I've always enjoyed mono codex more anyway, so not going to change a lot on my list building.
I'm not sure how my detachments will work, it seems like it's still open to interpretation HOW command points unlock detachments (mono-codex vs allies) so I'll have to wait and see. I play Grey Knights, Imperial Knights, and Custodes so I'm not filling out a full 3 detachments anyway.
Seems like the new system will work in reverse compared to now: you spend CP to use extra detachments, rather than getting more CP per detachment. I suspect the first detachment is free (pretty sure they mentioned that on stream) but probably only if it's a Brigade/Battalion. Each one after that will cost CPs to unlock and hopefully it also costs extra CPs to use a detachment form a different Codex.
In theory I think it looks great as it provides a genuine drawback for soup while also not randomly boosting the power of certain armies because they happen to have cheap and useful Troops, or can easily fill out a Brigade because of weird unit slot allocations. My only problem at the moment is that armies like SoB and SM are currently set up to receive a big benefit from going mono-Codex so they theoretically are bigger winners than other armies at this point but that should be rectified as new Codices are released.
I'm glad they chose to go with something like this. The basic concept is exactly what I suggested last year.
Start with flat CP and allied detachments cost you CP (additional detachments in general should also cost you CP). I do wonder what detachments are going to look like now. Maybe they wont change. In general though I think the game could do without the supreme command detachment and other specialty detachments.
We would be better off with just
patrol (should have a big CP negative as an additional detachment)
batallion (maybe add a lord of war slot)
brigade (should have a big CP negative as an additional detachment) (+ add lord of war slot)
It is basic but it is also easy to manage.
superheavy
Slipspace wrote: Seems like the new system will work in reverse compared to now: you spend CP to use extra detachments, rather than getting more CP per detachment. I suspect the first detachment is free (pretty sure they mentioned that on stream) but probably only if it's a Brigade/Battalion. Each one after that will cost CPs to unlock and hopefully it also costs extra CPs to use a detachment form a different Codex.
In theory I think it looks great as it provides a genuine drawback for soup while also not randomly boosting the power of certain armies because they happen to have cheap and useful Troops, or can easily fill out a Brigade because of weird unit slot allocations. My only problem at the moment is that armies like SoB and SM are currently set up to receive a big benefit from going mono-Codex so they theoretically are bigger winners than other armies at this point but that should be rectified as new Codices are released.
Ahh, that makes sense. Thanks for that. So no spamming vanguards or spearheads without consequence.
I'm thinking most of my armies will fit into a brigade without needing to spend on troops for a double battalion. It feels quite nice.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sasori wrote: I think one of the biggest pieces we are missing is how this will affect troops.
Are troops going to play a more critical role for scoring points with the new missions?
Overall, my Thousand Sons and Tzeentch Daemons will be affected some, but this is going to be a boon for my Necrons.
This was my thought as well. Missions will lean into that part.
Yeah, my armies have always been extremely troop heavy because that's what I like to paint. I own a relatively small number of vehicles in proportion to the number of infantry models I tend to own.
It is going to be really gakky, IMO, if 9th ed turns into a similar situation to late 7th where you could basically make an army out of spamming one super powerful thing 9 times and that's your list.
Every time they try this, the same tired old "I want to play muh fluffy deathwing" and "I want to do the all-biker saim-hann much fluff very narrative" and inevitably you never see those lists because they're buried under a gigantic pile of miserable 6-riptide or 5 flying hive tyrant or 30 scatbike skew lists.The rule of 3 being a competitive play guideline that is not an official rule for matched play or whatever but which has been widely accepted by the playerbase as standard has been a massive boon for average gameplay.
Anyone whose list is actually "I just like dreadnoughts, my list is 12 dreadnoughts!" is not playing a game that's competitive enough for people to be real "rule of 3' sticklers (and if people are doing that to you, they're the donkey-cave, not you). and anyone who just wants to club seals with their 6 hive tyrant skew list is most likely going to be dissuaded by the fact that they won't be allowed to run that at any organized event.
Any time GW has made a rules change that's just thrown everything out and said "Take what you want!" it's resulted in hideous powergaming abuse basically immediately.
Remember early AOS lists? Wall o' Culexus lists? 30 Malefic lords? Were those fun?
Not enough details to say really. From what I got from both live streams is that it will cost CP to get detachments from a second codex, but nothing was said regarding taking multiple detachments from the same codex as far as I can tell. Thats a very important distinction as their are several codexes where having to pay CP for taking more than 1 detachment could be a real dealbreaker, Drukhari especially. This also heavily relies on how many CP you'll get at what points level and how many CP it will cost to take any other detachments.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, my armies have always been extremely troop heavy because that's what I like to paint. I own a relatively small number of vehicles in proportion to the number of infantry models I tend to own.
It is going to be really gakky, IMO, if 9th ed turns into a similar situation to late 7th where you could basically make an army out of spamming one super powerful thing 9 times and that's your list.
Every time they try this, the same tired old "I want to play muh fluffy deathwing" and "I want to do the all-biker saim-hann much fluff very narrative" and inevitably you never see those lists because they're buried under a gigantic pile of miserable 6-riptide or 5 flying hive tyrant or 30 scatbike skew lists.The rule of 3 being a competitive play guideline that is not an official rule for matched play or whatever but which has been widely accepted by the playerbase as standard has been a massive boon for average gameplay.
Anyone whose list is actually "I just like dreadnoughts, my list is 12 dreadnoughts!" is not playing a game that's competitive enough for people to be real "rule of 3' sticklers (and if people are doing that to you, they're the donkey-cave, not you). and anyone who just wants to club seals with their 6 hive tyrant skew list is most likely going to be dissuaded by the fact that they won't be allowed to run that at any organized event.
Any time GW has made a rules change that's just thrown everything out and said "Take what you want!" it's resulted in hideous powergaming abuse basically immediately.
Remember early AOS lists? Wall o' Culexus lists? 30 Malefic lords? Were those fun?
I really hope rule of 3 gets made a permenant rule for matched play, whilst there are some outliers that get penalised for the most part it has been great in stopping those spam alpha unit lists (though when Scatbikes where a common thing they were troops and wouldn't have been affected by it).
I have a friend that has run a Dark Angel all dreadnaught list and still stuck to rule of 3 with ease, since with Redemptors, Leviathans, Doredeo's, Contemptors, Irondclads, Vens, Chaplins (and he has actually chaplin dreads) and the standards angry washing machine there's more than enough choice. It wasn't great but it wasn't bad either.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, my armies have always been extremely troop heavy because that's what I like to paint. I own a relatively small number of vehicles in proportion to the number of infantry models I tend to own.
It is going to be really gakky, IMO, if 9th ed turns into a similar situation to late 7th where you could basically make an army out of spamming one super powerful thing 9 times and that's your list.
Every time they try this, the same tired old "I want to play muh fluffy deathwing" and "I want to do the all-biker saim-hann much fluff very narrative" and inevitably you never see those lists because they're buried under a gigantic pile of miserable 6-riptide or 5 flying hive tyrant or 30 scatbike skew lists.The rule of 3 being a competitive play guideline that is not an official rule for matched play or whatever but which has been widely accepted by the playerbase as standard has been a massive boon for average gameplay.
Anyone whose list is actually "I just like dreadnoughts, my list is 12 dreadnoughts!" is not playing a game that's competitive enough for people to be real "rule of 3' sticklers (and if people are doing that to you, they're the donkey-cave, not you). and anyone who just wants to club seals with their 6 hive tyrant skew list is most likely going to be dissuaded by the fact that they won't be allowed to run that at any organized event.
Any time GW has made a rules change that's just thrown everything out and said "Take what you want!" it's resulted in hideous powergaming abuse basically immediately.
Remember early AOS lists? Wall o' Culexus lists? 30 Malefic lords? Were those fun?
Yes, true, but I think you're kind of running away with the premise before we know if Ro3 is gone or not. I doubt that it is.
I hope it'll mean I don't have to spend as much time juggling detachments to work out how I'm going to get enough CP to do anything. I tend to go for armies that have very expensive Troops/HQ choices (Deathwatch, Custodes, that kind of thing) and I'd love to be able to relax and just take the units I actually want to use instead of trying to figure out whether I can do a double-battalion and still have enough units to play the game.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, my armies have always been extremely troop heavy because that's what I like to paint. I own a relatively small number of vehicles in proportion to the number of infantry models I tend to own.
It is going to be really gakky, IMO, if 9th ed turns into a similar situation to late 7th where you could basically make an army out of spamming one super powerful thing 9 times and that's your list.
Every time they try this, the same tired old "I want to play muh fluffy deathwing" and "I want to do the all-biker saim-hann much fluff very narrative" and inevitably you never see those lists because they're buried under a gigantic pile of miserable 6-riptide or 5 flying hive tyrant or 30 scatbike skew lists.The rule of 3 being a competitive play guideline that is not an official rule for matched play or whatever but which has been widely accepted by the playerbase as standard has been a massive boon for average gameplay.
Anyone whose list is actually "I just like dreadnoughts, my list is 12 dreadnoughts!" is not playing a game that's competitive enough for people to be real "rule of 3' sticklers (and if people are doing that to you, they're the donkey-cave, not you). and anyone who just wants to club seals with their 6 hive tyrant skew list is most likely going to be dissuaded by the fact that they won't be allowed to run that at any organized event.
Any time GW has made a rules change that's just thrown everything out and said "Take what you want!" it's resulted in hideous powergaming abuse basically immediately.
Remember early AOS lists? Wall o' Culexus lists? 30 Malefic lords? Were those fun?
Yes, true, but I think you're kind of running away with the premise before we know if Ro3 is gone or not. I doubt that it is.
Heck it might be RoX where each unit has a number to them.
Although there's not enough info/details yet, I doubt it'll have much (if any) impact on how I build armies.
I mean, worrying about CP isn't something I do. It's an afterthought to me. As such I'm not going to build a force in some way other than what I enjoy just to max out CP.
Now if building an army how I envision it model-wise is going to cost me x CP in 9th? Then I'll have to make sure I take that into account. But I'm still not going to worry about what strats I can/can't use. I'll build the army 1st & then make use of whatever CP I have left over.
Now that we all get the same CP how does this change how you're going to build your armies?
I'm not so sure the way everyone is interpreting this is the way it's ACTUALLY going down though. In the preview I saw, all they really said was "Everyone starts with the same CP", which, technically is true now. Everyone has what? 5 CP to start with and THEN you build your army. I feel like what's actually going to happen is everyone will get that 10 CP or whatever it was they said, you will spend CP to soup, but you willl still GET CP bonuses for other things. I really don't get the optimism, or how everyone seems to think they actually KNOW what system gdubs is switching to from that super vague teaser. As the edition hasgone on, it's become more and more obvious they don't fully grasp the concept, or problem of CP Farming, and I'm not so sure they're really capable of jumping right from "We don't get this. At all." to "WE FIXED IT!" on the first attempt. Was there another place where they elaborated on it? Please link me if possible?
Amishprn86 wrote: Or it could be as simple as everyone starts with a battalion no matter what like older editions.
I don't think that's likely given that they've tried to cut back on having units that can hop FOC slots. You'll probably still be able to build a freeform army with no Troops if you don't want them.
Now that we all get the same CP how does this change how you're going to build your armies?
I'm not so sure the way everyone is interpreting this is the way it's ACTUALLY going down though. In the preview I saw, all they really said was "Everyone starts with the same CP", which, technically is true now. Everyone has what? 5 CP to start with and THEN you build your army. I feel like what's actually going to happen is everyone will get that 10 CP or whatever it was they said, you will spend CP to soup, but you willl still GET CP bonuses for other things. I really don't get the optimism, or how everyone seems to think they actually KNOW what system gdubs is switching to from that super vague teaser. As the edition hasgone on, it's become more and more obvious they don't fully grasp the concept, or problem of CP Farming, and I'm not so sure they're really capable of jumping right from "We don't get this. At all." to "WE FIXED IT!" on the first attempt. Was there another place where they elaborated on it? Please link me if possible?
In the Q&A yesterday around minute 38 they said that your CP are linked to the size of game (Combat Patrol, Onslaught etc), and that you have the same amount as your opponent. They say that you have the same "economy" as your opponent in a way similar to Points of Power Level. They offer that you could spend them on gaining access to Allies etc. My takeaway is that they mean what they say: your CPs are generated by the size of game and then you spend them. You don't generate them with Detachments anymore.
Of course, none of us have the rulebook in front of us!
Daedalus81 wrote: Now that we all get the same CP how does this change how you're going to build your armies?
Also in what capacity do you think detachments will serve in the new rules?
I can't see myself using more than 20 battle sisters outside of a full infantry spam list. One of the biggest SoB had before was they needed tons of CP but the troops are only really good for taking up space and acting as a screen. Being able to save 100ish points and have the option to use 10 girl units if I have the 4++ auras rocking would be nice.
For Orks, it'll largely depend how much CP we get at 1000, 1500, or 2000. Hopefully it's not less than we normally get now (15-20).
And since we have no allies, also how much extra detachment cost. I sort of hope extra detachments can be free if they are Batallions or Brigades, as you are forced to take troops as a tax.
I like the idea of fixed CP, though my big issue is going to be how/if GW adjusts Stratagem power to adjust, I suspect they will not. With respect to army construction, on my end I never really built to maximize CP's to begin with, it was always a secondary or tertiary concern to think about after I knew what kind of force I wanted to build and what I wanted to include, so at best it may rejigger how I arrange stuff but probably won't change what I actually put on the table too much, though without seeing the 9E rules I can't be certain.
Depends. If the detachments stay the same and there's no good reason to run troops besides opsec? I'll start most lists with a vanguard, drop basic csm and run chosen as my boots on the ground. Right now chosen are closer to what csmshould be. 1ppm more for two more attacks (remember, chosen get chainswords for free), and throw on a combi-bolter for 2 more points to double their shots? Sign me up. Other than that it'll probably stay pretty much the same. Lots of warp talons, combi-plasma terminators, and fw dreads. The extra cp just means my Night Lords can still act like Night Lords a little longer.
What interests me the most is what they'll do in the new fw books. Hope they fix my fellblade and dreadclaws so their worth using again. Waiting to see the new flyer rules to see if the hell blade is still worth taking as well.
Of course this is just speculation at this point, but my take on the CP and list building system based on the Q&A was that you start with a fixed number of CPs based on the size of battle, and there is still a detachment system. CPs would be spent during list building to include allies and such. Troops were no longer required to generate/unlock CPs, but unless I missed it, I don’t think they said that troops would lose Objective Secured.
I expect that this means that detachments are still a thing (entirely possible they change what units each detachment can/must take), but detachments don’t give CPs. Instead each detachment has a CP cost. If you want to take 3 vanguard detachments you can, but you need to pay CPs for them whether or not you use those detachments for allies or from the same codex. I think the result will be to encourage fewer detachments, which in turn would encourage you to take troops. Only taking one detachment in 2000 points so you can save CPs, you can, but you’d need a brigade or battalion so you’ve got to fill up those troop slots.
It could see the first detachment being free, possibly the one with your Warlord in it, and you only pay for additional detachments.
Daedalus81 wrote: Now that we all get the same CP how does this change how you're going to build your armies?
Also in what capacity do you think detachments will serve in the new rules?
necrons: Doom scythes become less used. I use nephrek but that's 100% useless for flyers(automatically max advance, umm flyers get that already. Go through terrain? We do that already...) so I would be paying CP for that. So more likely to go for heavy destroyers providing those don't get hit by nerfbat in 9th ed.
Sisters: Probably not much. I still likely use 2nd det for bloody rose if I want multiple sororita melee units. Just too big buff and VH doesn't help them all that much. I might not take brigade so often though that's not HUGE tax...Especially once I get 2nd storm bolter dominion squad.
Orks: Probably aim for 2 klan rather than 3. Have to think do I need to buy more. My models were bought and painted mostly before 8th as mix of 4 klans...Then it didn't matter. Then 8th ed came and I needed to split them by detachment and got reward. Now I'm going to be likely paying CP for it. Urgh. GW is having good laugh at my orks
Imperium: Haven't played with these(apart from mono sisters) much so hard to say yet. Might play mono knights more.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gadzilla666 wrote: Depends. If the detachments stay the same and there's no good reason to run troops besides opsec? I'll start most lists with a vanguard, drop basic csm and run chosen as my boots on the ground. Right now chosen are closer to what csmshould be. 1ppm more for two more attacks (remember, chosen get chainswords for free), and throw on a combi-bolter for 2 more points to double their shots? Sign me up. Other than that it'll probably stay pretty much the same. Lots of warp talons, combi-plasma terminators, and fw dreads. The extra cp just means my Night Lords can still act like Night Lords a little longer.
What interests me the most is what they'll do in the new fw books. Hope they fix my fellblade and dreadclaws so their worth using again. Waiting to see the new flyer rules to see if the hell blade is still worth taking as well.
If you have just elite stuff you will struggle with board control. Enjoy stuff appearing out of reserves, shoot and charge without you getting to do anything to prevent. You have unit of havoc? Well you either dedicate expensive unit as ablative chaff screen or enemy deals with them by unit in reserve appearing, charging and wiping them and you get overwatch...The reserves seems to be increasing in use.
It, as stated before, entierly depends on the army in question and the ammount of CP granted baseline.
10 CP f.e. whilest a lot for knights mono would literally be not worth playing for CSM at 1000+ pts level.
Also the baseline, what detachments can be free is also important.if only patrols, brigades and battalions can be then ok, troops still serve a purpose.
If all can be free or cost, why should i bother with troops in many armies?
Also missions could increase value of ob.sec.
Sure that might happen, but considering all detachment^'s except the high command, have troopslots it wouldn't change much, heck you'd still not see CSM, and you sure as hell would get the 2 squads with PG back at most.
Not Online!!! wrote: It, as stated before, entierly depends on the army in question and the ammount of CP granted baseline.
10 CP f.e. whilest a lot for knights mono would literally be not worth playing for CSM at 1000+ pts level.
Also the baseline, what detachments can be free is also important.if only patrols, brigades and battalions can be then ok, troops still serve a purpose.
If all can be free or cost, why should i bother with troops in many armies?
Missions, board control. Unless you don't care about your elite units being ambushed all the time unable to do anything before being charged
Not Online!!! wrote: It, as stated before, entierly depends on the army in question and the ammount of CP granted baseline.
10 CP f.e. whilest a lot for knights mono would literally be not worth playing for CSM at 1000+ pts level.
Also the baseline, what detachments can be free is also important.if only patrols, brigades and battalions can be then ok, troops still serve a purpose.
If all can be free or cost, why should i bother with troops in many armies?
Missions, board control. Unless you don't care about your elite units being ambushed all the time unable to do anything before being charged
Sorry, but there's units, you know, like chosen which are like csm but better?
And considering PA is still around the ammount of possible movement shenanigans and modifications possible for some armies will make that a moot point tbh.
Then again 10 + models squads now count as a horde, for whatever reason, so you maybee see some mini csm squads?
Hip hip hurray i say,
no, it will be like the old force org chart, take the bare minimum necessarry and then focus on the actual usefull stuff.
Not Online!!! wrote: Sorry, but there's units, you know, like chosen which are like csm but better?
And considering PA is still around the ammount of possible movement shenanigans and modifications possible for some armies will make that a moot point tbh.
Also pricier. So you have chosen there whose sole purpose is to die without doing anythign in advance(because that's what the front line screen does. It's there, forces reserves away from key units and then die).
You want the screen to be as cheap as possible because that's what they basically do. Die. Anything else they do is lucky bonus.
