for this detachment'. Ideally, there will be some obvious choices, but also an option for players to try more unusual options with their detachments 'this detachment incentivizes X, but I think there could be interesting synergy with Y instead'. That's where the creativity comes in.

[Cheesegear]

You're very much assuming that detachments will be all or nothing "If you want to play Flash Gitz you have to play 3 units of them to make it worthwhile". That may well be an optimum way of doing it, but outside of tournaments I don't expect it to be the norm.

Having played several 10th Ed. games by now, and having seen several army lists. Having 3 of a good unit, is most assuredly the norm.

And in terms of overwhelming new players... I would counter that just giving new players a list of units, without a framework, is much more overwhelming than giving them a choice of detachments, and then asking them to build a list to match.

There is a framework. Page 55-56 of the Core Rules tells you literally everything you need to know about how to make an army.

What the Core Rules doesn't tell you, is what the meta is. But no rules in the world can really tell you explicitly what the meta is going to be. You just have to kind of know that.
(P.S. The meta is high Toughness units. Preferably with an Invulnerable save and/or Feel No Pain. You counter that with high Strength attacks that do a lot of Damage)

If you know that a bigger number, is almost always better than a smaller number; You can gauge a Datacard.

Not everyone, especially newbies, has the same ability to read and evaluate how datasheets will play as you do.

The box says ages 12+. Not too long ago I was told...

Historically, their main target is teenage boys with well-off parents...

...If parents aren't paying attention to what their children buys, that's on them.
Now, I disagree with the above. I believe that GW's main target in 20xx is adults with money. Adults should know better than to buy trash that doesn't work.

Also...

...And casual players don't understand the game, or they don't care enough to try.

...I think I might stand by that.

I think at the start of 9th Ed. I said that casuals would become invested players, because the rules of 9th Ed. didn't really allow you to be casual.

At the start of 10th Ed., I think I might double down on that. In the age of the "Do Whatever You Want"-meta (However long it may last), why would anyone not put something good on the board? You know that your opponents can do whatever they want. They're not stupid. They're going to put something good on the table. Are you...Not? Are you knowingly going to put something bad on the board; Knowing full well that there is absolutely nothing making you do that, except you.

The problem with this approach - which I hope GW will avoid - is when it becomes 'these are the only valid options for this detachment'.

7th Ed. - You must take (read; Buy) these trash units that don't sell well, if you want to take the good **** you actually want that are already selling just fine. We've taken good units, and made them even better. But we're going to punish you - and your wallet - if you want to do that. All of the best Formations in the game will be the ones where you don't have to pay taxes to straight up just get a bonus on the good units you were taking anyway.

8th Ed. - You can take any unit you want. But only Units [X,Y,Z] actually benefit. So either you spend the minimum amount of taxes (one HQ, and one Troops) to get the stuff you actually want. Or you simply just spam the **** out of Units [X,Y,Z] because those are the only units worth taking under this Detachment. Also to get this benefit you have to pay Command Points, because Command Points win games so this makes list-building even harder because you need to make sure you've got enough CPs to afford the Detachment. Since you don't have enough CPs, or the taxes are too dumb for the benefit you get out of it...These Detachments aren't actually worth anything.

Isn't creativity great? I really like the list diversity in 10th Ed. It's even more creative than 8th Ed., and 8th Ed. was wild near the end. Without being bogged down by Troops taxes or Command Points...It's like everyone is now just kind of taking units they like without regard to GW's fixed narrative. Grognards wont like it 'cause it throws established patterns out the window. But I really think for new kids and casuals, the game doesn't really punish them anymore for not building their list "correctly." Do you like the unit? Yes. Is it good? Yes. Put it in the list until you can't. Do you really like the unit? Put in 3 units.

