As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

[WH40K] Only in Death Does Nerdrage End.

11314161819105

Posts

  • MaydayMayday Cutting edge goblin tech Registered User regular
    This is available while stocks last - given the quality of the game, and that this is the only place to get the Imperial Assassin miniatures deployable in Warhammer 40,000, we don’t expect these stocks to last long at all! Order Assassinorum Execution Force now to avoid missing out.

    post-996-1220564058.gif

  • TraceofToxinTraceofToxin King Nothing Registered User regular
    Mayday wrote: »
    This is available while stocks last - given the quality of the game, and that this is the only place to get the Imperial Assassin miniatures deployable in Warhammer 40,000, we don’t expect these stocks to last long at all! Order Assassinorum Execution Force now to avoid missing out.

    post-996-1220564058.gif

    "Until we rerelease the models and/or the game in two years"

    Everyday I wake up is the worst day of my life.
  • [Expletive deleted][Expletive deleted] The mediocre doctor NorwayRegistered User regular
    Rumour has it the assassins will be released as clampacks some time later this year. The email I got from GW even says "this is currently the only way to get hold of these sought-after models" (emphasis mine).

    So I wouldn't sweat it.

    Sic transit gloria mundi.
  • MaydayMayday Cutting edge goblin tech Registered User regular
    Oh I don't sweat on the assassins not being available. I'm vomiting all over their marketing stance though.

  • VanguardVanguard But now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Am I the only one who doesn't find the pricing that outrageous? While I don't doubt that the models will be released later in the year, you're probably not going to save any money buying those clamp packs (assuming you snag all 4) versus buying the boxed game.

  • MaydayMayday Cutting edge goblin tech Registered User regular
    edited April 2015
    Yeah, judged as a bunch of GW miniatures, the price is probably ok. Judged as a boardgame, the pricing is pretty outrageous. Compared to Space Hulk (same price) this thing is hardly lavish.

    Mayday on
  • LanlaornLanlaorn Registered User regular
    Anyone seen any reviews of the game itself? Like, is it fun and innovative, lol? My RPG group friends are fairly into the 40k lore, we're even playing in a game of Black Crusade atm, and they're also into board games. I'd pick this up in a heartbeat for some eventual boardgame night if it's cool, but I get the sense that it may just be a cash grab so...?

    Also, when I heard about this I was really hoping the Vindicare model would just be this 52mm one scaled down to 28mm.

    vindicare.jpg

  • DayspringDayspring the Phoenician Registered User regular
    The Vindicare is a bit boring tbh. The other 3 looks pretty sweet.
    Culexus is surprisingly the coolest one I think, despite being goofy as hell in his previous incarnation.

    My Warhammer stuff online: Youtube Twitter Insta
  • BreakfastPMBreakfastPM Registered User regular
    So my 1000 point Dark Eldar list is going to be changing a bit. The Nielsen TV company was kind enough to buy me a box of Scourges (or at least send me the money that I bought them with...)! So I'm dropping the Razorwing for a group of Scourges with a bunch of heavy weapons.

    In other news, holy mold lines! This box has a ton of them!
    ncogvwabnqr5.jpg

  • pawa24pawa24 Registered User regular
    New to the tabletop version of 40k. I've played a lot of Dawn of War 1 and 2. Love Necrons so obviously went with them for my first army.
    This is what I have so far:
    10 Warriors
    5 Immortals
    5 Deathmarks
    1 Overlord
    1 Annilation Barge
    3 Scarabs
    1 Destroyer
    and 2 Ghost/Doomsday Arks coming in the mail.

    Now, what should be my next purchase. Looking at a Decurion, which I guess means I need a squad of Tomb Blades, which I really am not a fan of.
    I'd also really like a whole Destroyer Cult and a Nightbringer.

  • pawa24pawa24 Registered User regular
    Also bought a Dark Vengence box for extra Armies to play with. However its a 6th ed box. Which shouldn't matter since I already have a 7th codex.

  • Mr_RoseMr_Rose 83 Blue Ridge Protects the Holy Registered User regular
    Guys, stupid question, but are Formations hard?
    As in a difficult concept to grasp?
    Because for like two weeks now, basically since the Eldar rumours started dropping, I've been seeing increasing amounts of chatter trying to "explain" how Formations and Detachments work, mostly centred around the War Host detachment. Oddly, the questions seem to have increased since the Decurion was introduced in the Necron codex despite the overall functionality being identical. Whats going on?