Not Online!!! wrote: Sorry, but there's units, you know, like chosen which are like csm but better?
And considering PA is still around the ammount of possible movement shenanigans and modifications possible for some armies will make that a moot point tbh.
Also pricier. So you have chosen there whose sole purpose is to die without doing anythign in advance(because that's what the front line screen does. It's there, forces reserves away from key units and then die).
You want the screen to be as cheap as possible because that's what they basically do. Die. Anything else they do is lucky bonus.
and?
Like i said, the other detachments have troopslots and 1 pts more for a chosen over a CSM is moot.
I can't really see them making normal detachments cost CP. So far all they've mentioned is allied detachments doing that, specifically to discourage soup. By punishing people from taking more detachments from units in their main codex if flies in the face of their main objectives which are to give people more CP to play with and to encourage more specialized armies.
Bosskelot wrote: I can't really see them making normal detachments cost CP. So far all they've mentioned is allied detachments doing that, specifically to discourage soup. By punishing people from taking more detachments from units in their main codex if flies in the face of their main objectives which are to give people more CP to play with and to encourage more specialized armies.
It also discourages souping in codex that's neccessary for balance. Or otherwise you have ork army A that's vastly superior for free to ork army B that stays mono.
Staying mono should be rewarded. Taking superior rules can't be for free. There has to be trade. Better rules or CP? Well correct should be point costs but since GW doesn't want to go for correct source and have goff lootas cost less than bad moon lootas CP is best we have.
If you don't minmax for raw power one codex, one detachment is sufficient. If you take power you need to pay for it. Otherwise it's not balanced.
Bosskelot wrote: I can't really see them making normal detachments cost CP. So far all they've mentioned is allied detachments doing that, specifically to discourage soup. By punishing people from taking more detachments from units in their main codex if flies in the face of their main objectives which are to give people more CP to play with and to encourage more specialized armies.
It also discourages souping in codex that's neccessary for balance. Or otherwise you have ork army A that's vastly superior for free to ork army B that stays mono.
Staying mono should be rewarded. Taking superior rules can't be for free. There has to be trade. Better rules or CP? Well correct should be point costs but since GW doesn't want to go for correct source and have goff lootas cost less than bad moon lootas CP is best we have.
If you don't minmax for raw power one codex, one detachment is sufficient. If you take power you need to pay for it. Otherwise it's not balanced.
This completely ignores several armies, or army themes, that would get completely screwed over by normal non-allied detachments costing CP though. GSC? Absolutely fethed. You want that Saim-Hann jetbike army and you want to use more than 2 characters? In an Codex that is almost entirely reliant on its character use? Get fethed, kid. Similar problem with Deathwing or Ravenwing.
The only way this changes is if they also change the make-up of detachments by allowing more HQ slots in each.
Bosskelot wrote: I can't really see them making normal detachments cost CP. So far all they've mentioned is allied detachments doing that, specifically to discourage soup. By punishing people from taking more detachments from units in their main codex if flies in the face of their main objectives which are to give people more CP to play with and to encourage more specialized armies.
It also discourages souping in codex that's neccessary for balance. Or otherwise you have ork army A that's vastly superior for free to ork army B that stays mono.
Staying mono should be rewarded. Taking superior rules can't be for free. There has to be trade. Better rules or CP? Well correct should be point costs but since GW doesn't want to go for correct source and have goff lootas cost less than bad moon lootas CP is best we have.
If you don't minmax for raw power one codex, one detachment is sufficient. If you take power you need to pay for it. Otherwise it's not balanced.
This completely ignores several armies, or army themes, that would get completely screwed over by normal non-allied detachments costing CP though. GSC? Absolutely fethed. You want that Saim-Hann jetbike army and you want to use more than 2 characters? In an Codex that is almost entirely reliant on its character use? Get fethed, kid. Similar problem with Deathwing or Ravenwing.
The only way this changes is if they also change the make-up of detachments by allowing more HQ slots in each.
Make the first detachment free, and any subsequent detachments using the same subfaction as the first free?
Well my main army (DE) is boring as hell on its own, and I can now look forward to being punished if I have the audacity to ally in some units from a different army.
I guess I'll have a look at the new Necron rules and see if they fix any of the army's core problems or just make all the new units OP to compensate. If the latter, I'll probably just drop out of 40k.
Bosskelot wrote: I can't really see them making normal detachments cost CP. So far all they've mentioned is allied detachments doing that, specifically to discourage soup. By punishing people from taking more detachments from units in their main codex if flies in the face of their main objectives which are to give people more CP to play with and to encourage more specialized armies.
It also discourages souping in codex that's neccessary for balance. Or otherwise you have ork army A that's vastly superior for free to ork army B that stays mono.
Staying mono should be rewarded. Taking superior rules can't be for free. There has to be trade. Better rules or CP? Well correct should be point costs but since GW doesn't want to go for correct source and have goff lootas cost less than bad moon lootas CP is best we have.
If you don't minmax for raw power one codex, one detachment is sufficient. If you take power you need to pay for it. Otherwise it's not balanced.
This completely ignores several armies, or army themes, that would get completely screwed over by normal non-allied detachments costing CP though. GSC? Absolutely fethed. You want that Saim-Hann jetbike army and you want to use more than 2 characters? In an Codex that is almost entirely reliant on its character use? Get fethed, kid. Similar problem with Deathwing or Ravenwing.
The only way this changes is if they also change the make-up of detachments by allowing more HQ slots in each.
1 Language
2 It will depend on the cost in CP but 1-2CP to be able to bring multiple HQ's doesn't sound all that broken. The idea is very simple somepeople just seem to be stuck to the idea of 8th where everything should be optimized for no cost.
You take a less optimized force you are up on CP, take a more optimized list you trade CP for that optimization.
Want to soup give up even more of your CP.
3 They have already said there will be points and errata changes for the new edition.
4 GSC is a bad codex from start to finish it's not fun to play against as it's esentially codex gotcha, it's OP if you don't know how it works and how to counter it, otherwise it's hard counterable especially by marines aka one of the top lists currently.
After watching the Reveal and QnA there is one thing that struck me. Nowhere do they mention detachments explicitly except once, and even then he backtracked so I am leaning towards agreeing with my friend that there will be nothing like detachments.
In fact, I am kinda leaning towards it will be a similar system to what AoS already has. You can take X amount of heroes depending on army size and there will be Y limitations to larger units depending on army size.
We of course won't know until we see some leaks, but the guys in the stream were very explicit that you are going to be able to make the army you want and there won't be artificial limitations like x amount of troops.
Bosskelot wrote: I can't really see them making normal detachments cost CP. So far all they've mentioned is allied detachments doing that, specifically to discourage soup. By punishing people from taking more detachments from units in their main codex if flies in the face of their main objectives which are to give people more CP to play with and to encourage more specialized armies.
It also discourages souping in codex that's neccessary for balance. Or otherwise you have ork army A that's vastly superior for free to ork army B that stays mono.
Staying mono should be rewarded. Taking superior rules can't be for free. There has to be trade. Better rules or CP? Well correct should be point costs but since GW doesn't want to go for correct source and have goff lootas cost less than bad moon lootas CP is best we have.
If you don't minmax for raw power one codex, one detachment is sufficient. If you take power you need to pay for it. Otherwise it's not balanced.
This completely ignores several armies, or army themes, that would get completely screwed over by normal non-allied detachments costing CP though. GSC? Absolutely fethed. You want that Saim-Hann jetbike army and you want to use more than 2 characters? In an Codex that is almost entirely reliant on its character use? Get fethed, kid. Similar problem with Deathwing or Ravenwing.
The only way this changes is if they also change the make-up of detachments by allowing more HQ slots in each.
2 It will depend on the cost in CP but 1-2CP to be able to bring multiple HQ's doesn't sound all that broken. The idea is very simple somepeople just seem to be stuck to the idea of 8th where everything should be optimized for no cost.
You take a less optimized force you are up on CP, take a more optimized list you trade CP for that optimization.
Want to soup give up even more of your CP.
3 They have already said there will be points and errata changes for the new edition.
Who said anything about optimization? If you want to take a thematic Saim-hann jetbike army, you would be punished under the system some people assume is happening. If I wanted to run a fluffy Ulthwe list, with multiple Warlock's leading all my squads of Guardians, I would be punished for that. They explicitly mentioned this is sort of the thing they want to move away from; they want to encourage these more specialized and themed armies and to give you MORE freedom in list-building within a Codex. You'd just end up with the same situation as right now, where people start with a Battalion except rather than doing it for direct CP gain, they're doing it because it has more HQ slots.
Bosskelot wrote: This completely ignores several armies, or army themes, that would get completely screwed over by normal non-allied detachments costing CP though. GSC? Absolutely fethed. You want that Saim-Hann jetbike army and you want to use more than 2 characters? In an Codex that is almost entirely reliant on its character use? Get fethed, kid. Similar problem with Deathwing or Ravenwing.
The only way this changes is if they also change the make-up of detachments by allowing more HQ slots in each.
So what makes GSC special snowflake that deserves more than orks? And generally why YOU should get free power boost while others don't? Orks have to pay but you get for free with no downside. Yeah that's fair.
Who said anything about optimization? If you want to take a thematic Saim-hann jetbike army, you would be punished under the system some people assume is happening. If I wanted to run a fluffy Ulthwe list, with multiple Warlock's leading all my squads of Guardians, I would be punished for that. They explicitly mentioned this is sort of the thing they want to move away from; they want to encourage these more specialized and themed armies and to give you MORE freedom in list-building within a Codex. You'd just end up with the same situation as right now, where people start with a Battalion except rather than doing it for direct CP gain, they're doing it because it has more HQ slots.
So you want things to be too good and broken as long as you get "narrative" forces(though 99% times people's narrative is just excusee for free power trip)
Look balance matters most. You can't have free power ups with zero downside. If you have power boost it must come down with tradeoff.
Alternatively of course let's up the point cost of those all saim han jetbikes to compensate for free power boost. Up for that? In all saim han army jetbikes etc cost +X%.
Or do you drop your pretense and just admit you want free power boost while others should pay so that you get to win with your broken army? Like 99% of these "but muh narrative army!"
Bosskelot wrote: This completely ignores several armies, or army themes, that would get completely screwed over by normal non-allied detachments costing CP though. GSC? Absolutely fethed. You want that Saim-Hann jetbike army and you want to use more than 2 characters? In an Codex that is almost entirely reliant on its character use? Get fethed, kid. Similar problem with Deathwing or Ravenwing.
The only way this changes is if they also change the make-up of detachments by allowing more HQ slots in each.
So what makes GSC special snowflake that deserves more than orks? And generally why YOU should get free power boost while others don't? Orks have to pay but you get for free with no downside. Yeah that's fair.
I'm not really sure what you mean. I'm only highlighting that GSC are reliant on their character use, in fact the entire codex revolves around it and how that limiting slots by enforcing a CP-tax on added detachments harms them to a ridiculous degree. In fact all horde-based armies start to get really harmed under a system like that because they often need to start spending points on characters or at least really benefit (from a game perspective as well as a player sanity one) from doing so. In a system where added detachments within a codex starts to cost CP it just incentivizes LESS choice, which is at odds with GW's design philosophy with 9th.
Now, making the Warlord's subfaction the "Main" subfaction of the list and making other subfaction detachments cost CP would absolutely be fine. So if a Four Armed Emperor GSC army wanted to also take Rusted Claw detachments it would cost them. Or your earlier example of |Bad Moonz and Goffs. That's reasonable.
In fact I think we've completely misunderstood each other, especially going by your edit. All the examples I listed are of mono themed army ideas that are currently fething trash in terms of being "powerful" but under a system of any sort of extra detachment costing CP they become even worse. Unless you want to sit here and argue that Saim-hann jetbike armies are good or that mass guardian squads with 3 footslogging warlocks are actually competitive.
So you want things to be too good and broken as long as you get "narrative" forces(though 99% times people's narrative is just excusee for free power trip)
Look balance matters most. You can't have free power ups with zero downside. If you have power boost it must come down with tradeoff.
This is where unit balance comes in. There is nothing useful coming out of telling players "Yes, you can take those units, but half of your army has to be gak and you have no interest in using just because".
Troops should not be gak units and troops in general need to be boosted across the entire board to be viable units. That has nothing to do with detachments or CP, but the internal rule of the codex.
Bosskelot wrote: This completely ignores several armies, or army themes, that would get completely screwed over by normal non-allied detachments costing CP though. GSC? Absolutely fethed. You want that Saim-Hann jetbike army and you want to use more than 2 characters? In an Codex that is almost entirely reliant on its character use? Get fethed, kid. Similar problem with Deathwing or Ravenwing.
The only way this changes is if they also change the make-up of detachments by allowing more HQ slots in each.
So what makes GSC special snowflake that deserves more than orks? And generally why YOU should get free power boost while others don't? Orks have to pay but you get for free with no downside. Yeah that's fair.
I'm not really sure what you mean. I'm only highlighting that GSC are reliant on their character use, in fact the entire codex revolves around it and how that limiting slots by enforcing a CP-tax on added detachments harms them to a ridiculous degree. In fact all horde-based armies start to get really harmed under a system like that because they often need to start spending points on characters or at least really benefit (from a game perspective as well as a player sanity one) from doing so. In a system where added detachments within a codex starts to cost CP it just incentivizes LESS choice, which is at odds with GW's design philosophy with 9th.
Spoiler:
Now, making the Warlord's subfaction the "Main" subfaction of the list and making other subfaction detachments cost CP would absolutely be fine. So if a Four Armed Emperor GSC army wanted to also take Rusted Claw detachments it would cost them. Or your earlier example of |Bad Moonz and Goffs. That's reasonable.
In fact I think we've completely misunderstood each other, especially going by your edit. All the examples I listed are of mono themed army ideas that are currently fething trash in terms of being "powerful" but under a system of any sort of extra detachment costing CP they become even worse. Unless you want to sit here and argue that Saim-hann jetbike armies are good or that mass guardian squads with 3 footslogging warlocks are actually competitive.
That would be why the have 6 charictors in Elites slots and 6 in HQ's. 2 battalions would get you one of each charictor, however plenty of other armies will have to make choices about which of their HQ options they take or if they spend the CP to be able to take more, but thats the point you either take the extra detachment as the charictors are more important than the CP or you work with the limitations of the detachment and have extra CP.
It's about making trade-off decisions which is player agency, I'm sure some choices will have a clearly better choice but it does mean people not taking that optimized build get some CP or extra versatility to compensate.
Pancakey wrote: This new system is going to highlight just how trash the CP system is to begin with.
It will add no flavor. Everyone will do the exact same thing with the CP.
To be honest most stratagems could just be unit specific abilities that require CP to activate without having to be their own stratagem cards. AoS already does this so I am always surprised how backwards 40k is about this.
So you want things to be too good and broken as long as you get "narrative" forces(though 99% times people's narrative is just excusee for free power trip)
Look balance matters most. You can't have free power ups with zero downside. If you have power boost it must come down with tradeoff.
This is where unit balance comes in. There is nothing useful coming out of telling players "Yes, you can take those units, but half of your army has to be gak and you have no interest in using just because".
Troops should not be gak units and troops in general need to be boosted across the entire board to be viable units. That has nothing to do with detachments or CP, but the internal rule of the codex.
I don't think GW wants to balance units. It does not seem to be their goal, not even a secondary one. So it is safer to ask for GW to do stuff they can do. They can design rules in a such a way that one has to pay, in some way for them. Auto take or auto non take option are bad, that is true. But no where near as bad as GW trying to balance the game with ally in mind, and then some poor sod picking up an army that doesn't have ally. Because he can't balance his army around taking ally, if GW design made it so his faction doesn't have any ally.
GW just wants to make money. That is just how corporations run and the only time a corporation would give us balance is because it is "profitable" for them.
Now, what the game designers want is another issue and I would not pretend to know their intentions. However, I imagine many of them just want to have fun and that even some of them might want to get some balance. the FAQs and CA/GHB all point towards some intent towards balance regardless of how well that is done or not.
Either way, I am looking forward to 9th to see how this all plays out.
I am wondering, however, if the rule of 3 will be codified for Matched Play. There's been no hint or suggestions of anything related there.
8th FAQ tought me that the GWs idea of fun is to nerf my army over and over again. And when they finaly did put out a good rule set, no one could use it, and now they announced a new edition. Where stuff suppose to be backwards compatible, the crucial part about it is the some. Kick out some of the good stratagems from PA4, and unlike other armies, GK don't have a solid codex to go back to.
With the rule of 3, I would love for it to be gone. The units I like are all elite, and stuff like strikes are just an inferior version of a interceptor. But there would probably be some horror build for some army using 9 of some FW model, or something necron, so probably won't happen. Even if GW doesn't reprint the rule people will enforce it anyway.
The thing is you can largely make any army you want now - there are just downsides of turning up with triple spearhead detachments.
I'm much more concerned about a mentality that says "we think troops suck, who wants to bring 6 squads of boring grunts along, bring your 15~ tank list, your all flyer lists etc instead" as that creates rather tedious skewed games, (sorry Knight players, this is why a lot of people dislike your army) than I am of "yeah, if you want to unlock alternate chapter tactics/allies, you have to pay 2CP" (or whatever).
This is because CP cost can always be adjusted up and down as necessary - whereas "oh no, we were wrong, our whole idea of how you should build armies needs to be chucked in the bin" is something they are likely to only do in 10th edition.
(I guess taken to extreme something like Guard would only be slotting in an extra 1-2 tanks by ditching some/all of their guardsmen, but still.)
Karol wrote: 8th FAQ tought me that the GWs idea of fun is to nerf my army over and over again. And when they finaly did put out a good rule set, no one could use it, and now they announced a new edition. Where stuff suppose to be backwards compatible, the crucial part about it is the some. Kick out some of the good stratagems from PA4, and unlike other armies, GK don't have a solid codex to go back to.
With the rule of 3, I would love for it to be gone. The units I like are all elite, and stuff like strikes are just an inferior version of a interceptor. But there would probably be some horror build for some army using 9 of some FW model, or something necron, so probably won't happen. Even if GW doesn't reprint the rule people will enforce it anyway.
Yeah, if GW hadn't caused covid you could have enjoyed those rules. The bastards! This was all according to their plan!
They have not said that "some" of the PA content will be compatible with 9th, they actually said all of it would be.
The censor doesn't want me to call it the Nottingham Virus
Gadzilla666 wrote: Depends. If the detachments stay the same and there's no good reason to run troops besides opsec? I'll start most lists with a vanguard, drop basic csm and run chosen as my boots on the ground. Right now chosen are closer to what csmshould be. 1ppm more for two more attacks (remember, chosen get chainswords for free), and throw on a combi-bolter for 2 more points to double their shots? Sign me up. Other than that it'll probably stay pretty much the same. Lots of warp talons, combi-plasma terminators, and fw dreads. The extra cp just means my Night Lords can still act like Night Lords a little longer.
What interests me the most is what they'll do in the new fw books. Hope they fix my fellblade and dreadclaws so their worth using again. Waiting to see the new flyer rules to see if the hell blade is still worth taking as well.
If you have just elite stuff you will struggle with board control. Enjoy stuff appearing out of reserves, shoot and charge without you getting to do anything to prevent. You have unit of havoc? Well you either dedicate expensive unit as ablative chaff screen or enemy deals with them by unit in reserve appearing, charging and wiping them and you get overwatch...The reserves seems to be increasing in use.
Also missions could increase value of ob.sec.