That's a terrible way to build an army. Why would I build an army intuitively based on whether I like the models and if it has big numbers on its Datacard? That doesn't make any sense. How do I know if I should take a Land Raider, unless there's a page that says "Take a Land Raider"? I can't figure that **** out on my own. Do I like Land Raiders? I don't know! Do Land Raiders have big numbers on their Datacard? I don't know! Ohhh can't someone just tell me that taking a Land Raider is a good idea? What if I take a Land Raider and I get even more bonuses for it? Oooooh. That makes sense. I need to be incentivised to take a model that I was already going to take anyway. I mean if I'm not incentivised to take a Land Raider...Why would I?

...Oddly...We're really close to the "I don't actually like my models unless they have good rules" argument...And I'm not even the one saying it. It's the people claiming (at least...A few years ago they were) to be casual saying that they need extra/better rules to reinforce the idea that they already want to play. Aren't casuals just playing what they want to play anyway? Did something change while I was out? Why do casuals need even more rules when it comes to list building?

I know I'm Australian. But did everything turn upside down during 9th Ed.?

[Forum Explorer]

If yes; Why do anything else?
Anything you do that isn't that Detachment is bad and you should feel bad. If you play Tyranids and are buying boxes of Gants to make bug carpets, you will be playing Tyranids wrong.


Do you understand that not having a particular playstyle is one of the best things 10th Ed. has going for it right now?

We kinda are in that state right now. We have detachment bonuses. Those bonuses benefit some playstyles more than others. So if you aren't playing into your detachment bonus, you are objectively playing a weaker army unless that unit is so strong it is strong without getting much of a detachment bonus.

Or the unit is just kinda weak, and needs a bonus to be good. This is where I'd say melee Sisters of Battle fall under. Melee for Sisters of Battle didn't so much become bad, as it had all of its bonuses stripped away from it. (Thus making it bad). So like, when you compare the 9th edition codex to the 10th edition index, you might think SoB melee stayed the same. But losing the bonuses from characters (they do different things and often not on your melee units), losing the Bloody Rose bonuses (no longer exists at all), and losing the bonuses from Hymns (Gone entirely)
and most melee stratagems means if you are playing melee Sisters you are doing it wrong.

I would say that Drukharii encourages you to run Kabal, Wytch, and Coven units, and it technically does. Until you realize pain tokens are laughably easy to generate and you can ignore their detachment trait entirely and still have plenty.

Tau very much encourages a particular playstyle since their bonus doesn't kick in until turn 3. Though that is more of a playstyle, regardless of what units you take.

And someone already brought up Orks. If you are doing an Ork shooty list, well you are getting basically nothing from your detachment bonus. Why are you doing an Ork shooty list? Who cares if it is good in 9th?

Anyways I digress. The point is that lots of 'detachments' already encourage you to a particular playstyle. As such getting new detachments that work better for different playstyles would only be a positive.

Having been away from Warhammer for nearly two years...I now understand that this isn't the case.

They care plenty. That's why we're participating in a beta test as we speak. I can only hope that whatever complaints you have about the game are made in a format or place where the people who can influence game design, actually read (i.e; Probably not here, for better or worse...Though I do have a fairly good assumption that at least one designer read at least one of my posts back in 8th Ed. But that could've just been Google traffic driving them to a forum post with some very SEO-friendly words).

Since the middle of 8th Ed., we know that the designers have very accurate information about the top end of the pool. GW absolutely knows what's working. I've seen the WarCom articles. GW does have an eye on tournament results. We know they do. Not only do they say they do; We have proof they do. And it's disingenuous to say otherwise.

Now. What is odd, is the turnaround time.
GW can change .pdfs whenever they want. Sometimes overnight. Up to two weeks, if we're generous. GW can do anything they want. At anytime. We know they can. We have proof. If GW wanted to turn a S5 into S6, they could. They want to change AP-3 to -2, they could. In my memory, GW have Errata'd printed books on the day of release. Twice.

If they wanted to change any number, to any other number...They could.
They don't, though.
Why?

In my opinion, they understand the game just fine. They don't understand the casual player:
...And casual players don't understand the game, or they don't care enough to try.