    ...because dragons are AWESOME! That's why.
    Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
    DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
  • LanlaornLanlaorn Registered User regular
    The Necron and Eldar codices have complicated formations slightly by essentially allowing you to take a formation of a formation. So the books are full of formations as usual, "take these specific units and get this special bonus", and then an ur-formation like the Decurion or War Host where if you take some one base formation and then your choice of a few other formations you get another special bonus.

    You're right, it's not difficult at all, but it's new and for the most part extremely OP so people like to talk about it.

  • Mr_RoseMr_Rose 83 Blue Ridge Protects the Holy Registered User regular
    While all that is true, I'm thinking more of the "but does my formation unit count towards my Troops requirement" type of question that are coincident to discussion of the super-detachments. Like people are just not getting that formations are separate entities at all…

    ...because dragons are AWESOME! That's why.
    Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
    DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
  • TraceofToxinTraceofToxin King Nothing Registered User regular
    Mr_Rose wrote: »
    While all that is true, I'm thinking more of the "but does my formation unit count towards my Troops requirement" type of question that are coincident to discussion of the super-detachments. Like people are just not getting that formations are separate entities at all…

    People don't seem to grasp that the foc is no longer something we're intended to be restrained by.

    Everyday I wake up is the worst day of my life.
  • McGibsMcGibs TorontoRegistered User regular
    edited April 2015
    It really doesn't help that the nomenclature for all this new FOC stuff is bat-shit for keeping track of. Like, detachments really have no mechanical difference from formations, which I think is where a lot of people get confused. Formations ARE detachments, but then things like the decurions and combined-arms and allies are not formations, but like... just use org slots instead of specific units? Just call them ALL formations or ALL detachments! They're literally the same 'organization block' mechanic.

    They should have just stuck with the name 'Force Organization Chart" and kept it all simple. There's your Standard combined-arms FOC, but then there's all these weird unit-specific ones, and ones with wacky slot-distributions, and special rules and whatever, but they're all FOC's. And you can combine as many of them as you want within the points limit.

    McGibs on
    website_header.jpg
  • VanguardVanguard But now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Played the 1500 point list I posted up thread. I almost won. I think I'm going to drop one melta off each of the Land Speeders for a Heavy Flamer. This gives them a little more versatility and frees up enough points to put Heavy Bolters and Melta Bombs into both of my tac squads.

    The highlight of the game when he sent his entire army at Lysander and my Terminators, something like 70+ attacks, half of the WS5 S5 and Lysander still had wounds to spare (the same could not be said for the Terminators).

  • DayspringDayspring the Phoenician Registered User regular
    Lysander is a beast

    My Warhammer stuff online: Youtube Twitter Insta
  • TraceofToxinTraceofToxin King Nothing Registered User regular
    McGibs wrote: »
    It really doesn't help that the nomenclature for all this new FOC stuff is bat-shit for keeping track of. Like, detachments really have no mechanical difference from formations, which I think is where a lot of people get confused. Formations ARE detachments, but then things like the decurions and combined-arms and allies are not formations, but like... just use org slots instead of specific units? Just call them ALL formations or ALL detachments! They're literally the same 'organization block' mechanic.

    They should have just stuck with the name 'Force Organization Chart" and kept it all simple. There's your Standard combined-arms FOC, but then there's all these weird unit-specific ones, and ones with wacky slot-distributions, and special rules and whatever, but they're all FOC's. And you can combine as many of them as you want within the points limit.

    Formations and detachments are different. Let me break it down.

    Dataslate/datasheet (gw occasionally mixes the terms) - Describes a unit, possible upgrades, cost, etc. Must be in a detachment unless unbound.
    Formation - Combination of 1+ dataslates/formations (formationception), sometimes with additional powers. Does not need to be in a detachment, but can be in some cases for benefits.
    Detachment - Combination of dataslate/sheets and/or formations that provides a buff for following it's restrictions rather than playing unbound.