Chosen do everything that csm do, but better. The only thing you lose is obsec and 1ppm. In the current system you also lose cp. If the new system removes that then unless obsec is made more important than it is now there's no good reason to run csm instead of chosen.
Karol wrote: 8th FAQ tought me that the GWs idea of fun is to nerf my army over and over again. And when they finaly did put out a good rule set, no one could use it, and now they announced a new edition. Where stuff suppose to be backwards compatible, the crucial part about it is the some. Kick out some of the good stratagems from PA4, and unlike other armies, GK don't have a solid codex to go back to.
With the rule of 3, I would love for it to be gone. The units I like are all elite, and stuff like strikes are just an inferior version of a interceptor. But there would probably be some horror build for some army using 9 of some FW model, or something necron, so probably won't happen. Even if GW doesn't reprint the rule people will enforce it anyway.
Yeah, if GW hadn't caused covid you could have enjoyed those rules. The bastards! This was all according to their plan!
They have not said that "some" of the PA content will be compatible with 9th, they actually said all of it would be.
The censor doesn't want me to call it the Nottingham Virus
If GW wrote the GK rules properly when they came out, or fixed them I don't know a year or year and a half ago that wouldn't be a problem. Lets say the covid didn't happen, even if it did, I got the rules in february, if 9th comes out in a month, this means 4 months of good rules, and after that they can be back to how they were for 2 years. They said that PA is going to be legal, but there is also going to be FAQ, errata, point changes and when the codex pop out only some of the rules are going to make it in to the codex. So if we get a codex early in the edition the PA stuff can end up being invalidated, if they don't get a codex or get it late, I get to enjoy 9th ed with a codex without rules for 9th ed. neither option seems to be very good.
And I don't know what GW plans were. What matters is the end result, not the intentions. According to GWs intentions 8th was suppose to be the best edition they ever made, that had the best set of rules, and which was playtested to hell and back. And in the end we got what we got.
Karol wrote: If GW wrote the GK rules properly when they came out, or fixed them I don't know a year or year and a half ago that wouldn't be a problem. Lets say the covid didn't happen, even if it did, I got the rules in february, if 9th comes out in a month, this means 4 months of good rules, and after that they can be back to how they were for 2 years. They said that PA is going to be legal, but there is also going to be FAQ, errata, point changes and when the codex pop out only some of the rules are going to make it in to the codex. So if we get a codex early in the edition the PA stuff can end up being invalidated, if they don't get a codex or get it late, I get to enjoy 9th ed with a codex without rules for 9th ed. neither option seems to be very good.
And I don't know what GW plans were. What matters is the end result, not the intentions. According to GWs intentions 8th was suppose to be the best edition they ever made, that had the best set of rules, and which was playtested to hell and back. And in the end we got what we got.
This is How GW runs their business. Do you really think they consider the terrain rules the “best evar?” Do you really think the omission of the “rule of three” in the original rule set was an accident? Do you remember the original flyer rules?, they only got “fixed” when models were completely sold out and going for 150%-200% price on ebay.
Karol wrote: If GW wrote the GK rules properly when they came out, or fixed them I don't know a year or year and a half ago that wouldn't be a problem. Lets say the covid didn't happen, even if it did, I got the rules in february, if 9th comes out in a month, this means 4 months of good rules, and after that they can be back to how they were for 2 years. They said that PA is going to be legal, but there is also going to be FAQ, errata, point changes and when the codex pop out only some of the rules are going to make it in to the codex. So if we get a codex early in the edition the PA stuff can end up being invalidated, if they don't get a codex or get it late, I get to enjoy 9th ed with a codex without rules for 9th ed. neither option seems to be very good.
And I don't know what GW plans were. What matters is the end result, not the intentions. According to GWs intentions 8th was suppose to be the best edition they ever made, that had the best set of rules, and which was playtested to hell and back. And in the end we got what we got.
This is How GW runs their business. Do you really think they consider the terrain rules the “best evar?” Do you really think the omission of the “rule of three” in the original rule set was an accident? Do you remember the original flyer rules?, they only got “fixed” when models were completely sold out and going for 150%-200% price on ebay.
Nah they fixed DE RWF spam b.c no one bought RFW b.c its literally the worst unit to buy in the game and no one in their right mine will buy them from GW.
Oh and b.c players didn't have fun fighting against 120 3w/5++/6+++ 8 attacks re-roll everything models. Which is fully understandable.
GW isn't a rules designer, they literally have no idea what they can mess up at times, it has nothing to do with money, just stupidity.
EDIT: To add, go watch the SoB beta reveal with Reece and a GW game tester/designer. They said "Its cool, if you take a Priest you don't have to take slots for these other units" Reece snapped "But thats a bad thing" the GW guy "What? Wait? Why is that bad" Reece then just said "We can talk about it later"
Its clear GW doesn't look to deeply into what can break the game.
Honestly, set CP should have been here a long time back.
That said, if detachments don't give anything to the mix while it benefits theme armies it also seems to hark back to troops being an ever more ignored " Tax " to an army as everyone takes detachments to load up on the power.
I don't think that overall adds good to the game but at least it should take some of the stigma off cheap troop armies. I am hoping they have something in mind and not just make it an edition of " Troops suck hur dur, stand on objective har har "
Eldarsif wrote: After watching the Reveal and QnA there is one thing that struck me. Nowhere do they mention detachments explicitly except once, and even then he backtracked so I am leaning towards agreeing with my friend that there will be nothing like detachments.
In fact, I am kinda leaning towards it will be a similar system to what AoS already has. You can take X amount of heroes depending on army size and there will be Y limitations to larger units depending on army size.
We of course won't know until we see some leaks, but the guys in the stream were very explicit that you are going to be able to make the army you want and there won't be artificial limitations like x amount of troops.
They did say that people will still be taking troops for the same reasons they have to now... Not sure what hes on about because I take 3-6 troops because I have to for CP tax reasons..
One thing that remains is the RO3.. So even the troops requirement goes away from a generating CP perspective the RO3 should in theory prevent spamming just unit x without repercussions. Also spamming heavy support might not be a good idea, depending on terrain rules and so on. So this might not be as bleak as the -1 modifier cap sounds
Waay to many veriables. You can just see it falling flat on its face straight away.. Its GW after all.. They have "amazing ideas every 60 seconds"...... Which is not great for a game this big. I wish they just released a beta set of rules so we can all play test it and pick it apart.. Why they don't beta test things with their player base for freee before putting out a tight paid for version is absolutely beyond me..
Eldarsif wrote: After watching the Reveal and QnA there is one thing that struck me. Nowhere do they mention detachments explicitly except once, and even then he backtracked so I am leaning towards agreeing with my friend that there will be nothing like detachments.
In fact, I am kinda leaning towards it will be a similar system to what AoS already has. You can take X amount of heroes depending on army size and there will be Y limitations to larger units depending on army size.
We of course won't know until we see some leaks, but the guys in the stream were very explicit that you are going to be able to make the army you want and there won't be artificial limitations like x amount of troops.
They did say that people will still be taking troops for the same reasons they have to now...
Not sure what hes on about because I take 3-6 troops because I have for CP tax..
One thing that remains is the RO3.. So even the troops requirement goes away from a generating CP perspective the RO3 should in theory prevent spamming just unit x without repercussions.
Also spamming heavy support might not be a good idea, depending on terrain rules and so on. So this might not be as bleak as the -1 modifier cap sounds
Waay to many veriables. You can just see it falling flat on its face straight away.. Its GW after all.. They have "amazing ideas every 60 seconds"...... Which is not great for a game this big.
I wish they just released a beta set of rules so we can all play test it and pick it apart.. Why they don't beta test things with their player base for freee before putting out a tight paid for version is absolutely beyond me..
Come on you know the reason. That would involve them giving us things for " free " like a vampire faced with the sun they recoil in fear and disgust from such a thing. Better idea for them is charge full price for another beta ruleset, change it over the years so the rules are fundamentally changed and that full priced product sucks by the end. Then do it again next edition. Profit. The GW way.
AngryAngel80 wrote: ...Come on you know the reason. That would involve them giving us things for " free " like a vampire faced with the sun they recoil in fear and disgust from such a thing. Better idea for them is charge full price for another beta ruleset, change it over the years so the rules are fundamentally changed and that full priced product sucks by the end. Then do it again next edition. Profit. The GW way.
Pathfinder v2 charged you for a printed hardback of the playtest rules while also giving you free digital playtest rules and some people bought it.
Not Online!!! wrote: It, as stated before, entierly depends on the army in question and the ammount of CP granted baseline.
10 CP f.e. whilest a lot for knights mono would literally be not worth playing for CSM at 1000+ pts level.
Also the baseline, what detachments can be free is also important.if only patrols, brigades and battalions can be then ok, troops still serve a purpose.
If all can be free or cost, why should i bother with troops in many armies?
You raise an interesting point.
Since CP is fixed what armies are going to see problems? At what CP level do Knights "function"? Since Knights don't require CP batteries will they still opt to spend CP for allies?
It also seems like CP regen will become more valuable again.
So many questions. As usual the rules can't come fast enough.
As Not Online!!! points out, it depends on the army. Csm start to hurt below about 10cp in a 2000 point game. I've blown 9cp in a single turn before with my Night Lords. The problem is that many units depend on strategems just to function properly. Compare warp talons in a Night Lords or Emperors Children list to any other legion. They're an auto include for Night Lords just for the strategems you can play on them. In an Iron Warriors army they're a waste of points.
Wow, after three pages, I have so many different posts I want to respond to, and I still can't multi-quote myself out of a wet paper bag.
Here goes:
I think detachments will continue to exist. I do not think they will give CP in addition to the CP given for army size.
As such, detachments have no specific purpose, other than to allow a player to set the numbers of various types of units available. Now IF the keep the detachment limit recommendation, or codify it into an actual rule, you'll still end up taking big detachments, because you wouldn't be allowed to take LOTS of small ones. This limits your ability to take large ratios of HQ.
Detachments DO start to matter when you have different subfactions in an army, or when you have different factions in the army.
Some armies need subfactions; I'm not familiar with all armies enough to say this, but DE definitely must be allowed to take different subfactions without CP, because Kabals, Cults and Covens MUST be separate detachments. Other armies may not need it because of rules, but because their own range is so limited; SoS and Inquisition come to mind. Other armies just have built in sub faction or multifaction flavour. This is your GSC; their codex literally was built with allied guard in mind, because brood brothers unlock them; you can never have more allied guard units than you do BB units (or maybe detachment). Tau and Alien Auxiliaries come to mind, though I don't have the Tau dex, so I'm not sure if Tau and Kroot share detachments.
Now they can invent exceptions for these guys; most of them already have a special rule which could survive with little or even no modification. But it's far easier to just make it free to subfaction soup for everyone. If EVERYONE can do it, it's not unfair. Of course it will benefit some armies more than others just because combos are what they are, but it won't be SYSTEMICALLY better for some than others.
If they do assign a cost for subfaction soup by detachment, the cost should not be as much as FACTION soup by detachment.
It is worth pointing out that they haven't said there's a cost for subfaction soup, but they did say explicitly that there was one for Faction soup. They have not said whether costs would be paid by detachment; it could be paid by additional subfaction (if indeed there's a cost for this at all) or by additional faction. They also haven't said whether there are any other limitations or restrictions dealing specifically with ratios of main to ally, whether by unit or detachment.
Now from the thread of my post here, you may have started to think "Hey, there's all these additional CP costs which might be paid per detachment, but there's also this weird arbitrary limit of 3 detachments at 2k points, which makes said costs minimal given the limited number of detachments available."
And that is why I predict that not only will they not make the detachment limit a rule; I think they will explicitly blow it up to make this little new mechanic of theirs a bit more relevant.
And finally, no, using CP for detachments does NOT mean strats are changing or going away. Which means there are lots of different ways to spend CP now. Some of them have been there for a while, but you don't think of them much, unless you're like me and you like them.I almost always pay for extra relics, and almost always the additional "virtual warlords" as well; and by the way, both of those strats spice up soup lists of both the subfaction and faction varieties far, far more than they do mono builds.
And it's funny, because there's bunch of people who think those strats are a waste and hate them. Similarly, there are people who like soup of both varieties, some who like one or the other, and some who do but only with certain armies. Given all that variety, I do not support the opinion that this will see everyone building their armies and spending their command points all the same way. I think providing the capacity for more variety will lead to more variety.
I hope they get the number of fixed points right, but of course there's no way they can, because some people vehemently believe that allies and strats and CP shouldn't exist at all, while others believe their army is "useless" if they don't make it to 15 or even 20 CP. And when there's that much variety of opinion, and everyone is absolutely convinced that they are right and all of that is happening here in the relatively small subset of players who use Dakka... Well given that, there's no decision that GW can make that won't cause some of us to holler, cry, rage post or rage quit.
And I think any armchair games designer who assumes that they are better at design than one of the longest lived and most widely played table top miniature gaming gaming companies in the world despite having produced NOTHING themselves is probably oversimplifying things a great deal, due to a somewhat limited perspective on just how broad the player base is.
(Sorry that last bit sounded snarky- it's not a personal dig at any individual and more of a general observation about the nature of posts about rules, and I myself am OFTEN guilty of oversimplifying.)
I still think it likely we'll end up paying for each detachment after the first and I wouldn't be surprised if the first detachment was only free if it was either a Battalion or Brigade. That would still fit with what GW said about not needing Troops, but would provide an incentive to take them, albeit probably smaller than now as I don't think the opportunity cost for taking non-Battalion/Brigade detachments will be as high as it is now.
I can see them having a flat cost-per-detachment with an additional cost for using a different Codex, which would mean it doesn't cost anything extra to add in a new subfaction when using a single Codex (beyond any basic cost for the detachment) but soup has a small penalty associated with it.
The beta test comments ITT are interesting to me. They have done beta tests before, most recently for the SoB Codex but they've previously done it for both 40k and WHFB and I Think in every single case the Codex/Army Book they released after the beta test was a vast improvement over the beta test and usually contained far fewer stupid flat-out stupid decisions. From a marketing POV I can see why they wouldn't want to release a beta test of a whole new edition but I do think it would massively help clean up the rules before release.
I'm quite curious how they will do it. I have to admit I'm a bit concerned about the whole "everyone starts with the same CP" thing as it is my impression that stratagems for armies that usually struggle to have lots of CP (Knights, Custodes etc.) have a lot more impact/CP than those for armies that tend to have buckets of them (IG for example). Especially keeping in mind that the units benefiting from let's say +1 to hit are much more expensive and well armed in the first group.
Nontheless regarding the initial question one small Change it will likely bring for me: I have a very infantry heavy IG army in the making (I'm aiming for double brigade Tallarn/Death Korps), not for any strategic reasons, but because I like building and painting infantry. As I therefore have a lot of CP in the current rules I considered taking a Deathstrike (or even two), put them into a Tallarn ambush (3CP), reserve another CP to reroll the chance to fire and then use Vortex Missile (another 3 CP). At 7CP this little stunt is grossly expensive, but with 27 CP in the current rules set I might have given it a try. If that changes to be more in the ballpark around 10 CP, I will leave it be.
Another thing might be that I considered to include a small Auxilliary/Patrol/Vanguard of Skitarii Rangers or SoB Zephyrim just because I think those models are quite pretty. But if I have to pay 2 CP for that, I will leave it be or just call them Guardsmen.
Eldarain wrote: I would expect the more specialized the detachment the higher the cost.
We will see. I'd understand this for something like super heavy detachments, but for something like a ravenwing biker army there shouldn't be any loss of CP as those armies aren't really winning anything right now.
I still think it’s likely that all detachments after the first will cost CPs, possibly with an additional CP for taking something from a different codex.
That being said, fixed CP based on the size of battle is confirmed, as is “balancing” for different sizes of battle, with specific missions for each size. It seems they’ve announced 4 sizes of battle for this: combat patrol, onslaught etc. I think it’s a reasonable assumption that the 4 sizes will be at 500pt increments. Fairly linear and straightforward. 500, 1000, 1500 and 2000pts.
What I’m wondering is how many CPs will each size get? My initial thought is 1CP per 100pts, so 5, 10, 15 and 20. I assume that there will be a linear increase, but that’s by no means certain.
What do you all think? Does that seem likely? Too much? Too few?
I think a big factor will be how expensive it is to buy detachments/allies. I don’t think GW are trying to eliminate allies altogether, but rather to make them a considered decision with appropriate trade offs.
Eldarain wrote: I would expect the more specialized the detachment the higher the cost.
That'd be the sane option, but so long situations as those exists:
As Not Online!!! points out, it depends on the army. Csm start to hurt below about 10cp in a 2000 point game. I've blown 9cp in a single turn before with my Night Lords. The problem is that many units depend on strategems just to function properly. Compare warp talons in a Night Lords or Emperors Children list to any other legion. They're an auto include for Night Lords just for the strategems you can play on them. In an Iron Warriors army they're a waste of points.
Regardless what happens factions that have this for some (or the majority if unlucky) of their units become an extreme mess to balance propperly, AND we know that PA and other supplements stay in the game.
Pyroalchi wrote: I'm quite curious how they will do it. I have to admit I'm a bit concerned about the whole "everyone starts with the same CP" thing as it is my impression that stratagems for armies that usually struggle to have lots of CP (Knights, Custodes etc.) have a lot more impact/CP than those for armies that tend to have buckets of them (IG for example). Especially keeping in mind that the units benefiting from let's say +1 to hit are much more expensive and well armed in the first group.
Nontheless regarding the initial question one small Change it will likely bring for me: I have a very infantry heavy IG army in the making (I'm aiming for double brigade Tallarn/Death Korps), not for any strategic reasons, but because I like building and painting infantry. As I therefore have a lot of CP in the current rules I considered taking a Deathstrike (or even two), put them into a Tallarn ambush (3CP), reserve another CP to reroll the chance to fire and then use Vortex Missile (another 3 CP). At 7CP this little stunt is grossly expensive, but with 27 CP in the current rules set I might have given it a try. If that changes to be more in the ballpark around 10 CP, I will leave it be.
Another thing might be that I considered to include a small Auxilliary/Patrol/Vanguard of Skitarii Rangers or SoB Zephyrim just because I think those models are quite pretty. But if I have to pay 2 CP for that, I will leave it be or just call them Guardsmen.
The issue is Knights and Custodes strategums were already being rebalanced for allies having more CP than those armies could generate Mono faction.
A Custodes battalion for 5CP is 700 points and they can't afford to take slot filler choices. They are fighting uphill mono.
Mono Knight's at 1750 max out at 6CP plus 3, add allies and that goes to 6 +5 +3, plus regen of say 4 CP as both players are probably going to be out of CP turn 4. Adding 180 points of guard just doubled the CP for that codex in a game, same at 2k Knights can hit 12 CP Guard can push that the 19 plus regen so probably 23CP
Their is no way to ballance that currently, hence we have Strategums that for mono player's fell overcosted and actual hard trade off choices yet for allied soup its like monopoly money and they play the expensive strategums turn after turn. Leveling the CP quantities allows strategums across armies to be a bit more balanced as everyone starts with the same CP so 1 CP of Guard is worth the same as 1CP of custodes or Knights or atleast a lot closer than they currently are. Where 1 armies strategums have to be 3 times stronger due to the other armies being able to have 3 times the CP.
I think that games will become a lot more fun. I am looking forward to not having to add a detachment of gretchin and weirdboys to my army just to make other units more effective. Now I will be free to spend those points on better units which fit my theme, without feeling that my army is made worse for taking more deff dreads instead of 3 units of 10 gretchin and 2 weirdboys!
