Why would you ever take a Brigade when you can just use 3 Battalion

>>53465100
Maybe your HQs and Troops are really expensive and/or really shit and you'd rather take as few of them as possible?

>>53465100
There might be a limit to how many detachments you can take in matched play.

>>53465187
So take really cheap ones, you're still saving points over a Brigade. Batallions only force you to take troops, which you'd have to take anyway. A Brigade forces you to take heavy support even if you don't want any, etc.

>>53465100
Because it's quite possible you DON'T want 9 troops and 6 HQ, while 6 and 3 are more reasonable.

>>53465228
But then you have to take 3 elites, 3 fast attack, and 3 heavy support instead.

3 troops choices are going to be a lot cheaper than those.

It might also be possible that there are some abilities, command points or other affects that only apply to units from a particular detachment.

>>53465212
>>53465255
Lets hope so, otherwise they're letting people who don't know basic math do the writing again.

>>53465218
I play Thousand Sons, I don't know what the term "cheap" means.

>>53465100
>>53465218
So the answer is, because you're already taking 2 elites, fast attack, and heavy support anyway, and you don't want to take all those extra troops and hqs for no reason?

Also, I'm pretty sure a lot of armies will find it cheaper to buy 2 heavy supports than that many troops and HQs. To use Tau as an example, 3 of the cheapest hqs is 150, and 3 troops is another 150 on top of that.

A pair of Sniper drone teams or broadsides will run you 120

>>53465252
And for some armies it's possible you'll WANT to take those anyways.
They're options. Neither is inherently better than the other. One forces you to take more troops and HQ, one forces you to take more of the specialist stuff. Both ways give you the same Command Points either way. You use whichever method is better for you, personally.

>>53465252
>3 troops and 3 hqs are going to be more expensive than 3 heavy supports

Ftfy. Unless you're playing guard or something, but then you probably already had 3 heavy support.

>>53465317
protip: 3+3+3=9

minimum units required to purchase = 15
must buy 3 hqs and 3 troops more than a battalion
get access to way more unit slots
not required to buy any units other than troops and hqs, and only required to buy a few more than a brigade

there is no reason, from what we've seen, to take a brigade

>>53465344
Were you going to take 0 fast attack, 0 elites, and 0 heavy support?
If so, then yes, three battalions is a better option than a brigade for you, since you get nothing out of the brigade with your mass of troops and HQs.
But most people are going to have a mix of all three of those types - sometimes already hitting the limit, depending on the army - so for them it's 'I just need one more than what I was taking before' or even no changes at all, beyond the extra troops/HQ (which are less than what multiple Battalions require)

>>53465344
What are you trying to say? That you're taking 0 elites, fast attack, or heavy support, so that the 6 xombined tax of us and troops is less than the 9 combined tax for the others?

In that case, the situations where you want the bigger one are the situations where you have an actual army and not just a pile of troops

>>53465382
>>53465385
3 Battalions is going to cost way less points than 1 Brigade, because the minimum unit spend is 3 less units.

You will have way more points left over to buy Heavy Support, Elites, and Fast Attack choices after fulfilling minimum unit choices as a result of taking 3 Battalions.

I could say the same thing back. Are you not going to take any troops? Of course you are, you have to do it anyway. You might as well take a few more Troops and HQs and as a result not be required to take anything you don't want to.

>>53465100

Because you already plan on including 3 elites, 3 fast attack, and 3 heavy support?

A Brigade (3 HQ, 6 Troops, 3 Elites, 3 Fast Attack, and 3 Heavy Support) and a Battalion with 2 HQ and 3 Troops gives you 12 points a requires 1 fewer HQ.

>>53465252

>3 troops choices are going to be a lot cheaper than those.

Even if that ends up being true, so what? Taking unit tax isn't worth extra command points.

That's the beauty of command points, actually. They really aren't powerful enough to justify min-maxing for them. Do they provide advantages? Sure, to a good tactician. Bit being able to re-roll 1's every now again or whatever really isn't all that game-breaking. Building an effective and efficient list is more important for winning games then stacking command points.

>>53465425
No, it isn't going to cost less once you actually start taking stufd

>>53465473
completely ignoring a morale test is the only thing that is going to save some armies

>>53465425
Your mentality is backwards.