    The confusion is people being married to the idea of standard detachments and not understanding that the game is now designed with unbound as it's core organization mechanic, with all forms of detachments (Combined arms, allied, decurion, or warhost) providing buffs for their "limitations". If you teach someone unbound (bring whatever dataslate/formation you want) as standard, then explain they can use detachments and the benefits they provide, while following their restrictions, it's way less confusing.

    Everyday I wake up is the worst day of my life.
  • McGibsMcGibs TorontoRegistered User regular
    edited April 2015
    What I'm saying is that mechanically there's like no difference between the two. They could have easily fallen into the same type of organizational thing (take X units or slot-type of units, and get Y special rules), but were broken up into weird subtypes because... games workshop.

    Has anyone here actually played with unbound at all? Whenever I think up something dumb to run unbound, I can never quite bring myself to go for it. The lie of the FOC is still too strong...

    McGibs on
    website_header.jpg
  • [Expletive deleted][Expletive deleted] The mediocre doctor NorwayRegistered User regular
    I only play with friends, and I almost always play unbound. I really like it. It lets me take a only units I like, rather than units I don't like. I don't like painting troops (not particularly fond of it in general, in fact, mostly due to the fact that it takes so bloody long for a single model), so the less troops (or guys in general) I have to take, the better.

    I mostly lose, though, since we play Maelstrom of War, and I tend to bring too few guys.

    I recommend trying out unbound when you're playing for funsies with friends to get a feel for it. I got to try my all daemon prince army (vs 3 knights + 3 centurions; I won, but wasn't maelstrom), or my speedy chaos army with just bikers, bikerlords/sorcerers, spawn and a heldrake (vs a bound ultrasmurfs army; I lost).

    Sic transit gloria mundi.
  • pawa24pawa24 Registered User regular
    As a new player, I kinda get the Necron Decurian. You have to take the core formation of Warriors, Immortals and Tomb Blades, and then you can add on a Royal Court, and up to 10 of the other formations such as a Destroyer Cult. What I find funny is that Deathmarks and a C'tan are their own formation.

    At least, I think that's how it works. Correct me if I'm wrong.

  • TraceofToxinTraceofToxin King Nothing Registered User regular
    McGibs wrote: »
    What I'm saying is that mechanically there's like no difference between the two. They could have easily fallen into the same type of organizational thing (take X units or slot-type of units, and get Y special rules), but were broken up into weird subtypes because... games workshop.

    Has anyone here actually played with unbound at all? Whenever I think up something dumb to run unbound, I can never quite bring myself to go for it. The lie of the FOC is still too strong...

    When they first launched they were more clearly different, but GW being GW failed to really understand their own system and released shit like the formations made of formations, which rightfully should have been detachments.

    My most common playing partner and I play with whatever we want (Generally taking detachments because the buffs are so strong, but not always) and it's fine. The game has become so fast and loose unbound isn't a big deal, in fact whatever small advantage you can get in straight power efficiency you often lose with rules like objective secured, which makes shit like drop pod marines absurdly strong in anything maelstrom based.

    Everyday I wake up is the worst day of my life.
  • MaydayMayday Cutting edge goblin tech Registered User regular
    Oh and also:
    LAS50DFG41_SEG57E.jpg

  • OgotaiOgotai Registered User regular
    There are some guys I have no problem playing unbound as they are using it to make thematic lists or to make thematic list that are not complete shit at the game (I should do this more myself as GW tends to completely ignore my armies for all the formation/detachment stuff).

    There are also a lot of people around here who I will not play unbound with because it will end up being nothing but the most under costed units from several books thrown together. But you can make a bound army with 5 flyrants now for example and there are not many more dickish unbound list I can come up with than that.

    In theory malestrom could balance it out but GW's rules for that are so bad that who wins is determined buy who draws the best hand turn 1 or some one getting tabled every time I play it. House rules or ITC missions fix that but those list that abuse unbound (or bound too) also tend to be good at malestrom when I run into them (summoning being a big part of that but not the only reason).

  • honoverehonovere Registered User regular
    pawa24 wrote: »
    As a new player, I kinda get the Necron Decurian. You have to take the core formation of Warriors, Immortals and Tomb Blades, and then you can add on a Royal Court, and up to 10 of the other formations such as a Destroyer Cult. What I find funny is that Deathmarks and a C'tan are their own formation.