I've not played against soup overmuch - I guess people are still old fashioned around here - but I will be glad to not run the risk of facing hugely unfluffy armies built around winning - now, players can bring what they want to use in the game, rather than what is needed for more CP!
[...] Leveling the CP quantities allows strategums across armies to be a bit more balanced as everyone starts with the same CP so 1 CP of Guard is worth the same as 1CP of custodes or Knights or atleast a lot closer than they currently are. Where 1 armies strategums have to be 3 times stronger due to the other armies being able to have 3 times the CP
I'm just not conviced with the "1 CP of Guard is worth the same as 1 CP for Custodes or Knights" part without serious rewriting of the stratagems. Take the Imperial Knights "Heirlooms of the Household" for 1 CP and compare it the the corresponding IG Stratagem. The Knight one additionally makes the Knight a Character (I'm unsure if this is beneficial, as while it gives them the option for heroical interventions it simulataniously makes them succeptible for some special rules targeting characters) and allows to take another Knight relic which are (in my opinion) much more powerful than any relic the guard can take.
Or take "rotate ion shield" which (assuming being hit by weapons with AP2+) effectivly reduces hits taken from 4/6 to 3/6 (-25%).
Even if we assume they are balanced with Guard having 3-4 times the CP the Knight Heirlooms still feel good at 3-4 times the CP. If suddenly the Knights have about the same CP as a Guard army, I have problems in seeing their stratagems being balanced. One reason why I would prefer things like paying for stratagems with CP generated by that Codex's units instead.
But then again: all that is more a gut feeling and I might just be wrong with it
[...] Leveling the CP quantities allows strategums across armies to be a bit more balanced as everyone starts with the same CP so 1 CP of Guard is worth the same as 1CP of custodes or Knights or atleast a lot closer than they currently are. Where 1 armies strategums have to be 3 times stronger due to the other armies being able to have 3 times the CP
I'm just not conviced with the "1 CP of Guard is worth the same as 1 CP for Custodes or Knights" part without serious rewriting of the stratagems. Take the Imperial Knights "Heirlooms of the Household" for 1 CP and compare it the the corresponding IG Stratagem. The Knight one additionally makes the Knight a Character (I'm unsure if this is beneficial, as while it gives them the option for heroical interventions it simulataniously makes them succeptible for some special rules targeting characters) and allows to take another Knight relic which are (in my opinion) much more powerful than any relic the guard can take.
Or take "rotate ion shield" which (assuming being hit by weapons with AP2+) effectivly reduces hits taken from 4/6 to 3/6 (-25%).
Even if we assume they are balanced with Guard having 3-4 times the CP the Knight Heirlooms still feel good at 3-4 times the CP. If suddenly the Knights have about the same CP as a Guard army, I have problems in seeing their stratagems being balanced. One reason why I would prefer things like paying for stratagems with CP generated by that Codex's units instead.
But then again: all that is more a gut feeling and I might just be wrong with it
The strategums are not currently balanced that way as they can't be. I expect the CP cost of strategums will probably change as the edition changes. The reason it makes the knight a charictor is not for the strategum is because GW wrote that relics can only be given to charictors so if the knight isn't a charictor it can't have a relic, thats why it does that.
Also it's not 25% it's only 16.7% as you are only shifting the pass fail criteria 1 value.
Before rotate ion shield 4 out of 6 (66.6%) successful AP2+ wounds get through the ion shield, afterwards 3 out of 6 (50%). While that is -16.7% in absolute numbers, it is 25% (66.6% * 25% = 16.7%) in relative numbers. In other words were the Knight was hit 4 times before he is now hit 3 times, so 25% less.
It's slightly more complex if one considers low AP shooting, but you get my intention
[...] Leveling the CP quantities allows strategums across armies to be a bit more balanced as everyone starts with the same CP so 1 CP of Guard is worth the same as 1CP of custodes or Knights or atleast a lot closer than they currently are. Where 1 armies strategums have to be 3 times stronger due to the other armies being able to have 3 times the CP
I'm just not conviced with the "1 CP of Guard is worth the same as 1 CP for Custodes or Knights" part without serious rewriting of the stratagems. Take the Imperial Knights "Heirlooms of the Household" for 1 CP and compare it the the corresponding IG Stratagem. The Knight one additionally makes the Knight a Character (I'm unsure if this is beneficial, as while it gives them the option for heroical interventions it simulataniously makes them succeptible for some special rules targeting characters) and allows to take another Knight relic which are (in my opinion) much more powerful than any relic the guard can take.
Or take "rotate ion shield" which (assuming being hit by weapons with AP2+) effectivly reduces hits taken from 4/6 to 3/6 (-25%).
Even if we assume they are balanced with Guard having 3-4 times the CP the Knight Heirlooms still feel good at 3-4 times the CP. If suddenly the Knights have about the same CP as a Guard army, I have problems in seeing their stratagems being balanced. One reason why I would prefer things like paying for stratagems with CP generated by that Codex's units instead.
But then again: all that is more a gut feeling and I might just be wrong with it
To be fair most of the stratagem in 8th are written without anything in mind as you have armies that can effectively blow wads of stratagems throughout the game while others can't. Interestingly enough the armies that couldn't use much of any stratagems throughout the games were armies that usually were left to rot in the bottom tier for the most part.
Basically you can't really balance stratagems and CP in 8th because CP batteries are a thing and their accessibility isn't universal. I mean, how do you balance a Knight army? Do you balance it as a codex that can be on its own or do you balance it with the loyal 32 in mind? With the new system this becomes easier as you have a set number of CP and you can assign a point value to each and every unit without having to worry about potential CP batteries and such.
Keep in mind that GW has declared they will release point adjustments along with 9th.
The strategums are not currently balanced that way as they can't be. I expect the CP cost of strategums will probably change as the edition changes..
I'd argue they failed at balancing them cost wise even before the current change. So new edition will likely mean a long update to the cost of stratagems.
The potential gain here is that you won't need to choose army comp to max CP; whether this is good or bad depends on how much they were currently constraining "best unit" spam via composition requirements.
Regarding CP batteries: as mentioned: as soon as you can only use CP generated by a codex for stratagems of said codex you can balance along the lines of monodex armies. Knight stratagems can be incredible powerful if you have to pay them with "IK CP" and the CP of your loyal 32 can only be used for guard stratagems
Pyroalchi wrote: Regarding CP batteries: as mentioned: as soon as you can only use CP generated by a codex for stratagems of said codex you can balance along the lines of monodex armies. Knight stratagems can be incredible powerful if you have to pay them with "IK CP" and the CP of your loyal 32 can only be used for guard stratagems
We know what fix we are getting in 9th A number of people proposed a similar solutions but it has a host of issues on who can use the battle forged CP? what happens to regenerated CP?
It also falls appart quickly when you have standard strategums across multiple factions, which we know is happening in 9th.
GW system for 9th as odd as this may sound is the better option for balancing the system.
Eldarain wrote: I would expect the more specialized the detachment the higher the cost.
That'd be the sane option, but so long situations as those exists:
As Not Online!!! points out, it depends on the army. Csm start to hurt below about 10cp in a 2000 point game. I've blown 9cp in a single turn before with my Night Lords. The problem is that many units depend on strategems just to function properly. Compare warp talons in a Night Lords or Emperors Children list to any other legion. They're an auto include for Night Lords just for the strategems you can play on them. In an Iron Warriors army they're a waste of points.
Regardless what happens factions that have this for some (or the majority if unlucky) of their units become an extreme mess to balance propperly, AND we know that PA and other supplements stay in the game.
True, if a unit has different usefulness for different subfactions in the same codex how can they justifiably have the same cost? This is why gw has written themselves into a corner by fixing units with strategems and special subfaction rules instead of with rules inherent to the units themselves, but having them cost the same for all the subfactions in the codex.
And don't even get me started on units shared by different codexes . *Cough* loyalist vehicles vs csm vehicles *cough*.
Aash wrote:I still think it’s likely that all detachments after the first will cost CPs, possibly with an additional CP for taking something from a different codex.
That being said, fixed CP based on the size of battle is confirmed, as is “balancing” for different sizes of battle, with specific missions for each size. It seems they’ve announced 4 sizes of battle for this: combat patrol, onslaught etc. I think it’s a reasonable assumption that the 4 sizes will be at 500pt increments. Fairly linear and straightforward. 500, 1000, 1500 and 2000pts.
What I’m wondering is how many CPs will each size get? My initial thought is 1CP per 100pts, so 5, 10, 15 and 20. I assume that there will be a linear increase, but that’s by no means certain.
What do you all think? Does that seem likely? Too much? Too few?
I think a big factor will be how expensive it is to buy detachments/allies. I don’t think GW are trying to eliminate allies altogether, but rather to make them a considered decision with appropriate trade offs.
I would be surprised if additional detachments didn't have a cost just because they are inside a codex. Paying of the extra strength of additional sub-factions seems fair. The only armies that need some sort of pass are Drukari and Chaos Daemons. Those can be handled via codex errata giving some sort of CP rebait for a "properly" constructed army. For example, Drukari Raiding Party could be changed to give back some/all the CP cost of a new detachment if the resulting detachments are of a different type (Cult, Coven, or Kabal).
I expect the number of points to be a little less linear. More like 4 CP + 1 CP per 250 points, giving values like 6, 8, 12, 16. Really it depends on what they want the floor and ceiling to be. While you don't want CP dominating a Combat Patrol, you still want enough to use both general and army stratagems.
[...] Leveling the CP quantities allows strategums across armies to be a bit more balanced as everyone starts with the same CP so 1 CP of Guard is worth the same as 1CP of custodes or Knights or atleast a lot closer than they currently are. Where 1 armies strategums have to be 3 times stronger due to the other armies being able to have 3 times the CP
I'm just not conviced with the "1 CP of Guard is worth the same as 1 CP for Custodes or Knights" part without serious rewriting of the stratagems. Take the Imperial Knights "Heirlooms of the Household" for 1 CP and compare it the the corresponding IG Stratagem. The Knight one additionally makes the Knight a Character (I'm unsure if this is beneficial, as while it gives them the option for heroical interventions it simulataniously makes them succeptible for some special rules targeting characters) and allows to take another Knight relic which are (in my opinion) much more powerful than any relic the guard can take.
Or take "rotate ion shield" which (assuming being hit by weapons with AP2+) effectivly reduces hits taken from 4/6 to 3/6 (-25%).
Even if we assume they are balanced with Guard having 3-4 times the CP the Knight Heirlooms still feel good at 3-4 times the CP. If suddenly the Knights have about the same CP as a Guard army, I have problems in seeing their stratagems being balanced. One reason why I would prefer things like paying for stratagems with CP generated by that Codex's units instead.
But then again: all that is more a gut feeling and I might just be wrong with it
The strategums are not currently balanced that way as they can't be. I expect the CP cost of strategums will probably change as the edition changes. The reason it makes the knight a charictor is not for the strategum is because GW wrote that relics can only be given to charictors so if the knight isn't a charictor it can't have a relic, thats why it does that.
Also it's not 25% it's only 16.7% as you are only shifting the pass fail criteria 1 value.
One nice thing about new codexes will be the ability to balance the stratagem cost over a fixed number of CP. It will also give them a chance to revise relics to the proper strength, although that is complicated by legacy products like Vigilus and Psychic Awakening.
I guess a good way to see if this is true is to look at the strength of Space Marine and Adepta Sororitas stratagems and relics compared to those of older codexes. With fixed CP in mind, do they seem to be at a more even strength with each other compared to those of the older codexes?
On the subject of units needing strategems to function, 13 out of 14 of the new Admech strategems in Engine War are unit specific. If this is the direction 9th is headed then no wonder gw wants to expand everyone's access to cp.
Gadzilla666 wrote: On the subject of units needing strategems to function, 13 out of 14 of the new Admech strategems in Engine War are unit specific. If this is the direction 9th is headed then no wonder gw wants to expand everyone's access to cp.
Gadzilla666 wrote: On the subject of units needing strategems to function, 13 out of 14 of the new Admech strategems in Engine War are unit specific. If this is the direction 9th is headed then no wonder gw wants to expand everyone's access to cp.
And I hate that idea.... So much.
Yeah its bad.
Stratagems are rapidly becoming this weird hydra, which serve as an answer looking for a question.
I think as a system it probably works, but its kind of dull, and just further encourages 3 turn 40k.
There are things you could do to change that in 9th - but I don't see them going down that road, because various armies fall apart when you mess with their stratagems, because of this weird design choice.
Could it be a ham fisted method of encouraging less spam? If a unit is relying on it's bespoke strat to perform at full power the once per phase limit is going to escalate diminishing returns.
Some armies already feel the pinch of that (cacophony/vets being one such crutch that discourages overloading your second turn with deepstriking shooting)
Working under the assumption that we get a single battalion with all it's current requirements and restrictions at 2k points it looks like I'll end up losing a Talonmaster and a trio of minimum cost scout units and gaining something new. Possibly a pair of fliers or a Deredeo plus some support units.
That's assuming points stay close to what they are now and none of the new units seem like more fun than the stuff currently in my list.
It would probably be good for the game to double/triple all the points at some point. They could really use more space to accurately value things (Ie. Gretchin, Cultists, Guardsmen. The various PA units etc)
Canadian 5th wrote: Working under the assumption that we get a single battalion with all it's current requirements and restrictions at 2k points it looks like I'll end up losing a Talonmaster and a trio of minimum cost scout units and gaining something new. Possibly a pair of fliers or a Deredeo plus some support units.
That's assuming points stay close to what they are now and none of the new units seem like more fun than the stuff currently in my list.
I don't think its a good assumption that we need to have a Battalion with its current restrictions. The Q&A certainly left me with the impression that you can go all Deathwing if you want and get the CPs. They kept making the point that they don't want you to bring Troops just to unlock CPs. I think we'll have more freedom to work within our Codex, but will pay to have a "food court" approach to army building.
Answering the original question. I play mono custodes without FW tanks (but with non-telemon dreadnoughts, saggitarium, jumpack guys, etc...) or imperial soup with mostly custodes supported by tempestus Scions so I expect for my armies to be just as bad as they are right now.
Canadian 5th wrote: Working under the assumption that we get a single battalion with all it's current requirements and restrictions at 2k points it looks like I'll end up losing a Talonmaster and a trio of minimum cost scout units and gaining something new. Possibly a pair of fliers or a Deredeo plus some support units.
That's assuming points stay close to what they are now and none of the new units seem like more fun than the stuff currently in my list.
I don't think its a good assumption that we need to have a Battalion with its current restrictions. The Q&A certainly left me with the impression that you can go all Deathwing if you want and get the CPs. They kept making the point that they don't want you to bring Troops just to unlock CPs. I think we'll have more freedom to work within our Codex, but will pay to have a "food court" approach to army building.
If that's the case I may have even more freedom to tailor my list, but it's unlikely that I'll be bringing 4 HQ choices in a single detachment that can also bring three fast attack choices and three elite choices so it's likely my planned list will still change some even if it functions the same as it would right now.
Okay. I get that it's likely that we'll have to pay for detachments; we did previously, and GW tends to hang on things they don't need to hang onto to smooth transitions between editions.
But in a mono-dex, mono sub-faction army, I'm curious if anyone thinks we SHOULD pay for detachments and if so, why?
PenitentJake wrote: Okay. I get that it's likely that we'll have to pay for detachments; we did previously, and GW tends to hang on things they don't need to hang onto to smooth transitions between editions.
But in a mono-dex, mono sub-faction army, I'm curious if anyone thinks we SHOULD pay for detachments and if so, why?
THEY NOW CONFER ZERO GAME BENEFIT!
So why should they have a cost?
The only argument would be If they wanted to reward balanced forces with more CP than hyper specialized. So that they do confer an in game benefit.
An army that filled out a Brigade would have more CP than 3 spearheads.
The Detachments we have are so flexible that without a cost they would just be window dressing for unbound.
I didn't get a vibe of a preference for balanced forces or Brigades/Battalions from the Q&As. I think all we know is that forces will get equal CP and that taking allies will definitely cost CP.
PenitentJake wrote: Okay. I get that it's likely that we'll have to pay for detachments; we did previously, and GW tends to hang on things they don't need to hang onto to smooth transitions between editions.
But in a mono-dex, mono sub-faction army, I'm curious if anyone thinks we SHOULD pay for detachments and if so, why?
THEY NOW CONFER ZERO GAME BENEFIT!
So why should they have a cost?
The only argument would be If they wanted to reward balanced forces with more CP than hyper specialized. So that they do confer an in game benefit.
An army that filled out a Brigade would have more CP than 3 spearheads.
The Detachments we have are so flexible that without a cost they would just be window dressing for unbound.
But every detachment has optional slots that aren't required to be filled, and you can slot your extra units into those. So a Brigade requires 3 HQ and 6 Troops. But if I take three spearheads and cram two troops into each, along with one FA and one Elite, why is your brigade more "Tactically Balanced?" Answer: It isn't. We have the exact same force, model for model. It's just that you used one set of containers for units and I used another. The actual unit composition is identical.
It's like a mover charging by the number of boxes of stuff that go into the van, rather than just charging for the van.
PenitentJake wrote: Okay. I get that it's likely that we'll have to pay for detachments; we did previously, and GW tends to hang on things they don't need to hang onto to smooth transitions between editions.
But in a mono-dex, mono sub-faction army, I'm curious if anyone thinks we SHOULD pay for detachments and if so, why?
THEY NOW CONFER ZERO GAME BENEFIT!
So why should they have a cost?
The only argument would be If they wanted to reward balanced forces with more CP than hyper specialized. So that they do confer an in game benefit.
An army that filled out a Brigade would have more CP than 3 spearheads.
The Detachments we have are so flexible that without a cost they would just be window dressing for unbound.
But every detachment has optional slots that aren't required to be filled, and you can slot your extra units into those. So a Brigade requires 3 HQ and 6 Troops. But if I take three spearheads and cram two troops into each, along with one FA and one Elite, why is your brigade more "Tactically Balanced?" Answer: It isn't. We have the exact same force, model for model. It's just that you used one set of containers for units and I used another. The actual unit composition is identical.
It's like a mover charging by the number of boxes of stuff that go into the van, rather than just charging for the van.
That's not how Brigades work.
We don't. You have 9-18 Heavy Support. I'm maxed out at 5.
Just because you can use them to build things in the way you describe doesn't mean people will. If there's not an incentive to do so, armies will just be the best units with a screen here and there.
If that's what they want, so be it but the detachments will just be the bare minimum attempt at making unbound look organized.
If they assign a cost to detachments, every mono army will just be a brigade with extra slots maxed out. Rule of 3 is still out there to my knowledge.
What I'm getting at is that without cp rewards being contingent upon detachments, almost any army a player might want to build can be built by filling the extra slots in pretty much any combination of detachments
But I guess if you want more than 5 HQ, Heavy or FA, or more than 8 elite, or more than 2 flyers, you do need more than one detachment to do it.
Matched play and "Tournment suggested matched play" rules should never have been separate. Matched Play rules should have been the tourny community standard, and all other modes of play optional.
PenitentJake wrote: If they assign a cost to detachments, every mono army will just be a brigade with extra slots maxed out. Rule of 3 is still out there to my knowledge.
What I'm getting at is that without cp rewards being contingent upon detachments, almost any army a player might want to build can be built by filling the extra slots in pretty much any combination of detachments
But I guess if you want more than 5 HQ, Heavy or FA, or more than 8 elite, or more than 2 flyers, you do need more than one detachment to do it.
I don't know- guess I just wait and see.