You take a Battalion when you want to take fewer Troops and HQs.

>>53465425
Because I don't want to be spending an extra 330 points (before upgrades) on HQs that are worth a damn while being called a cheesey shit for doing it

Because for instance, an Admech list is going to be 100% down with 3 HS units, a few Dragoons and Secutarii rather than including an extra three useless Enginseers or spending 300pts on Domini. Sure, they like troops, but normally I'm rocking that much shit anyway in a game that size.

>>53465425
You may be correct, but -only-- in regards to armies that can churn out dirt cheap HQ and Troop Choices. The majority of armies are unlikely to reach 3 Battalions, even in a larger match, without really sinking a whole lot of their points into HQ and Troops choices.

8th ed seems to be swinging back in favour of Horde/Infantry a little, which I'm a fan of, but not everyone will (or even can) play that card. Armies like Space Marines, Chaos or Eldar are going to go for a Brigade rather than a Battalion.

We're also assuming that once you farm CP they can be spent on any unit, rather than being restricted to the units they were farmed from.

What I'm getting is, in summary, if all you want is 9 command points then yes, go for the 3 battalions.
But if you if you want to build an army by picking units you actually want to take, like a sane person would, then figure out whether it's cheaper to pad out on extra troops and HQs, or whatever other slots you need for a brigade.

Not exactly complicated.

>>53465100
>have enough infantry models for a SoB brigade
>only have 7 immolators and 2 exorcists

File: splam.png (52KB, 937x740px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 937x740px

Here's what OP's argument is in an easier to understand format.

The 3 Battalions choice gives you way more choices, and forces you to take way less, for the same benefit. Overall you have to purchase 6 units you otherwise might not if you take 3 Battalions, whereas you have to purchase 9 units you otherwise might not if you take a Brigade.

There's nothing stopping you taking Fast Attacks, Heavy Support and Elites after selecting required units, and you can actually choose a lot more of specific units. If you wanted, say, 6 flyers, you can do that. If you wanted a whole bunch of Elites, you can do that too. You have less obligations, at the expense of purchasing more troops and hqs, but overall, this is 3 less obligatory units, leading to you having acquired 9 Command Points for less points.

>>53465545
the point seems to be that if you're willing to take a few more troops and hqs than the minimum requirement for a brigade, then there's no point to ever take a brigade

if you absolutely refuse to put more than 3hq 6troops on the board, and absolutely must have anything other than troops and hqs, then a brigade is for you, but pretty much everyone else would benefit from battalions instead. they have only one draw back and multiple benefits.

>>53465695
Except he also asked why you would ever take a Brigade, and the answer there is if you were already taking enough elites or fast attack or heavy support that the taxa of filling the other slots is less than buying more troops. If you already have 3 elites, 3 fast attack, and 2 heavy support, then buying 1 more tank is cheaper than 3 squads of troops and 3 hqs

>>53465757
Yeah, there's a grey area in the middle between minimum purchases and filling the detachments completely where in some situations it is better to take a Brigade.

>>53465695
Not necessarily.

A Battalion could take 2 1 HQ 1 Troop 2 Flyer "Support" Patrols if it wanted at total of 6 Flyers and already had the 3 Elites 3 Fast Attack and 3 Heavy Support. 1 less HQ and Troop needed that way.

>>53465823
Woops that should be a Brigade not a Battalion.

>>53465787
The only times 3 battalions are actually BETTER than 1 brigade, rather than simply being a different way of doing it, is when you're either already wanting to take excessive numbers of troops and HQs, no Elites/FA/HS at all, or 6+ Elites/FA/HS
Number of fliers is actually irrelevant because you can just take an Air Wing detachment if you want 3 or more and get an extra command point for that

>>53465100

What if there was a Highlander restriction on detachments? As in, you can only have one of any given detachment.

>>53465862
>6+ Elites/FA/HS

Even then Vanguard (1-2 HQ 3-6 Elites), Spearhead (1-2 HQ and 3-6 Heavy Support) or Outrider (1-2 HQ and 3-6 Fast Attack) Detachments would be better for that. You would get +1 CP for each of those.