I'm not sure I buy that considering the problems that you can catch just at a casual glance in the Index. Things like Wraithknights being able to deal 2d6 mortal wounds on a 6 to wound. And Eldar having the ability to generate 6s to use on command. And Wraithknights can effectively ignore all terrain due to Towering. And Wraithknights end up dealing something like 6d6 mortal wounds (or more!) turn 1 and this ends up being so broken they get a point hike and a rule nerf, and Eldar still have a 60+% win rate.

Or Fire Prisms being horrifically under costed. Or Wytches being horrifically overcosted. Or Barbagaunts being able to effectively shut down the movement phase of every unit within 24 inches of them. Or ect. There's more.

As for where I complain well here obviously. In public. And on Facebook. I do think I'll end up sending them a review, but I'm waiting until I finish my current league and play through an upcoming tournament so I have more experience with the game system.

Though I'm not sure if 10th edition is actually more popular than 9th. People seem pretty split on it where I'm at. Some positives, some negatives. Personally I fall inbetween the two. 10th has a lot of things that bother me. It also did some things I really approve of. But overall I'm not having any more fun than I was in 9th edition and as a result I'm very unsatisfied. It doesn't feel new enough, or enough of an improvement to justify a new edition. Will it improve more? Probably. Will I be happier then? Maybe. But right now I'm pretty meh about playing 10th.

[Gwynchan'rGwyll]

Yeah Cheese I think you're assuming that the status quo in Indexhammer is "the one (1) detachment per army doesn't have any winners or losers in that army" but that's simply not true. Yes, the army-building allows you to spam units that you like. But will that be an enjoyable play experience? Often, no. We're NOT starting from a position where "you can take whatever you want" - especially for the 4-5 factions that seem to be monolist right now (Drukhari have one, I think Thousand Sons have 2?). If a new detachment gives them buffs towards a new list, isn't that progress?

Taking the Tyranid example - there being a "I like big bugs and I cannot lie" doesn't mean that if you play Gants you're doing it Wrong, even if the Big Bugs detachment is better than the Carpet of Bugs detachment, no more than Tyranid Players were Wrong for not doing a Crusher Stampede in its heyday.

Similarly, right now we have what, 5 Space Marine detachments, 4 of which are Chapter locked (but so long as you don't use unique units nothing stops you from running a chapter locked one as the "wrong" chapter). Gladius is solidly stronger than the Sons of Sanguinius - am I playing Blood Angels wrong if I run Sons of Sanguinius anyways?

[Don Qui Ho Tep]

Detachment bonuses creating winners and losers doesn't feel much different than army-wide special rules that discourage certain units (see above discussion on Ork shooting) or that are dead on arrival (see above discussion about Power from Pain). If there will always be "most optimal" choices for a particular army then different detachments increase the number of optimal choices. The choice again is not on individual load-out but at the squad level, which seems to fit the scale of 40k where it currently is. FWIW squad-level options also make it easier to directly compare the merits of different squads which may be competing for similar roles but come in at different point values.

To me, the main problem is the mismatch between GW marketing ("play what you want and have a fun time") and the actual nuts and bolts of the game. That's what community is for, helping people get on board and picking an army that fits their playstyle. That's what proxies are for, to try models out before you buy. That's what 3D bits are for, to get your money's worth out of dual kits and filling in for units that are sold out or are locked into a Start Collecting box or similar. I don't expect GW to ever change this kind of messaging, because they don't want to alienate potential customers.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to play one game a month with your buddy. That's about how often I get to play. If you spend more time painting your models than playing with them, go ahead and buy the ones that look the coolest.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to win tournaments. There are other games out there that might give you a more fulfilling competitive experience (and have a less expensive buy-in). Skirmish games are blowing up right now. Historical Wargames are not going anywhere. But if you are set on playing (and winning) 40k then go for it.

Talk to your opponents before you play. If you sign up for a league ask if it's a slow-grow narrative league or a set of competitive pods. Join the discord server, talk to people at the shop, get some phone numbers. There's no wrong way to have fun - but not everyone has fun in the same way. Help new players find other people interested in the same kind of gaming experience they are.