    At least, I think that's how it works. Correct me if I'm wrong.

    basically yes.

    The Deathmarks for example are not a formation, they just fill a slot in the Decurion the same way that the other formations do, but they are just a unit. Only datasheets/unit entries with the formation symbol (the three skulls in the corner) are actual formations. The difference between those two is that formation can also be taken on their own. You could have an army that consisted only of a Destroyer Cult formation, but you can't have an army that consists only of a unit of Deathmarks. (Unless you go unbound of course)

  • Mr_RoseMr_Rose 83 Blue Ridge Protects the Holy Registered User regular
    When they first launched they were more clearly different, but GW being GW failed to really understand their own system and released shit like the formations made of formations, which rightfully should have been detachments.
    The Decurion and War Host are Detachments. You can't take them in an Unbound army.

    ...because dragons are AWESOME! That's why.
    Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
    DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
  • McGibsMcGibs TorontoRegistered User regular
    I rest my case. :p

    website_header.jpg
  • Dr_KeenbeanDr_Keenbean Dumb as a butt Planet Express ShipRegistered User regular
    I have played 40k for 24 years but I haven't really been paying attention lately.

    And now I have zero fucking clue what's going on.

    PSN/NNID/Steam: Dr_Keenbean
    3DS: 1650-8480-6786
    Switch: SW-0653-8208-4705
  • honoverehonovere Registered User regular
    Detachments gives you a choice of units you can use to build a battleforged army. Formations are detachments that give you no choice in what units you take. That is the only difference.

  • McGibsMcGibs TorontoRegistered User regular
    Except some of them give you a choice. 0-4 of X, 2-4 of Y. And then some detachments are made up of multiple formations.

    website_header.jpg
  • TraceofToxinTraceofToxin King Nothing Registered User regular
    Mr_Rose wrote: »
    When they first launched they were more clearly different, but GW being GW failed to really understand their own system and released shit like the formations made of formations, which rightfully should have been detachments.
    The Decurion and War Host are Detachments. You can't take them in an Unbound army.

    I never said they were formations, I was referring to the Tyranid and Ork formations made of formations, which should have been detachments. You can take anything in unbound.

    Everyday I wake up is the worst day of my life.
  • Sharp101Sharp101 TorontoRegistered User regular
    edited April 2015
    I don't know why people have so many issues with the new army selection rules.

    To make a bound/battleforged army; take any number of formations or detachments you want restricted by the allies table and the amount of points you are playing.

    Any further rules/restrictions/choices are explained in the details of the formation or detachment you are choosing.

    It's really not hard?

    Sharp101 on
  • DayspringDayspring the Phoenician Registered User regular
    I'm one of those confused dumbasses, but like Keen i've not really been paying attention recently.
    If i took a bound Dark Eldar force and wanted to add Harlequin allies, the only way to do it is by using formations, right? Because they have no HQ so it's either Formations or unbound, and you can't have unbound allies to a bound main force.
    Am i getting that right?

    My Warhammer stuff online: Youtube Twitter Insta
  • WoozlWoozl Registered User regular
    Dayspring wrote: »
    I'm one of those confused dumbasses, but like Keen i've not really been paying attention recently.
    If i took a bound Dark Eldar force and wanted to add Harlequin allies, the only way to do it is by using formations, right? Because they have no HQ so it's either Formations or unbound, and you can't have unbound allies to a bound main force.
    Am i getting that right?

    Correct. Harlequins are particularly restricted in this regard.

  • Sharp101Sharp101 TorontoRegistered User regular
    edited April 2015
    Dayspring wrote: »
    I'm one of those confused dumbasses, but like Keen i've not really been paying attention recently.
    If i took a bound Dark Eldar force and wanted to add Harlequin allies, the only way to do it is by using formations, right? Because they have no HQ so it's either Formations or unbound, and you can't have unbound allies to a bound main force.
    Am i getting that right?

    Just like anything else, you add Harlequins to you list by using one of the formations or detachments in their codex.

    A bound/battleforged list is made up of any number of detachments, formations and/or dataslates from any codex/rulebook.

    So my Dark Eldar list, for example, has 1 Combined Arms Detachment, 1 Dark Artisan Formation and one Grotesquerie Formation.