Knowing about them, a Brigade becomes 2 Battalions, a Vanguard, a Spearhead and an Outrider combination that is 4 HQs cheaper.

>>53465995
So... there's no point in taking a Brigade.

Did no one realize this when writing this shit?

>>53466039
As I pointed out the Brigade frees up 4 HQs.

3 HQs make up a Supreme Command detachment for +1 CP.

File: 18766596_1450047775061378_1811608688585998445_o.jpg (154KB, 676x960px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 676x960px

One of 2 pages the OP didn't post.

File: 18622496_1450047701728052_6793844457354700884_n.jpg (172KB, 755x960px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 755x960px

Other page that wasn't posted.

>>53466099
>no limitation on number of detachments
>can take unlimited number of fortification networks
>1-3 per detachment
>for what purpose?

File: 1495934363686.png (311KB, 441x705px) Image search: [Google]

311KB, 441x705px

>>53465100

The real question is do we actually need 9 troops, or just 6 for a better battalion?

File: 14352.png (20KB, 616x264px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 616x264px

>>53466204

>>53466204
You want to represent a siege?

>>53465100

>tfw only have enough models to do a patrol detachment

>>53466204
Matched play might not be unlimited detachments, knowing the guys from Frontline gaming will use the matched play to run the tournaments from now on Im willing to bet that it will be limited to two detachments per army.

>>53466204
Probably for tournament rules that may put a cap on the number of detatchments you can take

File: BritInfBttnTOE.gif (321KB, 1965x1670px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 1965x1670px

Does an anyone else find it funny that the brigade is the size of a battalion.

>>53466468
Well the Battalion detachment is the size of a company.

>>53465491

Completely ignoring a morale test *may* save an army *sometimes*, at absolute best. Nice to have, not essential.

>>53465100
Doubt you're going to be allowed to take multiples of your primary attachment anon, at least unless you're allying a few different codexes together.

>>53465212
>>53465255

These two are what came to my mind.

The rules that are out there remind me of the AoS rules in that all they do is tell you how to go about playing in general. The matched play portion of the rulebook will I imagine go into various restrictions and rules such as having to put aside a certain number of points for any summoning you want to do.

>>53466782

>such as having to put aside a certain number of points for any summoning you want to do.

Already previewed and confirmed

Triple Battalion is for Da Orks!

So many boyz and bosses in Trukks!

>>53466286

I cannot possibly imagine this is the case. If you want a LoW then you can literally only take a LoW and one detachment. Even in the current ITC rules it is 3 detachments. I fully imagine there will be a limit but 2 seems utterly inflexible.

>>53466853

I'm aware, but from the rule leaks I saw it is not mentioned anywhere. Likely because how it is handled depends on what type of game mode you're playing.

>>53466928

Why are you counting on rule leaks when it is specifically mentioned and confirmed on the community page?

File: forging-narrative.gif (344KB, 400x196px) Image search: [Google]

344KB, 400x196px

>>53466099
>make an army of HQs, LoWs, Flyers and Fortifications
>take anything else and you get penalized for it

>>53466984

A) That army already effectively existed in 7th.

B) You have no idea if any of the detachments will be compulsory or limited.

>>53467011
>A) That army already effectively existed in 7th.

I thought 8e was suppose to be better than 7e.

>B) You have no idea if any of the detachments will be compulsory or limited.

Neither do you, so we can just go with what we're told. If we can't comment on what we're being told, what's the point of this thread?

>>53466984

Sure but you're down command points compared to a more 'normal' army.

>>53466970

The leaks of the basic rules for playing. It matters because the points for summoning seemingly not being mentioned there despite being a thing means they will likely be under the matched play rules.

>>53467048

I don't know what to tell you if you seriously thought GW was going to do away with the idea that people couldn't build the armies they want. That kind of the whole reason why they invented open, narrative, and matched play. When they didn't make it clear that unbound was simply an alternative way to play you had a bunch of people screeching over nothing.

>>53467048
Because that army that existed in 7th came with free benefits when you take a Librarius Conclave and a Riptide wing or whatever.

Now instead you end up with a handful of command points while anyone who actually builds a normal army will get more

>>53467085

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/12/new-warhammer-40000-points-power-levels-may12gw-homepage-post-4/

Here you go buddy. Since I don't think you can read well.