[Cheesegear]

Or the unit is just kinda weak, and needs a bonus to be good. This is where I'd say melee Sisters of Battle fall under. Melee for Sisters of Battle didn't so much become bad, as it had all of its bonuses stripped away from it. (Thus making it bad). So like, when you compare the 9th edition codex to the 10th edition index, you might think SoB melee stayed the same. But losing the bonuses from characters (they do different things and often not on your melee units), losing the Bloody Rose bonuses (no longer exists at all), and losing the bonuses from Hymns (Gone entirely) and most melee stratagems means if you are playing melee Sisters you are doing it wrong.

The unit is weak. Do you:
a) Buff the Datacard,
b) Decrease the points value,
c) Add an entirely set of new rules that affect not only the unit you're trying to adjust, but several others as well with potentially wanted - and unwanted - side-effects that require an ever-expanding rule set?

Tau very much encourages a particular playstyle since their bonus doesn't kick in until turn 3. Though that is more of a playstyle, regardless of what units you take.

And someone already brought up Orks. If you are doing an Ork shooty list, well you are getting basically nothing from your detachment bonus. Why are you doing an Ork shooty list? Who cares if it is good in 9th?

Should Melee T'au be a thing?
Should Shooty Orks be a thing?

Good question!

...Should Shooty Khorne exist? ...What does that look like?

Do whatever you want...But also some things shouldn't be done, maybe? That's an interesting idea.

But also I'm reminded of Shooty Blood Angels; Do Inceptors and Suppressors gain any benefits by being Blood Angels? No. Do Blood Angels gain any benefits by having Supressors and Inceptors in their army list? Yes. Inceptors and Suppressors are very viable even in a Blood Angels list.

Do Orks benefit from having shooty units in their army list, even thought their army list, doesn't benefit shooty units?

Anyways I digress. The point is that lots of 'detachments' already encourage you to a particular playstyle. As such getting new detachments that work better for different playstyles would only be a positive.

Partial disagree. Because I know that the Detachments wont be balanced.

GW will trick people into buying bad units, because the bonus they get from a Detachment wont be enough bonus. "The Codex does say that, it's still **** and you've wasted your money."
GW will give bonuses to mediocre units that only maintain their mediocrity.
GW will buff strong units into the stratosphere. "This unit was already good, we gave it more bonuses to sell even more models. Anyone who does the thing we are actively incentivising will be labelled as toxic."

At least with one Detachment to take, you know what you're trying to build for. You can't be tricked into making a bad choice and wasting your money. What makes a Faction good or not, is how many ways can you build for that particular...Thing?
Custodes, despite being very strong. IMO, are a **** Faction. Because every time I play Custodes I know I'll be playing exactly the same thing; Because the Custodes Roster just isn't that deep.

Yeah Cheese I think you're assuming that the status quo in Indexhammer is "the one (1) detachment per army doesn't have any winners or losers in that army" but that's simply not true. Yes, the army-building allows you to spam units that you like. But will that be an enjoyable play experience? Often, no. We're NOT starting from a position where "you can take whatever you want" - especially for the 4-5 factions that seem to be monolist right now (Drukhari have one, I think Thousand Sons have 2?). If a new detachment gives them buffs towards a new list, isn't that progress?

For competitive players with large collections and a wide range of interests, yes.

The issue arises for casual players - those who don't understand the game and don't care to. The more options you give them, the more pitfalls they can make when buying models, the more mistakes they can make when writing an army list, the more they get turned off by becoming an invested player. The only way that this doesn't happen, is if GW makes everything usable and good. However I've had my finger on the pulse for about 25 years...Everything being good is antithetical to GW's FOMO-centric business model.

Taking the Tyranid example - there being a "I like big bugs and I cannot lie" doesn't mean that if you play Gants you're doing it Wrong, even if the Big Bugs detachment is better than the Carpet of Bugs detachment, no more than Tyranid Players were Wrong for not doing a Crusher Stampede in its heyday.

