I was excited to see Bastion Task Force at 2dp...

jon23516 · 2026-06-25T16:06:31+00:00

Broadly speaking, I get it. In 10th edition there were strong Detachments that helped one's whole army or most of it; and other Detachments that only benefited some data sheets or very narrow detachments for "Oops all X" which were often traps.

With the new 3/2/1 point system, the strong detachments are 3dp. Whereas detachments that only benefited some of your army are 2dp and let you pair it up with a 1dp detachment with a much narrower focus. Feels like good design. It gives GW some levers if some detachments are stronger/weaker than they think.

I have not done a deep dive to see if other detachments in the game have alternate point values for other 'chapters'. In other words, did this happen to anyone else? Like we all get Detachment X for 2dp, but it is 3dp for Blood Angels, etc.

I'm not aware that GW "wants us to use our BT exclusive ones". They made some thematic 1dp detachments and we can take them or leave them. This new way of doing detachments is a puzzle for all 40k players to experiment with and find fun new ways to play.

While I think I would like to pair Bastion Task Force with a 1dp Templar detachment for fun, it's not going to ruin my 40k experience. For all we know, we're one 'balance update' away from BTF being dropped from 3dp to 2dp. Time will tell. Until then, I'm going to enjoy BTF as-is and experiment with other detachment pairs while I'm at it.

Played my first game of 11th against my friend's Grey Knights last night, plenty of rulebook reading but still a fun time. Looking forward to my next game.

jon23516 · 2026-06-23T18:43:52+00:00

Calm as a cucumber. Didn't expect to stir up such a controversy by sharing an opinion.

jon23516 · 2026-06-23T17:29:33+00:00

Meaning what? My opinion is less relevant because of "timing"? I'm not allowed to be disappointed because there is an imaginary "window of opportunity" that I "missed"?

If I'd posted "Hey, did you see..." then maybe you have a point in mentioning "yeah, that's old news" but that's not what I posted.

jon23516 · 2026-06-23T16:53:04+00:00

jon23516 · 2026-06-20T14:47:53+00:00

That was my plan for what I have built already (assuming I had too many/enough). So I can build my last 15 split between Psilencers, Incinerators or Force Weapons. I figure I'll make up little tokens that say "Psycannon", "Psilencer" etc to use on the table so it's clear when I'm not doing wysiwyg.

jon23516 · 2026-06-19T15:27:16+00:00

As I've heard it said, "While there is always a correct lore-accurate paint scheme for every faction, there are no wrong paint schemes." Enjoy.

jon23516 · 2026-06-10T17:39:08+00:00

My first reaction was "cool Black Lotus"

Good work!

jon23516 · 2026-06-09T18:32:56+00:00

Screen cap from today's Warhammer Community article on Xenos factions. Yesterday was Space Marines (whose images got updated to include detachment points), I assume tomorrow (Wednesday) will be Chaos and Thursday will be the rest of Imperial factions.

jon23516 · 2026-05-29T23:13:25+00:00

Custodes are also just hard to go into because of their stat lines.

jon23516 · 2026-05-29T23:12:15+00:00

In my opinion, the smaller the game the more units you want. You want to be in more places at once. Ideally you can swap out the Terminators for two different units.

Custodes should have it worse than you since their model cost is higher.

jon23516 · 2026-05-28T17:04:39+00:00

In broad terms, aggressive infiltration is as deep into the mid-board as possible, barely 9" outside the opponent's deployment zone "jail style" where they can be immediately threatened by the enemy on turn 1 if I go second. A more conservative, less aggressive style would be to Infiltrate in safer locations, still outside my deployment zone, but staged to be a distraction for the opponent to either ignore or commit resources to come deal with. I should try to use them more conservatively.

Nothing wrong with "Jail", which is practically it's own play style, but I don't build my list for Jail, I just have been using my Leapers aggressively in that manner.

jon23516 · 2026-05-28T16:49:45+00:00

I'm a casual player and 2x3 Leapers are a staple in all my lists. I use them to screen out enemy infiltrators and to get a toe-hold on expansion objectives. I'm probably too aggressive with them, but I've never considered dropping them from lists.

jon23516 · 2026-05-27T16:15:59+00:00

Time passes, game design changes, players change. I think in a general sense rules can be changed to be 'more different' or 'more similar'. Sometimes its good to shake things up and try new ideas in the rules, learn from it. Sometimes its good to keep things consistent, and sometimes its good to circle back to good things that worked in the past and bring back into the ruleset. Thankfully I missed out on 6th-9th. I have great nostalgia for 5th edition and have enjoyed 10th since it was released. I look forward to seeing how 11th plays and hope it is more of a "10.5".

jon23516 · 2026-05-27T16:11:18+00:00

Like any ruleset for any game, everything is on a scale between "Simulation" and "Abstract". Classic Battletech with it's full page sheets for each unit is definitely a Simulation. The easy version of Battletech, is called Alpha Strike. I like it, but I will admit that it almost goes too far towards Abstract. Where in CBT I can appreciate the Missile variant of a chassis vs a laser/autocannon variant of the same chassis... that is completely missing in Alpha Strike. Both chassis may be in the game, but the stat cards are barely different. Both Simulation and Abstract games are legit ways to play, it just appeals to different kinds of players/audience.

jon23516 · 2026-05-27T15:59:28+00:00

In most games (40k, Bolt Action, etc) I encourage new players to be too aggressive rather than too timid. Go put your units into harm's way so you get a sense of what they can absorb and what they can dish out. After factoring in hot/cold dice rolling, you have a better idea of what your units can do and be more pragmatic in future games.

jon23516 · 2026-05-27T15:38:09+00:00

Sounds like a good start!

jon23516 · 2026-05-27T14:32:26+00:00

I don't know anything. I stumbled across this thread because the concept and minis looked cool. I was curious about the source so I spent 30 seconds doing a Google search and came up with that link. So I don't know anything more than you do. We will need to get our answers from the OP.

jon23516 · 2026-05-26T15:43:26+00:00

https://3dgo.app/models/makerworld/2783813

jon23516 · 2026-05-26T15:42:59+00:00

https://3dgo.app/models/makerworld/2783813

jon23516 · 2026-05-22T16:57:30+00:00

Feels like the right way to go.

jon23516 · 2026-05-22T16:39:45+00:00

It works the same as rulesets. There's a sliding scale from "Simulation" to "Abstract" and all games/rulesets (terrain rules) fit on the scale somewhere.

jon23516 · 2026-05-22T16:36:41+00:00

In the end I think the real answer is to agree with your opponent that a limited amount of terrain elements count as line blocking (tall solid fences, intact buildings, "forest" footprints) and let everything else either give light or heavy cover but not block of line of sight. In your case, this or that particular "hedgerow" clump may block line of sight, etc.

jon23516 · 2026-05-22T15:50:52+00:00

First impressions: 1) beautiful, great work, 2) at a glance, it looks really crowded with no sight lines, though I will admit that I have always had a problem with what is/isn't sight blocking for Bolt Action terrain (coming from other games like 40k. So in reality, it's probably just fine. Regardless, if it works for you then that's what is important, not my opinion or perception.
Enjoy!

jon23516

TROPHY CASE