>In matched play, your points will be capped across the whole game. So if you’re planning to summon units to the battlefield, you will need to set points aside to do this.

>>53467098
Not the point.
The point is that someone who, say, doesn't know about the Warhammer Community spoilers wouldn't know about the summoning caps just by reading the book, because it's apparently not in the book.
Yes, we know it's the case you need to set aside points. But it's not stated in the main rulebook that this is so, which means it's probably in a different book. And so might OTHER rules involving matched play. Because they did similar with AoS.

>>53467048

>I thought 8e was suppose to be better than 7e.

It is because in your weird corner case of building an army out of specific detachments and not using the ones that grant you access to other units means you won't have as many command points as I do. Also we don't know how fliers work and we know characters aren't as good as they used to be because they can't join units.

>>53467098

No, it's you that apparently lacks reading comprehension or can't be bothered to follow a conversation.

The topic of the thread is what is stopping you from taking multiple detachments because the rules leak that happened yesterday doesn't touch upon the subject at all. It also doesn't touch upon the fact that you have to pay points if you want to summon units, something we know is a part of matched play from the community page. Ergo there could be restrictions on detachments and other rules alongside the summoning rules under matched play. That is how it is in AoS where matched play contains not only the rules on summoning, but also how you go about making an army in a structured manner and little things like monsters not benefiting from a cover save modifier.

>>53465100
What do command points even do? What I can see is that you can buy some benefits like a single re-roll and shit with them? How game changing are these going to be on the long run vs. making an army with less command points and more selective units?

>>53467217
You use them as you need them rather than purchasing them beforehand.

>>53466099
>Super heavy auxiliary detachment
>Wraithknight
>Wraithknight
>Wraithknight

I just made a viable army, kek.

>>53467139

We haven't even seen the rules in the book about creating armies so you can't possibly say those rules are or are not in the rulebook.

>>53467178

See above - we lack the context to state those rules are or are not in a specific part of a book.

>>53467217

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/14/new-warhammer-40000-stratagems-may14gw-homepage-post-4/

Certain missions also come with specific stratagems and I believe it has been confirmed that one of the bonuses for restricting yourself to, for example Blood Angels instead of all Imperial units, is that you'll get access to additional army specific stratagems.

>>53467225
Sure, I get that, I'm just wondering just how useful a basic CAD army with a few re-rolls is gonna be against an army that gets to skim the cream off the top but doesn't care about command points.

I dunno, time will tell. I just hope there isn't going to be some fuck-ups we don't know about. And that 30k would adopt 8e soon. The fact they're making their own rulebook with 7e rules (and FW's track record of releasing books fast and on time) makes me thing think we might get 9e before 30k gets done in 8e.

>>53467257
Will it actually be a good army though? I suspect that they'll nerf WKs like nothing else.

>>53467332

Ultimately it will depend on how good stratagems are. Re-rolls and ignoring battle shock are very helpful but we'll have to see the more faction specific options to have a really solid idea.

That said we know at least one allows you to discard a maelstrom card and re-draw which is a big deal.

>>53466984
You only get penalized if you have "loose" detachments. (i.e. a single out of faction HQ, Troop Elite, FA, HS, Flyer or Transport)

>>53467392
There is also counter-offensive (an eligible unit can fight out of order after an enemy unit that charges fights) in the list of common strategems alongside Command Re-roll (reroll any single die) and Insane Bravery (can spend 2 CP to auto pass a Morale check instead of rolling).

>>53465374
>there is no reason, from what we've seen, to take a brigade
to have less required choices.

plus you're likely taking a bunch of FA elites and HS units anyway so they're not going to be a tax.

>>53465425
of you're trying to save points to buy several FA, Elite and HS units then the brigade has the cheaper requirments. You'll already be taking the other units so the fact you need to is of no relevance.

>>53466111
Sweet, I can just get Gangs of Commorragh, convert up an HQ and have an army

I'm curious as to how SoS cadres will fit into the new FoC

File: ss+(2017-05-28+at+12.50.02).png (27KB, 607x167px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 607x167px

>>53465212
>>53466782

There are. It's been already confirmed.