If the Monster List is objectively better than the Bug Carpet, and "the meta" can defeat the Bug Carpet easily (How do I hold all of these Sustained Hits!?), then playing Bug Carpet is absolutely the wrong choice and anyone who doesn't play Monster Bugs is, in fact, wrong and wasting their money.

The key takeaway from this, however, is that if your Faction Detachment doesn't support your Faction...You have a bad Faction. The good thing about the Faction Detachments, of which each Faction only gets one; It straight up tells you what your Faction's identity, is, and where they fit in the design space. In my opinion, everything in the entire Roster needs to be built around that core mechanic. That's what that Faction does.

Get Stuck In! doesn't benefit all Orks in the Roster, equally.

- Is the way it works, intentional? Do the designers not want you playing Shooty Orks? Is that...Bad?
- Or, do you accept responsibility. Knowing that Shooty Orks are suboptimal; Do you only take the "Best" Shooty units if you're going to take any at all?

If there will always be "most optimal" choices for a particular army then different detachments increase the number of optimal choices. The choice again is not on individual load-out but at the squad level, which seems to fit the scale of 40k where it currently is.

True.
Again. My...Stance (?)...Is that list-building in 10th Ed., is easy:

- Do you like the model?
- Is it good?

If you can answer "Yes" to both questions...Put it in the army list. There's no consideration for Troops taxes and Detachment limits. There's no consideration for how many Command Points you have. The Design is extremely generous with Enhancements; "Here's 4, choose three. At most only one of the three is wrong.", so it's not like trying to figure out which Relic to take is particularly difficult.

Currently, to determine if a unit is good or not, is extremely easy: "Does it have big numbers on the card?" ...The Traits and abilities on the side of the card just tell you the best way to use the big numbers on the card.

Once you start...Bombarding...Players with multiple options - especially when they don't know the meta - you massively increase the risk of making a mistake - a mistake that costs you money (and time).

- Do you like the model?
- Do you like the model enough that you would be willing to make sacrifices in your army list in order to make the unit functional, let alone good?
- By making these sacrifices, have you ensured that the cost-to-benefit ratio is more efficient than taking something else, and not making sacrifices. Otherwise you may have inadvertently made a list-building error that will cost you several games, some currency, and a lot of time. Is this acceptable?
- Are you 100% certain that the Trait you gained offsets the big numbers on the other Datacards? ...Have you run the spreadsheets? You may have to.

To me, the main problem is the mismatch between GW marketing ("play what you want and have a fun time") and the actual nuts and bolts of the game.

Strong agree.

That's what community is for, helping people get on board and picking an army that fits their playstyle.

The problem is that the game's rules don't support certain playstyles, and when you point that out, people get mad.

Either:
a) The player has already bought a lot of models and has just been told they've wasted their money, and are now very mad that the game sucks.
b) The player wants to get into the hobby, gets told that the game doesn't support the kind of thing they want to do, they get mad that the game sucks.

Don't know what to tell you. The game's rules say that if your gameplan is to Deep Strike-and-Charge, that's going to come with a significant risk - the biggest risk being that most of the time it doesn't work.

Again, I've arrived at; Do whatever you want...But some things you want to do kind of suck. But that's okay. 'Cause it's written on the tin. You knew it sucked before you did it (i.e; Melee T'au, Shooty Khorne).

That's what proxies are for, to try models out before you buy.

That takes hours. Just learn how the game is played, then read a Datacard.
Once you know how the game is played, you can make a decision on a Datacard like that! Any Faction. Any card. If you know the rules of the game, reading Datacards is super easy - barely an inconvenience.

That's what 3D bits are for, to get your money's worth out of dual kits and filling in for units that are sold out or are locked into a Start Collecting box or similar.

3D printing is for...A lot of things.

[Forum Explorer]

The unit is weak. Do you:
a) Buff the Datacard,
b) Decrease the points value,
c) Add an entirely set of new rules that affect not only the unit you're trying to adjust, but several others as well with potentially wanted - and unwanted - side-effects that require an ever-expanding rule set?