Like you say, we'll have to wait and see, but my guess is that the intention is twofold:
First, that charging for detachments will lead to more balanced forces (it might be that the make-up of detachments changes too)
Second, the CP charge is a trade off for unlocking a second army trait or additional warlord abilities etc.
IMHO Detachments were a nice idea but showed they were a bad idea. I'd have rather seen Rites of War like 30k has where yeah you get a benefit but there's a drawback too. The 8th edition detachment system made it too easy to min-max.
I don't think theres a problem with the detachment system, the problem comes with how CP are distributed that basically makes nearly all the armies the same with mandatory batallions, etc...
I believe the new CP system will be much less prone to min/maxing if just "buying" another faction or subfaction will cost you CP, or having multiple detachments.
And I also expect for detachments like batallions and brigades to be cheaper than vanguard, spearhead, etc...
Maybe not with most detachments, but the supre command one should, in my opinion, go. It is too easy to abuse. all it takes is for a codex to get more then 1 good character.
Nightlord1987 wrote: Matched play and "Tournment suggested matched play" rules should never have been separate. Matched Play rules should have been the tourny community standard, and all other modes of play optional.
No, they should be distinct, but they should've been defined in the core rulebook from day 1, not added in partway through the edition in a Big FAQ.
While all tournament games should be matched play, as far as I'm aware, not all matched play games are tournament games, and therefore shouldn't need to have those restrictions forced upon them.
PenitentJake wrote: Okay. I get that it's likely that we'll have to pay for detachments; we did previously, and GW tends to hang on things they don't need to hang onto to smooth transitions between editions.
But in a mono-dex, mono sub-faction army, I'm curious if anyone thinks we SHOULD pay for detachments and if so, why?
THEY NOW CONFER ZERO GAME BENEFIT!
So why should they have a cost?
So if you don't need more slots why would you TAKE detachment?
And if you need more slots than your free detachment how is that not benefit? You get more slots than you would have got.
Not sure why everyone has a hard time getting this.
A supreme command detachment is no more powerful than three battalions that each take an extra HQ. Or three patrols that do the same thing.
Seriously. Try it. Without multi-dexing or multi-subfactioning (because I can understand why detachments that do that have a cost) make the most broken army you can using whatever detachments you want. Then rebuild the exact same army, using a Brigade- fill ALL the slots in said brigade, and just see how much is left over. Dollars to donuts, whatever is left over will probably fit into any of the other detachments if you use all the extra slots in that detachment as well.
You can take up to 5 of anything with brigade, and up to 8 elites. Keep in mind Ro3 isn't going away, and that if you choose to take zero troops, your opponent will obsec you to death.
The only exception might be aircraft, because only the Airwing lets you take more than 2 aircraft. So if you are sticking to the arbitrary limit of 3 detachments, that's a max of 6 non-transport aircraft UNLESS you take an airwing.
I'm prepared to be wrong, and I will certainly cop to it if I am. Earlier I did a direct comparison of a Brigade vs. 3 spearheads; someone pointed out that while my 3 spearheads were able to contain all of the units that the brigade contained, I did end up with 9 heavies, where the most that could fit in the brigade was 5. Any other detachment except a patrol could have held 3 extra heavies, bringing it down to a one heavy differential.
Without CP generation, there is no reason that any combination of three detachments is any more balanced than any other combination of three detachments.
In the abstract, sure, the only way to get 20 heavies in an army is to take a pair of spearheads, but you've got to follow Ro3, and without troops, most other armies will beat you on objectives, meaning there's no need to make spearheads cost more to prevent somebody from taking 20 heavies.
Nightlord1987 wrote: Matched play and "Tournment suggested matched play" rules should never have been separate. Matched Play rules should have been the tourny community standard, and all other modes of play optional.
No, they should be distinct, but they should've been defined in the core rulebook from day 1, not added in partway through the edition in a Big FAQ.
While all tournament games should be matched play, as far as I'm aware, not all matched play games are tournament games, and therefore shouldn't need to have those restrictions forced upon them.
I'm confused. Except for the "rule of three" all the tournament suggested rules are in the core rulebook as of day 1.
A supreme command detachment is no more powerful than three battalions that each take an extra HQ. Or three patrols that do the same thing.
Seriously. Try it. Without multi-dexing or multi-subfactioning (because I can understand why detachments that do that have a cost) make the most broken army you can using whatever detachments you want. Then rebuild the exact same army, using a Brigade- fill ALL the slots in said brigade, and just see how much is left over. Dollars to donuts, whatever is left over will probably fit into any of the other detachments if you use all the extra slots in that detachment as well.
You can take up to 5 of anything with brigade, and up to 8 elites. Keep in mind Ro3 isn't going away, and that if you choose to take zero troops, your opponent will obsec you to death.
The only exception might be aircraft, because only the Airwing lets you take more than 2 aircraft. So if you are sticking to the arbitrary limit of 3 detachments, that's a max of 6 non-transport aircraft UNLESS you take an airwing.
I'm prepared to be wrong, and I will certainly cop to it if I am. Earlier I did a direct comparison of a Brigade vs. 3 spearheads; someone pointed out that while my 3 spearheads were able to contain all of the units that the brigade contained, I did end up with 9 heavies, where the most that could fit in the brigade was 5. Any other detachment except a patrol could have held 3 extra heavies, bringing it down to a one heavy differential.
Without CP generation, there is no reason that any combination of three detachments is any more balanced than any other combination of three detachments.
In the abstract, sure, the only way to get 20 heavies in an army is to take a pair of spearheads, but you've got to follow Ro3, and without troops, most other armies will beat you on objectives, meaning there's no need to make spearheads cost more to prevent somebody from taking 20 heavies.
The issue with comparing a brigade to anything is that a brigade requires you to bring 3 HQ units, 6 troops, 3 elites, 3 fast attack choices, and 3 heavy support choices. Those are a lot of mandatory choices to bring when you're trying to maximize the potential of some specific units and wish to minimize investment in anything else.
You're also ignoring that a list might be built to sweep objectives clean with overwhelming firepower while hiding their own minimal troops in reserve until they're killed enough of your forces that you can't easily contest them.
Your idea of balance is a complete fantasy that doesn't match up with the realities of high-level tournament play.
PenitentJake wrote: If they assign a cost to detachments, every mono army will just be a brigade with extra slots maxed out.
If these simple changes to CP actually result in the optimal army configuration becoming a relatively balanced list with a mix of HQs, Troops, Elites, Fast Attack, and Heavy Support, then GW will have converged fluff and crunch in a way never before reached in the history of the game.
Realistically, unless the non-Battalion/Brigade detachments cost a lot of CP, then armies built from those detachments will be better off than they are currently. But I don't see any problem with having the most generalist detachment with the highest number of compulsory choices confer the greatest CP benefit.
Ive just been thinking that some armies/faction can just flat out have more CP if what the "everyone starts with same CP" thing is what it sounds like at face value.
Here is what I mean.
If an ultramarines player takes G-man or Calgar. They would get what, adiditonal 2-3 Cp? I believe there are other units that gave this rule.
So now potentialy you could have an elite army all with the same faction in one detatchment that has double the CP of another which has to take multiple detachments to function(like DE) or armies which relied on making battalions so that they could fuel their army with CP and have that as an advantage.
I wonder if these will be addressed. It would not surprise me if nobody thought about this at all.
I just hope the FOC means something in this edition. The ability to add on new formations for virtually no expenditure of resources (another HQ? Ok!) meant that the 2 HQ/3 Elite/6 Troops/3 FA/6 HS standard meant absolutely nothing (and it hasn't since 7th, for that matter).
My fear is that GW will change the "typical" FOC for whatever the majority of 40K games is will be to the current Brigade formation (without the need for 6 Troops, maybe just 2 or 3, and without the need for the other compulsory slots).
The typical FOC is rubbish and it makes many armies unplayable. We are , and I'm very glad of it, pass that.
The old FOC was so bad that nearly half the codexs had characters that allowed you to ignore it , with things like making bikes troops, etc, etc...
Feth the idea of trop tax. 8th has accomplished something nearly no other edition did: Many factions play their troops because they are actually quite good and usable! Others use them as CP bots, ok, just like in nearly all edition many armies troops were trash that you would take only if you had no way to NOT take them.
If they're looking at changing the FOC I'd like to see different charts for each Codex and possibly even modified by which sub-faction you choose. Ignoring the units and the differences those bring there should be very real differences in which forces an Ultramarine force places emphasis on versus Dark Eldar or Tyranids.
Canadian 5th wrote: If they're looking at changing the FOC I'd like to see different charts for each Codex and possibly even modified by which sub-faction you choose. Ignoring the units and the differences those bring there should be very real differences in which forces an Ultramarine force places emphasis on versus Dark Eldar or Tyranids.
Like how the 3.5 csm codex allowed Night Lords to take more FA at the expense of less HS and the Iron Warriors vice versa? I like that idea.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Like how the 3.5 csm codex allowed Night Lords to take more FA at the expense of less HS and the Iron Warriors vice versa? I like that idea.
That's a terrible idea. Any change to army organisation where you have to give something up that you were never going to take in the first place is a bad idea. There isn't a single 3.5 Iron Warrior player who went "Arrgh! But I need those two FA slots!" because CSMFA was (and still is) garbage.
The same applied to the Guard Doctrine system (you mean I have to give up a bunch of terrible units I was never going to take and my army gets +1 Initiative and Deep Strike for free?) and the Marine Trait system (you mean I have to give up allies I wasn't taking anyway to take Furious Charge or Tank hunters?) from 4th Edition.
Galas wrote: The typical FOC is rubbish and it makes many armies unplayable. We are , and I'm very glad of it, pass that.
I’m going to throw out an outlandish idea, if CP is going to be a fixed amount based on point size then does the detachment system as is really need to exist for mono-codex armies? It seems superfluous for them now. Seems like detachments should be a designation solely for allies.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Like how the 3.5 csm codex allowed Night Lords to take more FA at the expense of less HS and the Iron Warriors vice versa? I like that idea.
That's a terrible idea. Any change to army organisation where you have to give something up that you were never going to take in the first place is a bad idea. There isn't a single 3.5 Iron Warrior player who went "Arrgh! But I need those two FA slots!" because CSMFA was (and still is) garbage.
The same applied to the Guard Doctrine system (you mean I have to give up a bunch of terrible units I was never going to take and my army gets +1 Initiative and Deep Strike for free?) and the Marine Trait system (you mean I have to give up allies I wasn't taking anyway to take Furious Charge or Tank hunters?) from 4th Edition.
Right. You do realize that the current detachment system lets Iron Warriors do the same thing now for the price of a single HQ "tax"unit.
And as far as csmFA being garbage, my warp talons would like a word.
Naturally I was excited at first with 8th Edition promising "Loads of Detachment options! Have all FAST ATTTACK!" promised, and it turned out to be the weak Outrider detachment with that pathetic 1 cp, gimping your whole army composition for a gimmick.
So when I hear the same about the next edition, I expect whatever Non Troops lists you can possibly make will be pretty gak, with some negative caveat and rarely considered fielding anyway.
All of a sudden there are Deathwing players? Playing some Terminator exclusive army? In 8th edition? Or are we just looking for things to hypothesize and complain about...
If you're purposely taking a skew and/or thematic armylist you should know it's not going to be preferable.
I'm building a Scout Vanguard marine list. Will it take down Imperial Knights? Or Eldar Flyers? No. But I'm taking suboptimal list choices on purpose for a fun game.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Right. You do realize that the current detachment system lets Iron Warriors do the same thing now for the price of a single HQ "tax"unit.
Yes, and as I said, the FOC is currently meaningless in 8th as there are no restrictions, only taxes.
PenitentJake wrote: If they assign a cost to detachments, every mono army will just be a brigade with extra slots maxed out.
If these simple changes to CP actually result in the optimal army configuration becoming a relatively balanced list with a mix of HQs, Troops, Elites, Fast Attack, and Heavy Support, then GW will have converged fluff and crunch in a way never before reached in the history of the game.
Realistically, unless the non-Battalion/Brigade detachments cost a lot of CP, then armies built from those detachments will be better off than they are currently. But I don't see any problem with having the most generalist detachment with the highest number of compulsory choices confer the greatest CP benefit.
This is a really interesting perspective- I hadn't seen it from these angles.
Maybe Unbound will be the best thing for the game. If we're only taking things because of what they do on the table it should hyper focus where the balance is off.
Now if GW takes that info to bring the outliers closer together great. If they just release new units that invalidate the top 20% not so much.
PenitentJake wrote: If they assign a cost to detachments, every mono army will just be a brigade with extra slots maxed out. Rule of 3 is still out there to my knowledge.
This assumes that you'll still have a choice of brigade. That might be locked behind points levels.
The Rule Of Three *is* a rule, boy does that one get old. It’s a rule, albeit an optional one with a nickname, and a lot of games outside of tournaments use it. Sure, it’s not a *Core Rule*, but please do stop saying it isn’t a rule. It is, and a widely-used one at that.
Please stop saying it's a rule. It's a guideline, specifically for matched play organised events, and if it was a rule (which it isn't) it's not even "of three". It varies depending on points level.
You’ll be in a minority with that viewpoint. It’s commonly known as the Rule of Three and is used as a rule by many, whatever hairs you wanna split. Good luck telling those who use it otherwise. This was meant as an aside btw and isn’t the topic so if you want to continue this please PM me or start a thread so this one isn’t derailed for others.
It’ll be interesting to see what the new shape of detachments etc. is. Some people aren’t I have (mis?)interpreted previews about unlocking allies to mean any extra detachments cost CP. I just don’t see that being the case. I also don’t think there’ll be mandated ‘core detachments’ as that would fly in the face of their ‘collect what you like so long as you BUY STUFF’ current ethos. Don’t see that changing.
I’m very on board with the set CP thing if only so I don’t have to skew lists for a chance at using my toys properly. I do wonder if some armies will struggle now if they can’t build for their CP-hungry tools, such as GSC. I needed the CP advantage to have a look-in vs modern Marines. If they’ve now same points, better rules AND more tricks my GSC might be shelf-warming until a new Codex.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Please stop saying it's a rule. It's a guideline, specifically for matched play organised events, and if it was a rule (which it isn't) it's not even "of three". It varies depending on points level.
I'd say it is a rule de facto, as you can't find a pickup game if you break it, let alone play in a tournament. At least here where I live.
My guess is that it will be a matched play rule presented in the new rulebook, with limits of 2x up to 1000, 3x up to 2000, ...
Galas wrote: The typical FOC is rubbish and it makes many armies unplayable. We are , and I'm very glad of it, pass that.
The old FOC was so bad that nearly half the codexs had characters that allowed you to ignore it , with things like making bikes troops, etc, etc...
Feth the idea of trop tax. 8th has accomplished something nearly no other edition did: Many factions play their troops because they are actually quite good and usable! Others use them as CP bots, ok, just like in nearly all edition many armies troops were trash that you would take only if you had no way to NOT take them.
I don't see how this is suppose to be a good thing, for any army without multiple good elite, fast attack and heavy support choices though. It is like the ally thing. Technicaly opens the number of army combinations, but not to people who don't have ally as an option. And that is before some people maybe not wanting to play with ally.
Irrelevant. It's not a rule. Doesn't matter if people commonly think it is, it's still not a rule. End of story. Am I splitting hairs? Sure. But I am splitting them correctly? You betcha!
JohnnyHell wrote: It’ll be interesting to see what the new shape of detachments etc. is. Some people aren’t I have (mis?)interpreted previews about unlocking allies to mean any extra detachments cost CP. I just don’t see that being the case. I also don’t think there’ll be mandated ‘core detachments’ as that would fly in the face of their ‘collect what you like so long as you BUY STUFF’ current ethos. Don’t see that changing.
That seems to be what they said - want more detachments, pay CP for them. You are correct though, it does go against the "buy stuff" ethos, which is why I think that the Brigade will be the norm. If everyone has 6 HS slots and 6 FA slots without needing to buy more detachments, then everyone will still "buy stuff".
Someone else said it earlier, and I know it'll never happen, but I'd like FOC to be determined by the army you're playing, and the structure of that army's military forces.
I'm always reminded of the Epic 2nd Ed Tyranid rules, where their structure was hexagonal. You'd start with Hive Mind creatures at the centre (Hive Tyrant and the Dominatrix), and you could attach units to each of the 6 sides. Want to expand that? Bring some Tyranid warriors, who had 2-3 sides available for further attachments. Meant that the larger force you had, the more synapse you needed to support it. Always thought it was a nifty idea. You could do the same for various armies, like the company structure for Marine armies, platoon structure for Guard, and so on. Imagine a Death Guard army whose organisation is geared around the number 7?
As I said, GW would never do it, but it would be fun.
Irrelevant. It's not a rule. Doesn't matter if people commonly think it is, it's still not a rule. End of story. Am I splitting hairs? Sure. But I am splitting them correctly? You betcha!
Just to jump on this pedant train, yes you are splitting hairs, but you aren't doing it correctly. Is it a rule? Yes. Is it always applicable? No.
Is points a rule? yes. is it used in Open play? No
Is Power Level a rule? yes. Is it used in Matched play? no.
Is a house rule a rule? Yes. is it relevant if you're not using house rules? no.
Is the legal drinking age in the UK 18 yrs old? yes. Is this a rule? yes. Is it relevant in a bar in California? No, but it is still a rule.
Irrelevant. It's not a rule. Doesn't matter if people commonly think it is, it's still not a rule. End of story. Am I splitting hairs? Sure. But I am splitting them correctly? You betcha!
JohnnyHell wrote: It’ll be interesting to see what the new shape of detachments etc. is. Some people aren’t I have (mis?)interpreted previews about unlocking allies to mean any extra detachments cost CP. I just don’t see that being the case. I also don’t think there’ll be mandated ‘core detachments’ as that would fly in the face of their ‘collect what you like so long as you BUY STUFF’ current ethos. Don’t see that changing.
That seems to be what they said - want more detachments, pay CP for them. You are correct though, it does go against the "buy stuff" ethos, which is why I think that the Brigade will be the norm. If everyone has 6 HS slots and 6 FA slots without needing to buy more detachments, then everyone will still "buy stuff".
Someone else said it earlier, and I know it'll never happen, but I'd like FOC to be determined by the army you're playing, and the structure of that army's military forces.
I'm always reminded of the Epic 2nd Ed Tyranid rules, where their structure was hexagonal. You'd start with Hive Mind creatures at the centre (Hive Tyrant and the Dominatrix), and you could attach units to each of the 6 sides. Want to expand that? Bring some Tyranid warriors, who had 2-3 sides available for further attachments. Meant that the larger force you had, the more synapse you needed to support it. Always thought it was a nifty idea. You could do the same for various armies, like the company structure for Marine armies, platoon structure for Guard, and so on. Imagine a Death Guard army whose organisation is geared around the number 7?
As I said, GW would never do it, but it would be fun.
This reminds me of the way Imperial Guard used to be bilt around platoons, with a limited number of specialist squads added on. The 3.5 codex had Command platoons, Infantry platoons, and Heavy Weapons platoons, all requiring command squads to access the units in a time before orders made command squads vital. Veterans, conscripts and armoured fist squads were limited in number (doctrines notwithstanding). This kind of persisted into the 5th ed codex, but everything was rolled into the Infantry platoon, loosing much of the flavour.
I would quite like a return to the platoon structure, with unit options being unlocked by using command assets.
There would need to be some variation and flexibility- a small game would be appropriate to be lead by a Commissar or platoon commander, but a larger game should be a Lord Commissar or company commander.