    If you want DE + Harlequins, pick whatever combination of DE detachments/formations you want, and add whatever Harlequins detachments/formations you want.

    You can have as many or as few detachments/formations/dataslates you want, the only restrictions are the Allies table and the points value you are playing at.

    It's very easy.


    edit: To answer your specific situation further "is the only way to do it is by using formations?" The only way to make any battleforged 40k army is using detachments/formations/dataslates. Even if you just take a standard 1HQ/2Troops FoC army, that is still an army made from detachments. Just in this case it's a single Combined Arms Detachment..

    These are the detachments/formations available to DE and Harlequins:
    DE
    • Combined Arms Detachment
    • Allied Detachment
    • Realspace Raiders Detachment
    • Covenite Coterie Detachment
    • Kabalite Raiding Party Formation
    • Grotesquerie Formation
    • Scarlet Epicureans Formation
    • Scalpel Squadron Formation
    • Corpsethief Claw Formation
    • Dark Artisan Claw Formation
    • Covenite Fleshcorps Formation
    • Carnival of Pain Formation

    Harlequins
    • Masque Detachment
    • Cegorach’s Revenge Formation
    • Serpent’s Brood Formation
    • Cast of Players Formation
    • Cegorach’s Jest Formation
    • Heroes’ Path Formation
    • Faolchú’s Blade Formation

    So pick any number of the list above, following the rules for each detachment/formation, and you will have a DE + Harlequin army.

    Want an army that is just 4 Corpsethief Claw Formations? Go for it. 1x Realspace Raiders detachment and 2x Cegorach’s Jest formations? Sure. Any combination works!

    Sharp101 on
  • Mr_RoseMr_Rose 83 Blue Ridge Protects the Holy Registered User regular
    Mr_Rose wrote: »
    When they first launched they were more clearly different, but GW being GW failed to really understand their own system and released shit like the formations made of formations, which rightfully should have been detachments.
    The Decurion and War Host are Detachments. You can't take them in an Unbound army.

    I never said they were formations, I was referring to the Tyranid and Ork formations made of formations, which should have been detachments. You can take anything in unbound.

    I wasn't aware of those ork/type rabid ones. Are they from supplements?
    Also, you may be able to take any combination of units in an unbound army but you can't benefit from Detachment special rules, just Formation ones. That's basically the entirety of the difference between the two though.

    ...because dragons are AWESOME! That's why.
    Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
    DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
  • TraceofToxinTraceofToxin King Nothing Registered User regular
    Mr_Rose wrote: »
    Mr_Rose wrote: »
    When they first launched they were more clearly different, but GW being GW failed to really understand their own system and released shit like the formations made of formations, which rightfully should have been detachments.
    The Decurion and War Host are Detachments. You can't take them in an Unbound army.

    I never said they were formations, I was referring to the Tyranid and Ork formations made of formations, which should have been detachments. You can take anything in unbound.

    I wasn't aware of those ork/type rabid ones. Are they from supplements?
    Also, you may be able to take any combination of units in an unbound army but you can't benefit from Detachment special rules, just Formation ones. That's basically the entirety of the difference between the two though.

    Yes, they are from the starter boxes and supplements.

    So, after carefully rereading all the primary text twice, I wrote a description of why detachments are allowed in unbound armies, but then reading the formations sidebar I noticed a single passing line which clarifies the ambiguity of the primary text. So yes, you are correct, you cannot take detachments, at all (except formations, which are a special detachment), in unbound. Glad GW put the defining sentence regarding the use of detachments in the formations sidebar.

    Everyday I wake up is the worst day of my life.
  • DayspringDayspring the Phoenician Registered User regular
    So tbh when 7th first hit I dismissed unbound completely, but I think when my Marines are done I'll be going back to my Slaanesh for an unbound list. Seems much better from a theme/hobby standpoint

    My Warhammer stuff online: Youtube Twitter Insta
  • leafleaf Registered User regular
    Cripes now I've got to rework my entire chaos list to make it actually work again. Or maybe not I don't think there's been a new update to it really using formations like the rest of the armies.

    I can't imagine how pissed I'd have been if I'd made my movement trays for them in third instead of fifth, and suddenly had trays of eight for no reason.

    newsig-notweed.jpg
This discussion has been closed.