Should Melee T'au be a thing?
Should Shooty Orks be a thing?

Good question!

...Should Shooty Khorne exist? ...What does that look like?

Do whatever you want...But also some things shouldn't be done, maybe? That's an interesting idea.

But also I'm reminded of Shooty Blood Angels; Do Inceptors and Suppressors gain any benefits by being Blood Angels? No. Do Blood Angels gain any benefits by having Supressors and Inceptors in their army list? Yes. Inceptors and Suppressors are very viable even in a Blood Angels list.

Do Orks benefit from having shooty units in their army list, even thought their army list, doesn't benefit shooty units?



Partial disagree. Because I know that the Detachments wont be balanced.

GW will trick people into buying bad units, because the bonus they get from a Detachment wont be enough bonus. "The Codex does say that, it's still **** and you've wasted your money."
GW will give bonuses to mediocre units that only maintain their mediocrity.
GW will buff strong units into the stratosphere. "This unit was already good, we gave it more bonuses to sell even more models. Anyone who does the thing we are actively incentivising will be labelled as toxic."

At least with one Detachment to take, you know what you're trying to build for. You can't be tricked into making a bad choice and wasting your money. What makes a Faction good or not, is how many ways can you build for that particular...Thing?
Custodes, despite being very strong. IMO, are a **** Faction. Because every time I play Custodes I know I'll be playing exactly the same thing; Because the Custodes Roster just isn't that deep.





If the Monster List is objectively better than the Bug Carpet, and "the meta" can defeat the Bug Carpet easily (How do I hold all of these Sustained Hits!?), then playing Bug Carpet is absolutely the wrong choice and anyone who doesn't play Monster Bugs is, in fact, wrong and wasting their money.

The key takeaway from this, however, is that if your Faction Detachment doesn't support your Faction...You have a bad Faction. The good thing about the Faction Detachments, of which each Faction only gets one; It straight up tells you what your Faction's identity, is, and where they fit in the design space. In my opinion, everything in the entire Roster needs to be built around that core mechanic. That's what that Faction does.

Get Stuck In! doesn't benefit all Orks in the Roster, equally.

- Is the way it works, intentional? Do the designers not want you playing Shooty Orks? Is that...Bad?
- Or, do you accept responsibility. Knowing that Shooty Orks are suboptimal; Do you only take the "Best" Shooty units if you're going to take any at all?

If it's just one unit, then either buff the datacard or decrease its points. The problem is when it is an entire playstyle that is bad. Then rather than buff each unit slowly (and making them extra powerful because they also get another detachment bonus, even if it doesn't do a lot for them) you can just write a new detachment that benefits units of that playstyle.

Melee Tau, eh maybe, kinda. Basically I'd like for Kroot heavy armies to be a thing which its not and never has been. But a playstyle that is more aggressive then the defensive one they have now would still be nice.

Shooty Orcs certainly. It's been a thing multiple times, Ork players likely have multiple shooty units they'd like to use that are just sorta garbage right now. And with melee being weaker than ever, Ork's gaining a shooty detachment would likely improve their balance as a whole.

Sadly the fact is that Orks mostly don't. Because their shooting is just that bad. Tankbustas are still a thing because +1 to hit and wound vehicles plus weight of shots plus a near total lack of good anti-tank means that Tankbustas are still your best option for killing vehicles. And Mek Guns. Everything else either hits on 5s, is strength 8-9, or both. So 5+ into 5+ isn't likely to do anything against T11+ vehicles.


Things aren't balanced now, and people are still buying bad units with the detachments they have. People always end up buying bad units because some people are bad at math, or they just really like those units regardless of how good they are. Or more likely, they end up buying bad armies and end up with a faction that is just sort of trash. Like Nurgle's aesthetic, and are fresh off reading the Horus Heresy novels? I really hope you aren't expecting to win with those Death Guard you just bought.