Haighus wrote: This reminds me of the way Imperial Guard used to be bilt around platoons, with a limited number of specialist squads added on. The 3.5 codex had Command platoons, Infantry platoons, and Heavy Weapons platoons, all requiring command squads to access the units in a time before orders made command squads vital. Veterans, conscripts and armoured fist squads were limited in number (doctrines notwithstanding). This kind of persisted into the 5th ed codex, but everything was rolled into the Infantry platoon, loosing much of the flavour.
I would quite like a return to the platoon structure, with unit options being unlocked by using command assets.
There would need to be some variation and flexibility- a small game would be appropriate to be lead by a Commissar or platoon commander, but a larger game should be a Lord Commissar or company commander.
Oh I remember. Guard were my top army back in the days of 3rd/4th. Their platoon structure might as well have been tattooed onto my eyeballs it was something I used so often.
When GW removed it in favour of individual squads and, worse, removed the Officers from their command squads (which runs counter to the entire reason Guard officers were put in command squads for the first place, as having them as roaming heroes wasn't their style), it was a sad day for the Guard (then they even changed their name - a sadder day for the Astra Miliwhatnow?). There weren't many things as fun as throwing down a 55-man Mechanised platoon as a single Troops choice.
I like your idea, with command assets, and some variation of commanders (Commissars being a good example, another could be Storm Trooper commanders or even higher-level Priests, could even unlock some of the more esoteric units, Flaggelants, Crusaders, etc.). Just as long as it isn't like the old Doctrine system, where in order to get the good stuff you had to "give up" units that you were never going to take anyway (Sanctioned Psykers, Ratlings, Ogryn, etc.).
No. It's a guideline. Not a rule. Says so even in its own text: "... we suggest using the table below. As well as a helpful guide to the size of the battlefield and game length ... feel free to modify these guidelines to better suit ...". None can split hairs more efficiently as me. Everything else you said is so much straw...
This reminds me of the way Imperial Guard used to be bilt around platoons, with a limited number of specialist squads added on. The 3.5 codex had Command platoons, Infantry platoons, and Heavy Weapons platoons, all requiring command squads to access the units in a time before orders made command squads vital. Veterans, conscripts and armoured fist squads were limited in number (doctrines notwithstanding). This kind of persisted into the 5th ed codex, but everything was rolled into the Infantry platoon, loosing much of the flavour.
I would quite like a return to the platoon structure, with unit options being unlocked by using command assets.
There would need to be some variation and flexibility- a small game would be appropriate to be lead by a Commissar or platoon commander, but a larger game should be a Lord Commissar or company commander.
No expiriance with prior editions, but to those that did play back then would it be interesting to have each army have army specific detachments. With rules and CP cost tailored to this specific factions.
And if some specific detachmant was too good to soup, it could get an anti soup rule. So lets say a quintet of smash hammers, chaplains and librarians could be an option only if all the other detachments were space marines of the same chapter. Or would something like that be a stupid idea?
No. It's a guideline. Not a rule. Says so even in its own text: "... we suggest using the table below. As well as a helpful guide to the size of the battlefield and game length ... feel free to modify these guidelines to better suit ...". None can split hairs more efficiently as me. Everything else you said is so much straw...
Merriam-Webster:
Guideline (noun) A rule or instruction that shows or tells how something should be done
alextroy wrote: Hold onto your hats everyone. Today's New Edition post on WC revealed that you will be gaining CP each turn during the brand new Command Phase.
Yes.
Makes me wonder whether we are going full Kill Team on this.
No. It's a guideline. Not a rule. Says so even in its own text: "... we suggest using the table below. As well as a helpful guide to the size of the battlefield and game length ... feel free to modify these guidelines to better suit ...". None can split hairs more efficiently as me. Everything else you said is so much straw...
Merriam-Webster:
Guideline (noun)
A rule or instruction that shows or tells how something should be done
Whilst this is off topic, I actually agree with H.B.M.C in that it's a guideline. Should isnt must, and whilst they are similar, "should” is used to denote recommendations, advice, or to talk about what is generally right or wrong within the permissible limits of society. For instance:
You should chew your food properly.
We should respect our parents.
You should stop smoking.
You must clean our car
Just because we all use it, and its enforced by tournaments doesnt mean it's an official rule. We are advised to use it and thus we have adopted it as a rule, but in no way is it enforced by Gamesworkshop as a rule.
If I'm told I should hand my report in by 12pm, doesnt mean I have to stick to that timing. But if I'm told I must, then if I miss that deadline I have broken that command. One is a recommendation, the other is an obligation.
We as a community have just accepted it as a rule for the sake of balance.
Spoletta wrote: According to the last news, CPs arrive turn by turn!
Is this going to curb alpha strikes?
Very much love this, actually. It's kind of a no-brainer rule steal from AoS that helps cure my reticence for fixed CP. Means you gotta be more sparing for certain tactics per turn early, save up for a late-game CP dump tactic, or just blow through them willy-nilly each turn for some fun and power.
It is good for the long term health of the game. Will need some rebalancing in the short term as there are currently races that are just hanging on by spending a ton of CP to compete.
Why would this stop alpha striking? Alpha striking was around before Command Points came about. It's the reason why getting the first turn has always been so powerful.
Someone in the other thread said that generating CP at the start of each turn would go a long way to making the "auto-include" CP-generating Warlord Traits and Relics not quite such a thing. I'd also imagine that such traits/relics might find themselves left out of future Codices.
That said, I don't mind additional CP for specific army choices (Red Corsairs spring to mind).
PenitentJake wrote: If they assign a cost to detachments, every mono army will just be a brigade with extra slots maxed out. Rule of 3 is still out there to my knowledge.
This assumes that you'll still have a choice of brigade. That might be locked behind points levels.
Nice- I think you're onto something. That sounds like exactly what they'll do. Funny thing: I was kinda up in arms a little about limits on detachments outside of subfaction/faction concerns, but if they link it to escalation like that, given that I'll be playing a crusade anyway, I might be able to get behind it. Thanks for the perspective.
In the end, it's just a guess, but I could see your "core" detachment (and CP) being set by the points level, and then additional detachments (and different Codices) being bought with those CP.
I seriously doubt there will be any fixed core detachment. They have already said you can play any type of army you want. The example of a Deathwing army doesn't fit with a fixed core detachment of Patrol, Battalion or Brigade.
Furthermore, there are armies that can't fix a Brigade in even at 2000 points such as Custodes and the Knights (Imperial or Chaos).
The rules are far more likely to be a more simple, pick any detachment you want as your first detachment (maybe requiring your Warlord be in that detachment) and then allowing you to just add more at the cost of some of your starting CP. They can literally just remove the detachment benefits from the current detachments and call it done as far as that part is concerned.
alextroy wrote: The example of a Deathwing army doesn't fit with a fixed core detachment of Patrol, Battalion or Brigade.
That's why I wish army composition was Codex-based, rather than generic. If the Dark Angel Codex had a FOC for Battle Companies, Deathwing and Ravenwing armies it would solve the issue. Knights could have their own without having to awkwardly ignore the "standard" FOC we have now.
Argive wrote:Its sort of brave to make a whole new phase.. Interesting.
Aldo actual terrain rules.
Give it another 6 years and we'll back to proper 40k with firing arcs, templates and a proper wound and hit chart.
Not sure it's exactly brave, or really much of a new phase in practice. I'd suspect all the current "start of turn" abilities will be moved to the Command Phase to give them a proper place tomtrigger in the turn sequence.
alextroy wrote:I seriously doubt there will be any fixed core detachment. They have already said you can play any type of army you want. The example of a Deathwing army doesn't fit with a fixed core detachment of Patrol, Battalion or Brigade.
Furthermore, there are armies that can't fix a Brigade in even at 2000 points such as Custodes and the Knights (Imperial or Chaos).
The rules are far more likely to be a more simple, pick any detachment you want as your first detachment (maybe requiring your Warlord be in that detachment) and then allowing you to just add more at the cost of some of your starting CP. They can literally just remove the detachment benefits from the current detachments and call it done as far as that part is concerned.
I'm not so sure. I could easily see a rule that says you get a Battalion or Brigade for free but you don't have to use it. If you want anything other than that you have to pay. Not saying it will happen but it's one route they could take to allow flexibility while still making Troop-heavy armies desirable.
I'm liking the generating CPs approach they're going for. I think it'd be even better if the CPs you get at the start of the game were a fixed number that you also need to spend if you want to soup or add more detachments. So you can get a more flexible army overall but will have fewer resources to spend early in the game. It might help reduce the effect of alpha strikes but I think we need proper terrain and LoS rules for that. We'll wait and see what they've come up with.
alextroy wrote: Hold onto your hats everyone. Today's New Edition post on WC revealed that you will be gaining CP each turn during the brand new Command Phase.
It better be 6CP minimum per turn then. Otherwise GW is going to have to make an errata for codex GK, to change some stratagems to either be 0CP or to be unit rules.
alextroy wrote: Hold onto your hats everyone. Today's New Edition post on WC revealed that you will be gaining CP each turn during the brand new Command Phase.
It better be 6CP minimum per turn then. Otherwise GW is going to have to make an errata for codex GK, to change some stratagems to either be 0CP or to be unit rules.
Thus the problem of fixing units/armies with strategems.
Spoletta wrote: According to the last news, CPs arrive turn by turn!
Is this going to curb alpha strikes?
Or it's phase where current CP generation happens. Or there's going to be some CP generation in addition to start of game.
Unlikely to be AOS style 1CP per turn. For one that would require all codexes etc to be rewritten. For second GW is going to increase CP amount rather than reduce.
Mostly it's there for sequencing to clarify what happens when.
alextroy wrote: Hold onto your hats everyone. Today's New Edition post on WC revealed that you will be gaining CP each turn during the brand new Command Phase.
It better be 6CP minimum per turn then. Otherwise GW is going to have to make an errata for codex GK, to change some stratagems to either be 0CP or to be unit rules.
Why? Let's assume GW wants you to have 20 CP for the total game, assuming a 5 turn game (the minimum allowed in most scenarios).
Option A: Give the player 20 CP before the game and let them go crazy
Option B: Give the player 10 CP before the game and 2 CP per turn
Option C: Give the player 5 CP before the game and 3 CP per turn
The total CP for the game is the same, but the flow of Stratagem usage is very different in each case.
alextroy wrote: Hold onto your hats everyone. Today's New Edition post on WC revealed that you will be gaining CP each turn during the brand new Command Phase.
It better be 6CP minimum per turn then. Otherwise GW is going to have to make an errata for codex GK, to change some stratagems to either be 0CP or to be unit rules.
Why? Let's assume GW wants you to have 20 CP for the total game, assuming a 5 turn game (the minimum allowed in most scenarios).
Option A: Give the player 20 CP before the game and let them go crazy
Option B: Give the player 10 CP before the game and 2 CP per turn
Option C: Give the player 5 CP before the game and 3 CP per turn
The total CP for the game is the same, but the flow of Stratagem usage is very different in each case.
True the issue is we have already been told allies and it's been inplied multiple detachments cost CP, Given most armies can spend 4-6 CP on relics and warlord traits, we now have upgrade strategums like demons, reserving units for CP, they have said their is additional core strategums I can see games of 9th burning 30 plus CP easily, with 10 or more spent before the game even starts.
Pregame spending sounds like it could be very steep and it will have to be otherwise the trade-off for allies will be zero.
Also if the admech leaks are anything to go by we are going to find a lot more units depending upon strategums to do things that are core to the unit being viable.
I'm not saying there won't be a ton more CP in 9th. I'm just saying there doesn't need to be 60 CP over the course of a game either.
And yes, there are many stratagems that would be nice to use. Which ones you use depends on how much CP you have and what is the best use of them over the course of the game and your CP budget. You don't spend CP to turn Ragnar Blackmane into full blender mode to kill 5 Tactical Marines.
alextroy wrote: Hold onto your hats everyone. Today's New Edition post on WC revealed that you will be gaining CP each turn during the brand new Command Phase.
It better be 6CP minimum per turn then. Otherwise GW is going to have to make an errata for codex GK, to change some stratagems to either be 0CP or to be unit rules.
Why? Let's assume GW wants you to have 20 CP for the total game, assuming a 5 turn game (the minimum allowed in most scenarios).
Option A: Give the player 20 CP before the game and let them go crazy
Option B: Give the player 10 CP before the game and 2 CP per turn
Option C: Give the player 5 CP before the game and 3 CP per turn
The total CP for the game is the same, but the flow of Stratagem usage is very different in each case.
True the issue is we have already been told allies and it's been inplied multiple detachments cost CP, Given most armies can spend 4-6 CP on relics and warlord traits, we now have upgrade strategums like demons, reserving units for CP, they have said their is additional core strategums I can see games of 9th burning 30 plus CP easily, with 10 or more spent before the game even starts.
Pregame spending sounds like it could be very steep and it will have to be otherwise the trade-off for allies will be zero.
Also if the admech leaks are anything to go by we are going to find a lot more units depending upon strategums to do things that are core to the unit being viable.
I hope it’s not somewhere in the region of 30 CPs per army. I’m not the biggest fan of strategems ( I fall in the camp that thinks most should be unit abilities with appropriate points costs) but I can accept that they are sticking around for 9th. I am however excited about new ways to spend CPs other than stratagems: reserves, allies, detachments(?) and I hope that these new options lead to interesting decisions rather than everyone getting so many CPs that they can spend them on everything. I think pregame abilities, reserves, allies and saving enough for mid game abilities should have to be carefully considered and none of them should be so good that they are auto take every time.
I’m interested to see what they’ve done with the CP system. Seems likely there will be a flat number to start with and a fixed number earned at the start of the turn. What those numbers are looks to be related to the scale of the battle (combat patrol, escalation etc).
No. It's a guideline. Not a rule. Says so even in its own text: "... we suggest using the table below. As well as a helpful guide to the size of the battlefield and game length ... feel free to modify these guidelines to better suit ...". None can split hairs more efficiently as me. Everything else you said is so much straw...
Merriam-Webster:
Guideline (noun)
A rule or instruction that shows or tells how something should be done
Whilst this is off topic, I actually agree with H.B.M.C in that it's a guideline. Should isnt must, and whilst they are similar, "should” is used to denote recommendations, advice, or to talk about what is generally right or wrong within the permissible limits of society. For instance:
You should chew your food properly.
We should respect our parents.
You should stop smoking.
You must clean our car
Just because we all use it, and its enforced by tournaments doesnt mean it's an official rule. We are advised to use it and thus we have adopted it as a rule, but in no way is it enforced by Gamesworkshop as a rule.
If I'm told I should hand my report in by 12pm, doesnt mean I have to stick to that timing. But if I'm told I must, then if I miss that deadline I have broken that command. One is a recommendation, the other is an obligation.
We as a community have just accepted it as a rule for the sake of balance.
No idea why this is trapped inside a quote haha
I fix this problem by throwing as many " [ /quote]"s on beginning of my post as possible. 5 usually does it.
alextroy wrote: Hold onto your hats everyone. Today's New Edition post on WC revealed that you will be gaining CP each turn during the brand new Command Phase.
It better be 6CP minimum per turn then. Otherwise GW is going to have to make an errata for codex GK, to change some stratagems to either be 0CP or to be unit rules.
Why? Let's assume GW wants you to have 20 CP for the total game, assuming a 5 turn game (the minimum allowed in most scenarios).
Option A: Give the player 20 CP before the game and let them go crazy
Option B: Give the player 10 CP before the game and 2 CP per turn
Option C: Give the player 5 CP before the game and 3 CP per turn
The total CP for the game is the same, but the flow of Stratagem usage is very different in each case.
Really hope it's similar to option B, give the player enough to fool around with in terms of pregame stuff and then have there be a dripfeed as the game goes on.
It would certainly make the game less deadly and cut down on alpha strikes, though many armies that rely on strategems to function will need an update. Maybe the day one errata will address that.
As always my perspective is Space Marines/Word Bearers. Currently a massive amount of Marines extreme power level is passive.
High powered multi functional traits on all units
Doctrine and Super Doctrines
Varied and powerful auras.
In an edition where souping and heavy CP expenditure is reigned in something rather drastic will need to be done for armies who relied on them to hang on.
Simply put Marines Prinaris especially probably need to go back to the points they cost at the drop of codex 1.0 as right now they are bonkers good for their points.
Ice_can wrote: Simply put Marines Prinaris especially probably need to go back to the points they cost at the drop of codex 1.0 as right now they are bonkers good for their points.
That's too glass cannony. The game needs less glass cannon saturation. Take some of their offensive powers and make them defensive.
alextroy wrote: I'm not saying there won't be a ton more CP in 9th. I'm just saying there doesn't need to be 60 CP over the course of a game either.
And yes, there are many stratagems that would be nice to use. Which ones you use depends on how much CP you have and what is the best use of them over the course of the game and your CP budget. You don't spend CP to turn Ragnar Blackmane into full blender mode to kill 5 Tactical Marines.
In case of some armies you do use them every turn though. I can't imagine a GK army not usingblessed ammo or prognosticators. And if they run paladins their buff stratagems. Well besides not using them because they run out of CP.
Ice_can wrote: Simply put Marines Prinaris especially probably need to go back to the points they cost at the drop of codex 1.0 as right now they are bonkers good for their points.
That's too glass cannony. The game needs less glass cannon saturation. Take some of their offensive powers and make them defensive.
With the damage out put marines have and GW already having committed to changibg points it more likely than your suggestion, though in all honesty I doubt we will see anything but other factions models get cheaper still. Roll on the 1point guardsman.
Ice_can wrote: Simply put Marines Prinaris especially probably need to go back to the points they cost at the drop of codex 1.0 as right now they are bonkers good for their points.
That's too glass cannony. The game needs less glass cannon saturation. Take some of their offensive powers and make them defensive.
With the damage out put marines have and GW already having committed to changibg points it more likely than your suggestion, though in all honesty I doubt we will see anything but other factions models get cheaper still. Roll on the 1point guardsman.
Eldarain wrote: As always my perspective is Space Marines/Word Bearers. Currently a massive amount of Marines extreme power level is passive.
High powered multi functional traits on all units
Doctrine and Super Doctrines
Varied and powerful auras.
In an edition where souping and heavy CP expenditure is reigned in something rather drastic will need to be done for armies who relied on them to hang on.
Agreed. Either the upcoming day one errata will need to be extensive, or they need to hurry up with the new codexes, especially considering some codexes are already outdated by 8th edition standards.
alextroy wrote: The example of a Deathwing army doesn't fit with a fixed core detachment of Patrol, Battalion or Brigade.
That's why I wish army composition was Codex-based, rather than generic. If the Dark Angel Codex had a FOC for Battle Companies, Deathwing and Ravenwing armies it would solve the issue. Knights could have their own without having to awkwardly ignore the "standard" FOC we have now.
On the plus side though, now that detachments have no associated reward, an Outrider is perfect for Ravenwing and a Vanguard is perfect for Deathwing. What used to mess it up was the fact you got squat CP for using those detachments compared to battalions and brigades. Now that doesn't matter, so you can actually build the army you want- assuming, of course, that they don't standardize which detachment should be your core.
alextroy wrote: I'm not saying there won't be a ton more CP in 9th. I'm just saying there doesn't need to be 60 CP over the course of a game either.
And yes, there are many stratagems that would be nice to use. Which ones you use depends on how much CP you have and what is the best use of them over the course of the game and your CP budget. You don't spend CP to turn Ragnar Blackmane into full blender mode to kill 5 Tactical Marines.
In case of some armies you do use them every turn though. I can't imagine a GK army not usingblessed ammo or prognosticators. And if they run paladins their buff stratagems. Well besides not using them because they run out of CP.
One thing to bear in mind whenever a new edition comes along is your current way of playing and pattern of thinking will likely need to change. Remember, everyone is in the same position. If the rules were to change so you could only use a maximum of 5-6CP a turn your army wouldn't be the only one affected. You'd not have to deal with many of the supercharged alpha strikes we get right now with people dumping 8-10CPs into one turn to get maximum benefit. It's simply too early to tell what these changes will actually mean for any one army yet.
Personally, I'm hoping that the first turn and pre-game CPs are quite closely tied together and there are meaningful decisions to be made about spending them. I'd prefer a system where you can't just take 2 warlord traits, 3 relics, buff 2 units prior to the game and still spend 5CPs in the first turn on your alpha strike. Rather I'd prefer you need to choose one or the other, or take a more measured approach. I'm not too hopeful because GW seems to think stratagems and CPs are the greatest thing ever, but we'll have to wait and see once they preview them properly.
I will laugh if it's a D6 or 2D6 starting CP pool. Maybe there will be a chart?
PenitentJake wrote: On the plus side though, now that detachments have no associated reward, an Outrider is perfect for Ravenwing and a Vanguard is perfect for Deathwing. What used to mess it up was the fact you got squat CP for using those detachments compared to battalions and brigades. Now that doesn't matter, so you can actually build the army you want- assuming, of course, that they don't standardize which detachment should be your core.
But army composition and structure should matter. I am glad that GW are divorcing CP generation from detachments, but I wish they'd put more thought into the way you get detachments and what those detachments are.
It is kind of crazy how fast they were able to go from clean slate
opportunity (8th) to hopelessly convoluted balance state. With nothing more than the power from paint Pandora's box they opened they've put themselves in a place where the points can never be truly accurate.
Well it's just like 3rd Ed: It's the new version after a big wipe, and by the end of its time it is burdened with a bazillion extra books and errata and sub-rules and new ideas that they had along the way that it collapses under the weight of its own convolutedness.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I will laugh if it's a D6 or 2D6 starting CP pool. Maybe there will be a chart?
PenitentJake wrote: On the plus side though, now that detachments have no associated reward, an Outrider is perfect for Ravenwing and a Vanguard is perfect for Deathwing. What used to mess it up was the fact you got squat CP for using those detachments compared to battalions and brigades. Now that doesn't matter, so you can actually build the army you want- assuming, of course, that they don't standardize which detachment should be your core.
But army composition and structure should matter. I am glad that GW are divorcing CP generation from detachments, but I wish they'd put more thought into the way you get detachments and what those detachments are.
You will laugh, i will just be further disilusioned.
As for detachments and stratagems, i will still remain of the opinion that unit upgrade strats, equipment strats and modifying damage / durability strats should not be a thing period.
But then again considering the start of 9th will basically be in the best case 8th with better coverrules (HOPEFULLY!) and at the worst case just break certain armies over their reliance on CP by either giving out too much or too few, i feel like this will not really touch the status quo.
What about armies that are build around the idea, that their gear and special rules are not unit rules, but stratagems. Remove those, and the armies have nothing to play with.
Not Online!!! wrote: As for detachments and stratagems, i will still remain of the opinion that unit upgrade strats, equipment strats and modifying damage / durability strats should not be a thing period.
Yeah not a fan of stratagems that act as unit or equipment upgrades. Maybe the exception is using CP to bring additional limited upgrades like Relics or the Tyranid adaptation thingy, as that's using a strategic resource to bring more of something that you would otherwise normally be allowed, but straight up "Your unit are now 'Veteran Intercessors'" or "You are now a Chapter Master" just reek of "Here are rules for something that we haven't got a specific model yet, so won't make a full Codex entry!".
Karol wrote: What about armies that are build around the idea, that their gear and special rules are not unit rules, but stratagems. Remove those, and the armies have nothing to play with.
False dilemma. You just add those in as actual options. Problem solved.
Karol wrote: What about armies that are build around the idea, that their gear and special rules are not unit rules, but stratagems. Remove those, and the armies have nothing to play with.
I'd settle down until we find out just how the new rules work. They said they'll talk about it sometime this week. Hopefully they won't be overly vague.
Edit:
Or as H.B.M.C. says they could be made actual options you pay points for. The day one errata could address that. Units and equipment should cost points, not cp.
Karol wrote: What about armies that are build around the idea, that their gear and special rules are not unit rules, but stratagems. Remove those, and the armies have nothing to play with.
You mean armies like CSM and GK?
Honestly, they are fundamentally flawed and i say that as a CSM player.
In essence you are bound to use the most effective way of CP to fuel the gameplan you have, any option that can't achieve that is a liability, even moreso then in other factions, due to the extreme stackability combintions required to make them work, core issue of this is that especially in the case of CSM you get units that start to get extremely over effective, like obliterators, or Combiplas termites, whilest other variants might aswell not exist because the same stratagems that make these units overly effective also would make the other units overly effective, makeing it so that to balance that all of the units in a dex have to be slightly inefective to counter that one hammer that you got .
Best case scenario, make the upgrades payable in points, balance the unit without the upgrade and balance the upgrade.
But that is my opinion.
Not Online!!! wrote: As for detachments and stratagems, i will still remain of the opinion that unit upgrade strats, equipment strats and modifying damage / durability strats should not be a thing period.
Yeah not a fan of stratagems that act as unit or equipment upgrades. Maybe the exception is using CP to bring additional limited upgrades like Relics or the Tyranid adaptation thingy, as that's using a strategic resource to bring more of something that you would otherwise normally be allowed, but straight up "Your unit are now 'Veteran Intercessors'" or "You are now a Chapter Master" just reek of "Here are rules for something that we haven't got a specific model yet, so won't make a full Codex entry!".
Karol wrote: What about armies that are build around the idea, that their gear and special rules are not unit rules, but stratagems. Remove those, and the armies have nothing to play with.
False dilemma. You just add those in as actual options. Problem solved.
Atleast those models are functional without said upgrade strategums, which isn't subfaction specific.
Crisis suits, greater demons and I'm sure their are other examples are just flat out units that don't work without those Strategums.
Worst part is they aren't even changing the models it's just statsline or additional rules.
Not Online!!! wrote: As for detachments and stratagems, i will still remain of the opinion that unit upgrade strats, equipment strats and modifying damage / durability strats should not be a thing period.
Yeah not a fan of stratagems that act as unit or equipment upgrades. Maybe the exception is using CP to bring additional limited upgrades like Relics or the Tyranid adaptation thingy, as that's using a strategic resource to bring more of something that you would otherwise normally be allowed, but straight up "Your unit are now 'Veteran Intercessors'" or "You are now a Chapter Master" just reek of "Here are rules for something that we haven't got a specific model yet, so won't make a full Codex entry!".
It's plain lazy aswell, and crippling narrative players (probably better to name these in that case themaitc) just as much as options for matched players.
F.e. Red butcher terminators for WE, one unit or lord, great, a signature unit of WE is a one off.
Veteran intercissors are another exemple, considering Veteran companies are a thing , you know.....
Not to mention that stratagems that are euqipment options in essence are also not effecitve at filling roster gaps, you know, like AA and CSM missile launchers,
For one it is daft that a Havoc is going to ask his commander to allow him to use the AA missile, and for two it is the only regular unit with capability for AA and three it 'd be an easy fix for the gap.
Aye, if fixed cp does anything for csm it will mean no longer being forced to take double battalions just to have enough cp to function. Either we'll get enough, or we won't. I wish gw would just make our units good without the need for stacking buffs. I hate being the wombo combo faction.
Atleast those models are functional without said upgrade strategums, which isn't subfaction specific.
Crisis suits, greater demons and I'm sure their are other examples are just flat out units that don't work without those Strategums.
Worst part is they aren't even changing the models it's just statsline or additional rules.
There are a lot of units that don't work without stratagem, melee terminators for WE for exemple.
Possessed, heck arguably even obliterators, havocs aswell and that is just CSM top off my head.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Don't forget warp talons. Ever see them in an army that wasn't either Night Lords or Emperors Children and actually be viable?
Warptalons honestly are the least concerning one when allready the core CSM doesn't work without recycling and doubleshooting...
Also PM don't work for DG but for AL for reasons unknown.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Don't forget warp talons. Ever see them in an army that wasn't either Night Lords or Emperors Children and actually be viable?
Warptalons honestly are the least concerning one when allready the core CSM doesn't work without recycling and doubleshooting...
Also PM don't work for DG but for AL for reasons unknown.
Honestly the whole subfaction system is a mess.
Aye, the whole csm faction needs a complete rework, starting with making csm more than just cannon fodder and fixing our legion traits so cp and strategems aren't a requirement for our units to work. Unfortunately if pa is any sign then gw intends to continue fixing units with strategems. 13 out of 14 of the Admech strategems in Engine War are unit specific.
The victory point count has also skyrocketed. The listed mission can easily generate 15 VP a turn, so games could end up looking like NBA scores instead of NHL totals.
The victory point count has also skyrocketed. The listed mission can easily generate 15 VP a turn, so games could end up looking like NBA scores instead of NHL totals.
The victory point count has also skyrocketed. The listed mission can easily generate 15 VP a turn, so games could end up looking like NBA scores instead of NHL totals.
I fail to see how a CSM army is supposed to work under 1000 pts with 6 CP but he, 6 pts cultists but 20 pts intercissors are fine and dandy..-
I don't want to derail this thread with pointsvrs balance.
But I do wonder if what is currently a 2k game is now replaced by a 3k game or if 2k is still the "normal" size game.
But in regards of CP right now it's certainly looking like they're holding back the full story especially given we know their is more core Mechanics strategums coming unless they are 0CP?
I fail to see how a CSM army is supposed to work under 1000 pts with 6 CP but he, 6 pts cultists but 20 pts intercissors are fine and dandy..-
I don't want to derail this thread with pointsvrs balance.
But I do wonder if what is currently a 2k game is now replaced by a 3k game or if 2k is still the "normal" size game.
But in regards of CP right now it's certainly looking like they're holding back the full story especially given we know their is more core Mechanics strategums coming unless they are 0CP?
Im thinking its just a 20% over all or around there, basically a 1750 game right will will be 9th 2k. But i'm just assuming.
Related to the army building, did you see they are increasing point cost for all units? The chaos cultist went up 50%, and intercessors went up 25%. Assuming the 25% is more indicative of the general trend, a 2000 point 9th ed battle will look like a 1600 points battle today. Of course by showing us two different inflation rates they are indicating to us this will not be an even affair. If they are going to adjust every units points there must be some formula/algorithm they are using to do so, I hope we get to peak behind the curtain on that.
Also, most significantly, matched play points will be in the app, which means they can be updated on a more frequent basis than once a year.
**Edit** so thinking about this, GW has run their tournaments at 1500, and if that size of game is their target for 2k points, then we should expect about a 33% increase overall.
With the CP totals posted, it now looks like the AREN'T drip feeding CP per turn- how do you drip feed 3 CP over a 5 turn game?
There may still be a mechanic for gaining drip fed CP- we'll have to see.
Can't wait for details on the app. I wonder if it will track Crusade experience and advances in edition to list building for matched. That's a lot to ask for, so I'm not going to expect it, but that would be outrageous.
Grimgold wrote: Related to the army building, did you see they are increasing point cost for all units? The chaos cultist went up 50%, and intercessors went up 25%. Assuming the 25% is more indicative of the general trend, a 2000 point 9th ed battle will look like a 1600 points battle today. Of course by showing us two different inflation rates they are indicating to us this will not be an even affair. If they are going to adjust every units points there must be some formula/algorithm they are using to do so, I hope we get to peak behind the curtain on that.
Also, most significantly, matched play points will be in the app, which means they can be updated on a more frequent basis than once a year.
**Edit** so thinking about this, GW has run their tournaments at 1500, and if that size of game is their target for 2k points, then we should expect about a 33% increase overall.
The launch of 8th also "shrinked games", but then the trend of lowering the point costs started.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PenitentJake wrote: With the CP totals posted, it now looks like the AREN'T drip feeding CP per turn- how do you drip feed 3 CP over a 5 turn game?
There may still be a mechanic for gaining drip fed CP- we'll have to see.
12 CP at 2K are seriously limited. I hope that there is something more that we are not seeing.
PenitentJake wrote: With the CP totals posted, it now looks like the AREN'T drip feeding CP per turn- how do you drip feed 3 CP over a 5 turn game?
There may still be a mechanic for gaining drip fed CP- we'll have to see.
Can't wait for details on the app. I wonder if it will track Crusade experience and advances in edition to list building for matched. That's a lot to ask for, so I'm not going to expect it, but that would be outrageous.
Might be that is the pre-game number and they’ll drip feed more each turn? Maybe a third of that number? One a turn doesn’t seem enough for larger games but more than that would probably overwhelm things at 500 pts.
12+6-what ever the second detachment costs,it is going to be very hard to play those 2 and 3CP stratagems, unless GW decides the tweek the CP costs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PenitentJake wrote: I had thought it was a bit limited too, but if everyone is similarly limited, it shouldn't be a problem.
Some armies have to use stratagems to do what other armies do just with their on basic rules. the change is not going to hit everyone the same way. And I say this as someone with an army that gets one extra CP per turn.
I’m hopeful with what’s been revealed so far. I hope that the issue of armies which need a lot of CPs to function is addressed though. I’ll reserve judgment for now, but I’m cautiously optimistic.
As for how they might help CP hungry armies, it could be a combination of things that each alone doesn’t seem much, but together are just right.
Maybe the increased points costs resulting in less models and units will mean you don’t need quite so many CPs as you currently would for the same points, with possibly additional CPs being generated each turn and appropriate CP cost adjustments for specific strategems?
Lmao people saying 2k points, and getting 12cp isn't enough?
My Custodes and Necrons rarely, if ever, get more than 8. This is a huge boost to armies that didn't abuse cheap soup battalions.
iGuy91 wrote: Lmao people saying 2k points, and getting 12cp isn't enough?
My Custodes and Necrons rarely, if ever, get more than 8. This is a huge boost to armies that didn't abuse cheap soup battalions.
I think the best I ever got to with necrons in a real tournament was 11cp, Battalion + Outrider + Spearhead + Imotekh, and even with that I was feeling the bloat from all of those extra HQ. I imagine we'll see people scrambling to sell off their CP batteries at the start of ninth just like we saw space marine players selling off drop pods and rhinos at the start of 8th ed.
Amishprn86 wrote: People are just being babies. FFS you also get CP each turn and we don't know if they changed stratagems costs as well.
A GK army uses around 6-7 CP per turn. if you buy any relics pre game this means with 12 CP, you may not be able to take a second detachment, because there won't be enough CP to take it.
Considering most GK stratagems are 2CP and some are 3CP. even if you make 1 CP per turn, 12CP is really not much.
Amishprn86 wrote: People are just being babies. FFS you also get CP each turn and we don't know if they changed stratagems costs as well.
A GK army uses around 6-7 CP per turn. if you buy any relics pre game this means with 12 CP, you may not be able to take a second detachment, because there won't be enough CP to take it.
Considering most GK stratagems are 2CP and some are 3CP. even if you make 1 CP per turn, 12CP is really not much.
I’m not very familiar with GKs in 8th, how many CPs would they usually get in 8th? As an elite army I doubt it’s much more than the new setup, assuming 1 or 2 CPs are generated per turn.
Amishprn86 wrote: People are just being babies. FFS you also get CP each turn and we don't know if they changed stratagems costs as well.
A GK army uses around 6-7 CP per turn. if you buy any relics pre game this means with 12 CP, you may not be able to take a second detachment, because there won't be enough CP to take it.
Considering most GK stratagems are 2CP and some are 3CP. even if you make 1 CP per turn, 12CP is really not much.
Do you have any idea how much CP my Harlequins use? lol. i'm using 6-9 before the game starts also. Turn 1 i could be using 4-7CP as well as turn 2 i might need another 3-7.
But... again we don't know how much we get per turn, we don't know if some stratagems costs changes, etc..
I fail to see how the fact that your army is bad at generating CP, should make me happy about the new CP system. Or not worry tha the CP are going to be short. For all we know GW could of course do -1CP to each stratagems, but even after the last PA I have my doubts about GW and buffing.
You use 6-9 CP pre game, and this gives you good relics, upgrades etc. My army needs stratagems every turn to function. Imagine your MW jetbikes had to use a 2-3CP stratagem to do MW, or otherwise they would be doing shuriken shots.
We still don't know how much (if any) CP you can gain during the course of the game in the Command Phase.
That being said, I bet there is a decent chance that units that need X CP to be effective/survive may be more cost effective in the future. Knowing how much CP armies have to play with, I doubt GW will assign revised points values assuming you have more CP than is reasonable. Time will tell.
So, assuming just 1cp generated per round, with only 4 rounds, which is probably a reasonable floor for CP. That gives you 16CP over a 2k game.
I think that's an increase in CP for a very large fraction of armies out there given it's at least 1 more than you'd get with a brigade.
Presumably these CP-vacuum CSM lists are running brigade+battalion, or 3x battalion, for folks to be seeing this as a massive decrease or constraint over the current system?
[If you start with 12, generate 1 CP a round in the command phase, and recover one CP a round when you spend them, over the course of five rounds you are going to have 22 CP. I do not get what you guys are whining about, just for showing up you'll get the CP that used to require double battalion or a brigade. To top that off you'll be playing at smaller scales, which require less CP.
Dakka will literally whine about anything, "How dare you give me list building option and a ton of CP, I like the crappy way it's done now, why does it have to change".
Karol wrote: I fail to see how the fact that your army is bad at generating CP, should make me happy about the new CP system. Or not worry tha the CP are going to be short. For all we know GW could of course do -1CP to each stratagems, but even after the last PA I have my doubts about GW and buffing.
You use 6-9 CP pre game, and this gives you good relics, upgrades etc. My army needs stratagems every turn to function. Imagine your MW jetbikes had to use a 2-3CP stratagem to do MW, or otherwise they would be doing shuriken shots.
Dude... really ? GK are solid post PA and certainly are no longer bottom tier. Your army has a power that generates 1 Cp every turn.. So in reality you get extra 4 cp in a 5 turn game.
Thats like anyone saying they cant use the most OP start every phase so it all sucks..
Karol wrote: I fail to see how the fact that your army is bad at generating CP, should make me happy about the new CP system. Or not worry tha the CP are going to be short. For all we know GW could of course do -1CP to each stratagems, but even after the last PA I have my doubts about GW and buffing.
You use 6-9 CP pre game, and this gives you good relics, upgrades etc. My army needs stratagems every turn to function. Imagine your MW jetbikes had to use a 2-3CP stratagem to do MW, or otherwise they would be doing shuriken shots.
ridiculous strategem pileup should not be the answer to balancing a unit. A bad unit shouldn't be made good through giving them the ability to mega combo for 6 cp once in a game. It makes it very difficult to balance this unit at all.
The fact that you need 3 CPs a turn to keep your bikes alive tells me two things:
1. It's not a problem with CPs or CP generation, it's a problem with the bike rules. 2. Things are far too "killy" in 8th Ed. Everything is so lethal, and high RoF, mid-strength mid-to-high damage weapons are too prevalent.
More things need to case D1 rather than D2, D3 or Dd3. 6+ To Wound needs to be more prevalent (S5 shouldn't wound T9 on a 5+).
Bitharne wrote: I’m wondering if battalions and brigades giving you extra CP each turn would be the best use for their 8th mechanic.