Also GW being bad at making balanced rules is A) Kinda my point about them either not knowing their game or being too lazy to bother, and B) not a good argument for them to just do nothing instead.

If things were good, sure I could see the argument to not rock the boat. But things are pretty bad right now, (I'd say its less balanced than the end of 9th) and GW is going to be doing balance changes and adding new detachments regardless. So I'd rather get detachments that encourage new playstyles rather than just 'better' detachments. Though unfortunately, some detachments (Drukhari) are so bad, I can't think of anything that wouldn't be better than what they have.

With only one detachment, you'd better hope that its actually good enough to compete. Otherwise other people's one detachment just leaves you with a bunch of useless models. Because they can't play a weaker detachment to compensate. We've got no flex in the game right now. Things are either amazing or trash and there is so little room inbetween.



The problem with that is you now have a wide range of models that aren't part of your factions 'identity', and thus are garbage and traps. Which will trick people into buying them, because of the multiple reasons that people buy bad models, or they already own them because they are an older player. OR your factions identity is just 'be amazing' and you have no bad options, and your faction is out of control good. Like Eldar. Their ability is reroll one hit and one wound roll. That is always good. Everything in the index benefits from it. Or you have the opposite problem with Drukhari where the detachment identity is the trap. Their bonus is get an additional pain token for the first archon, homunculus, and succubus you bring. Succubi are trash because Wytches are garbage. Homunculi aren't good, because Wracks are best as 5 man suicide squads. And most importantly, it is trivially easy to set things up to gain more Pain Tokens regardless. You don't need more than the initial 3-4.

Basically you are asking 'should every datacard be at least a little viable?' and answering it with NO. I disagree. I do think every model should at least be a little viable instead of being an actively bad choice. And unfortunately I'd say the ratio is really awful right now, with some armies having something like 50% of their index be viable and the rest being trash. With the added problem of it really is a make or break meta right now. Either the unit is good and useful or utter garbage, with only a very few units being able to be said to be merely 'okay'.

[Don Qui Ho Tep]

True.
Again. My...Stance (?)...Is that list-building in 10th Ed., is easy:

- Do you like the model?
- Is it good?

If you can answer "Yes" to both questions...Put it in the army list. There's no consideration for Troops taxes and Detachment limits. There's no consideration for how many Command Points you have. The Design is extremely generous with Enhancements; "Here's 4, choose three. At most only one of the three is wrong.", so it's not like trying to figure out which Relic to take is particularly difficult.

Currently, to determine if a unit is good or not, is extremely easy: "Does it have big numbers on the card?" ...The Traits and abilities on the side of the card just tell you the best way to use the big numbers on the card.

Once you start...Bombarding...Players with multiple options - especially when they don't know the meta - you massively increase the risk of making a mistake - a mistake that costs you money (and time).

- Do you like the model?
- Do you like the model enough that you would be willing to make sacrifices in your army list in order to make the unit functional, let alone good?
- By making these sacrifices, have you ensured that the cost-to-benefit ratio is more efficient than taking something else, and not making sacrifices. Otherwise you may have inadvertently made a list-building error that will cost you several games, some currency, and a lot of time. Is this acceptable?
- Are you 100% certain that the Trait you gained offsets the big numbers on the other Datacards? ...Have you run the spreadsheets? You may have to.

For sure, more options increases the odds that someone picks a bad one, or at least a suboptimal one. And people are always going to make bad financial decisions. Although the onus is on the game developers to provide meaningful choices (not the illusion of choice with trap units), they have either chosen not to or failed to do so. As usual I'm inclined to blame range bloat for too many redundant options (but can't get rid of older kits without disenfranchising people with large collections etc. etc.). Just like any large purchase people should do the research before jumping in. If they find that their experience at the tabletop does not match GW's marketing, that's unfortunate, but also avoidable.

A separate but related problem is people buying good models they like and having a fun 9th list now finding that 10th has made that list unplayable (or at least suboptimal which for some people is the same thing). Proxying is a band aid solution but fundamentally the range rotation is part of GW's business model.