This assumes that such things still exist. Plus GW seem to be divorcing detachments from CPs (which is a good thing).
The fact that you need 3 CPs a turn to keep your bikes alive tells me two things:
1. It's not a problem with CPs or CP generation, it's a problem with the bike rules.
2. Things are far too "killy" in 8th Ed. Everything is so lethal, and high RoF, mid-strength mid-to-high damage weapons are too prevalent.
More things need to case D1 rather than D2, D3 or Dd3. 6+ To Wound needs to be more prevalent (S5 shouldn't wound T9 on a 5+).
Bitharne wrote: I’m wondering if battalions and brigades giving you extra CP each turn would be the best use for their 8th mechanic.
This assumes that such things still exist. Plus GW seem to be divorcing detachments from CPs (which is a good thing).
Yes 8th is way to killy. The problem is every one and their freaking moms has either multi D weapons and/or massive rerolls, -1/4++ only goes so far. Remember they are only T4 too.
Sure maybe they are the problem, I always said they needed either T5 or 4w, b.c when GW updated the bikes, almost every bike got double the wounds (Reavers, Skyrunners, shining spears, attack bikes, etc..) all double their wounds. But 4w vs 3w isn't going to help vs 2D weapons.
Karol wrote: I fail to see how the fact that your army is bad at generating CP, should make me happy about the new CP system. Or not worry tha the CP are going to be short. For all we know GW could of course do -1CP to each stratagems, but even after the last PA I have my doubts about GW and buffing.
You use 6-9 CP pre game, and this gives you good relics, upgrades etc. My army needs stratagems every turn to function. Imagine your MW jetbikes had to use a 2-3CP stratagem to do MW, or otherwise they would be doing shuriken shots.
ridiculous strategem pileup should not be the answer to balancing a unit. A bad unit shouldn't be made good through giving them the ability to mega combo for 6 cp once in a game. It makes it very difficult to balance this unit at all.
I fully agree, i was just showing that other armies are in the same boat. But i personally hope stratagems are seen less often and over off damage of the game is at least 25% less.
The current iteration (well, I guess the previous as well) allows for slapping CP cost in addition to the point cost to certain powerful "unique" models. Consider special characters with powerful Buff Auras: Slap CP price on the model and suddenly having the buff aura with real CP cost reduces your potential for other combo wombos.
This same way could also find the right balance for FW models, which usually have been overpriced to oblivion, mostly. Put a CP cost there, and find the right balance between stats&abilities and point cost. So the unit is allowed to be good, but then reduces your potential for other combos through CP use.
I'm a little doubtful whether they will take this approach, but I keep my fingers crossed.
The current iteration (well, I guess the previous as well) allows for slapping CP cost in addition to the point cost to certain powerful "unique" models. Consider special characters with powerful Buff Auras: Slap CP price on the model and suddenly having the buff aura with real CP cost reduces your potential for other combo wombos.
This same way could also find the right balance for FW models, which usually have been overpriced to oblivion, mostly. Put a CP cost there, and find the right balance between stats&abilities and point cost. So the unit is allowed to be good, but then reduces your potential for other combos through CP use.
I'm a little doubtful whether they will take this approach, but I keep my fingers crossed.
I'd gladly pay cp to get some of the old Legacies of Ruin back for my fellblade. Particularly the ones that gave it "preferred enemy space marines".
The current iteration (well, I guess the previous as well) allows for slapping CP cost in addition to the point cost to certain powerful "unique" models. Consider special characters with powerful Buff Auras: Slap CP price on the model and suddenly having the buff aura with real CP cost reduces your potential for other combo wombos.
This same way could also find the right balance for FW models, which usually have been overpriced to oblivion, mostly. Put a CP cost there, and find the right balance between stats&abilities and point cost. So the unit is allowed to be good, but then reduces your potential for other combos through CP use.
I'm a little doubtful whether they will take this approach, but I keep my fingers crossed.
I'd gladly pay cp to get some of the old Legacies of Ruin back for my fellblade. Particularly the ones that gave it "preferred enemy space marines".
I'd gladly pay CP just for my FW too be pointed fairly and not feel like I'm hamstringing myself when I want to play with my cool stuff.
Is quietly glad he doesn't have a falchion and Acrastus class Knight sitting on shelf.
We had malefic lords OK that was a do but also pre Rule of three which would have still been broke but not as spamable.
Outside of Marines which to be fair even the ubiquitous leviathan wasn't exactly broken untill codex 2.0 and that's just a hot broken mess of its own making.
Well, I guess compared to a falchion or acrastus my fellblade is cheap, a whole 100 points cheaper than the falchion. Yeah points is the number one thing I was hoping they'd fix. Surely they won't raise those prices.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Well, I guess compared to a falchion or acrastus my fellblade is cheap, a whole 100 points cheaper than the falchion. Yeah points is the number one thing I was hoping they'd fix. Surely they won't raise those prices.
Sadly I wouldn't count on it as Knight's already got a V1 update and all that did was strip away all the special rules, make statlines worse and keep them all the same point's.
The current iteration (well, I guess the previous as well) allows for slapping CP cost in addition to the point cost to certain powerful "unique" models. Consider special characters with powerful Buff Auras: Slap CP price on the model and suddenly having the buff aura with real CP cost reduces your potential for other combo wombos.
This same way could also find the right balance for FW models, which usually have been overpriced to oblivion, mostly. Put a CP cost there, and find the right balance between stats&abilities and point cost. So the unit is allowed to be good, but then reduces your potential for other combos through CP use.
I'm a little doubtful whether they will take this approach, but I keep my fingers crossed.
I'd gladly pay cp to get some of the old Legacies of Ruin back for my fellblade. Particularly the ones that gave it "preferred enemy space marines".
I'd gladly pay CP just for my FW too be pointed fairly and not feel like I'm hamstringing myself when I want to play with my cool stuff.
Is quietly glad he doesn't have a falchion and Acrastus class Knight sitting on shelf.
We had malefic lords OK that was a do but also pre Rule of three which would have still been broke but not as spamable.
Outside of Marines which to be fair even the ubiquitous leviathan wasn't exactly broken untill codex 2.0 and that's just a hot broken mess of its own making.
You know, funny how the IG psyker is a better malefic lord and still around 40 pts right...
So how broken was it really.
I tend to play 1500 point games with Chaos Daemons. The change to CP kills of some of the available builds. 6CP just isn't enough to make Khorne Daemons functional. The only thing that made them work was deep striking and rolling 3d6+1" to charge. Without that they are stuck with 8" movement cavalry, and 10" movement beasts. They are dead in the water. Now I can shelve 1/4 of my codex. 9th edition may provide other benefits, but I am highly skeptical.
The current iteration (well, I guess the previous as well) allows for slapping CP cost in addition to the point cost to certain powerful "unique" models. Consider special characters with powerful Buff Auras: Slap CP price on the model and suddenly having the buff aura with real CP cost reduces your potential for other combo wombos.
This same way could also find the right balance for FW models, which usually have been overpriced to oblivion, mostly. Put a CP cost there, and find the right balance between stats&abilities and point cost. So the unit is allowed to be good, but then reduces your potential for other combos through CP use.
I'm a little doubtful whether they will take this approach, but I keep my fingers crossed.
I'd gladly pay cp to get some of the old Legacies of Ruin back for my fellblade. Particularly the ones that gave it "preferred enemy space marines".
I'd gladly pay CP just for my FW too be pointed fairly and not feel like I'm hamstringing myself when I want to play with my cool stuff.
Is quietly glad he doesn't have a falchion and Acrastus class Knight sitting on shelf.
We had malefic lords OK that was a do but also pre Rule of three which would have still been broke but not as spamable.
Outside of Marines which to be fair even the ubiquitous leviathan wasn't exactly broken untill codex 2.0 and that's just a hot broken mess of its own making.
You know, funny how the IG psyker is a better malefic lord and still around 40 pts right...
So how broken was it really.
Never played against ML spam so not 100% sure on how it when down it sounded super nasty though, talking serious MW dumped on the opponent.
Ironically GW are going that way anyway with almost everything getting MW instead of just causes a wound to that unit. New Admech and Demons rules.
But yeah IG tend to be pretty consistent with their 1 for psychic barrier and nightshroud all the time.
The current iteration (well, I guess the previous as well) allows for slapping CP cost in addition to the point cost to certain powerful "unique" models. Consider special characters with powerful Buff Auras: Slap CP price on the model and suddenly having the buff aura with real CP cost reduces your potential for other combo wombos.
This same way could also find the right balance for FW models, which usually have been overpriced to oblivion, mostly. Put a CP cost there, and find the right balance between stats&abilities and point cost. So the unit is allowed to be good, but then reduces your potential for other combos through CP use.
I'm a little doubtful whether they will take this approach, but I keep my fingers crossed.
I'd gladly pay cp to get some of the old Legacies of Ruin back for my fellblade. Particularly the ones that gave it "preferred enemy space marines".
I'd gladly pay CP just for my FW too be pointed fairly and not feel like I'm hamstringing myself when I want to play with my cool stuff.
Is quietly glad he doesn't have a falchion and Acrastus class Knight sitting on shelf.
We had malefic lords OK that was a do but also pre Rule of three which would have still been broke but not as spamable.
Outside of Marines which to be fair even the ubiquitous leviathan wasn't exactly broken untill codex 2.0 and that's just a hot broken mess of its own making.
You know, funny how the IG psyker is a better malefic lord and still around 40 pts right...
So how broken was it really.
They don't become mini DP's tho....
The problem was people played with 9 of them, fishing for perils, and turning into monsters along with smite spam.
"If this model suffers Perils of the Warp and survives, immediately increase its WS to 2+, its Strength to 8 and its attacks to 5. Also, adjust the AP and Damage of its Bare hands to -2 and 2 Respectively"
This was on a T, 4w 4++ 40pt character.
So yes it "was" broken AF. Now with Ro3 and traits/strats all over, he could go down to 40pts again.
Still doesn't change the fact that the malefic is a worse IG psyker for double the points.
Not to mention that i seriously doubt that even if he stayed at 40 pts would be an issue nowadays, considering the rest of the faction he is stuck in is approximately overpriced by 25 % accross the board and general power has spiked massively.
Not Online!!! wrote: Actually that isn't how it works, you first had to Survive the perrils.
With D3 MW's on a 4 wound character, that is easy. Dont forget it was before Ro3, so you had lots of them.
Sounds more like the issue wasn't so much the model and ability it was the ability to go absolutely ham all in on having 10-15 of them, but that's still true for multiple units now post RO3
Not Online!!! wrote: Actually that isn't how it works, you first had to Survive the perrils.
With D3 MW's on a 4 wound character, that is easy. Dont forget it was before Ro3, so you had lots of them.
Sounds more like the issue wasn't so much the model and ability it was the ability to go absolutely ham all in on having 10-15 of them, but that's still true for multiple units now post RO3
Right, thats why it double in points. But then Ro3 came out and they never went back down. B.c its a FW unit is most likely why it never went back down. Maybe in 9th it'll be updated.
But he was asking If it was that bad to nerf them back then, and the answer was yes, back then they were OP when you could take 400pts of them at 40pts.
Not Online!!! wrote: you could do the same though with ig, the only thing that you couldn't do was spam brimstones. which also got nerfed, so what was really the problem
B.c they both got nerf, they both where problems, the question was, "Was it really a problem to nerf them" and when they got nerf the answer was "yes".
Idk why we are even still talking about this lol. Are you scared 9th will start the same or something?
Not Online!!! wrote: you could do the same though with ig, the only thing that you couldn't do was spam brimstones.
which also got nerfed, so what was really the problem
B.c they both got nerf, they both where problems, the question was, "Was it really a problem to nerf them" and when they got nerf the answer was "yes".
Idk why we are even still talking about this lol. Are you scared 9th will start the same or something?
yeah because i'd rather avoid having my R&H sit out another edition
Not Online!!! wrote: you could do the same though with ig, the only thing that you couldn't do was spam brimstones.
which also got nerfed, so what was really the problem
B.c they both got nerf, they both where problems, the question was, "Was it really a problem to nerf them" and when they got nerf the answer was "yes".
Idk why we are even still talking about this lol. Are you scared 9th will start the same or something?
yeah because i'd rather avoid having my R&H sit out another edition
And i like to have my Corsairs back. At least you kept 90% of your units i lost 90% of mine.
Its official, all Detachments will cost CP. If you have your WL in a Core detachment (Patrol, Battalion, Brigade) then you are refunded those CP spent to take that detachment.
No word on how much CP it takes or how many detachments you can take.
But there’s more! Not only do you start the battle with more Command points, but in each of your Command phases – the new opening phase of your turn – you will receive one additional Command point.
And Cut Them Down looks like it works best for Hordes.
I really hope that somethings get an exception to this strategum or their is going to be some very pointless rules untill everyone gets their new codex.
All fall back and shoot traits and abilities just took one heck of a kick in the teeth.
I really hope that somethings get an exception to this strategum or their is going to be some very pointless rules untill everyone gets their new codex.
All fall back and shoot traits and abilities just took one heck of a kick in the teeth.
Aren't you already being tripointed? Fall back and shoot is garbage compared to fly anyway.
1. Fall back from Boyz.
2. Hope your opponent wastes CP inflicting MW on your sacrificial screen.
3. Blast Boyz off the table.
I'm really hoping there are mechanical changes to Fall Back that will make it harder to escape combat, or it's not going to fix the really critical problem with melee.
I really hope that somethings get an exception to this strategum or their is going to be some very pointless rules untill everyone gets their new codex.
All fall back and shoot traits and abilities just took one heck of a kick in the teeth.
It costs a resource and it only procs on a 6 and within engagement range. Its not going to be that devastating.
On average you will one model per 5 enemy models in engagement range. How many models do you think you're opponent can get in range?
I mean, its certainly useful and the free fall backs certainly needed a counter, but I don't think its going to kill fall back as a rule.
1. Fall back from Boyz.
2. Hope your opponent wastes CP inflicting MW on your sacrificial screen.
3. Blast Boyz off the table.
I'm really hoping there are mechanical changes to Fall Back that will make it harder to escape combat, or it's not going to fix the really critical problem with melee.
They mentioned "That will certainly hurt if activated on a unit of 30 Ork Boyz!" so it makes me wonder if there is going to be a way for all 30 to be in engagement range, which would make it easier to average 5 MW on a unit trying to fall back.
I really hope that somethings get an exception to this strategum or their is going to be some very pointless rules untill everyone gets their new codex.
All fall back and shoot traits and abilities just took one heck of a kick in the teeth.
Aren't you already being tripointed? Fall back and shoot is garbage compared to fly anyway.
You can't tripoint a Knight, I dont mind the number of attacks but it's GW automatic answer being MW's that's getting old.
It's become their default answer regardless of the question.
Additionally they imply that tripointing is an 8th edition thing so probably not even an issue in 9th.
ClockworkZion wrote: They mentioned "That will certainly hurt if activated on a unit of 30 Ork Boyz!" so it makes me wonder if there is going to be a way for all 30 to be in engagement range, which would make it easier to average 5 MW on a unit trying to fall back.
Sounds to me like marketing fluff, but even if that is true, I think my point stands- if you spend a CP to kill 20pts of Guardsmen (I know costs are going up, bear with me), I consider that a win. They've already made back their points just by tying up a 210+pt unit so I can then shoot it.
You could make it 'spend a CP to automatically wipe out a unit trying to fall back', and I would contend that melee would still be in a rough spot- it'd just make screens even more important than they are currently. Melee just doesn't have an answer for sacrificial screens backed up by shooting.
I'm not proclaiming doom and gloom until we see the rest of the rules, just saying I hope there's more to Fall Back now than getting in extra damage on retreating units.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheAvengingKnee wrote: The new detachment they showed is nice, having 6 elite slots makes me very happy as I have a lot of good options for elites.
It's exactly the same as the current Battalion, just FYI.
TheAvengingKnee wrote: The new detachment they showed is nice, having 6 elite slots makes me very happy as I have a lot of good options for elites.
I am just very happy that they are killing the CP batteries that ruined some factions stratagem costs.
Except they really have not changed anything Guard can still bring a bunch of free comand points heck even a brigade of them so far are free if your taking a battalion of your other faction as their warlord trait and relic give you 6 CP over the game for a net +3CP unless the additional codex costs more CP than that.
ClockworkZion wrote: They mentioned "That will certainly hurt if activated on a unit of 30 Ork Boyz!" so it makes me wonder if there is going to be a way for all 30 to be in engagement range, which would make it easier to average 5 MW on a unit trying to fall back.
It makes me wonder if they play the same game as everyone else. What unit of Ork boys is going to have 30 models after the first round of combat?
Ice_can wrote: Except they really have not changed anything Guard can still bring a bunch of free comand points heck even a brigade of them so far are free if your taking a battalion of your other faction as their warlord trait and relic give you 6 CP over the game for a net +3CP unless the additional codex costs more CP than that.
Horde armies like Guard are going to have an easier time meeting Brigade requirements, but a harder time fitting everything in a Battalion, so I think there's a good tradeoff.
Losing 3CP at the start to gain an average of 4-6CP over the course of the game seems like a reasonable tradeoff to me. Front-loaded CP is always more valuable than late-game CP.
ClockworkZion wrote: They mentioned "That will certainly hurt if activated on a unit of 30 Ork Boyz!" so it makes me wonder if there is going to be a way for all 30 to be in engagement range, which would make it easier to average 5 MW on a unit trying to fall back.
It makes me wonder if they play the same game as everyone else. What unit of Ork boys is going to have 30 models after the first round of combat?
Well they're playing 9th, so clearly it's not the same game.
Joking aside, I was expecting a 4 or 5+ for it when Stu Black was describing it. Makes me hope that there is more going for melee than just that.
Ice_can wrote: Except they really have not changed anything Guard can still bring a bunch of free comand points heck even a brigade of them so far are free if your taking a battalion of your other faction as their warlord trait and relic give you 6 CP over the game for a net +3CP unless the additional codex costs more CP than that.
Horde armies like Guard are going to have an easier time meeting Brigade requirements, but a harder time fitting everything in a Battalion, so I think there's a good tradeoff.
Losing 3CP at the start to gain an average of 4-6CP over the course of the game seems like a reasonable tradeoff to me. Front-loaded CP is always more valuable than late-game CP.
That was the least favourable situation to take them in sadly
If you take an vanguard even with your warlord in it you have to pay the detachment CP, so adding the Guard detachment is free if you can make the guard HQ your warlord and your now +6CP over the game and down 0 maybe 1 CP at the start if you buy your HQ a warlord trait again.
1. Fall back from Boyz.
2. Hope your opponent wastes CP inflicting MW on your sacrificial screen.
3. Blast Boyz off the table.
I'm really hoping there are mechanical changes to Fall Back that will make it harder to escape combat, or it's not going to fix the really critical problem with melee.
Exactly this, assault oriented armies should get a massive buff, not nerfings. Deep striking abilities should be addressed and limited, but units like ork boyz, which are already mediocre, need some love. As an ork player I don't see this stratagem very useful for our army which is already extremely CPs hungry. I don't think I'd never use it with the current knowledge of the game.
Argive wrote: so a g-man ultra marine brigade now makes you 15 cp +1 cp each turn ? lol...
Isn't G-man a LoW? So he can't be your warlord and in your brigade AND he doesn't get the benefit of eliminating CP costs, so best case scenario with him as your warlord with Superheavy Aux and Brigade costing 1 each it's 13+1, which forces you to run a brigade, which really limits your options in a UM setup. SuperheavyAux could also cost 3+ CP as well.
Now CALGAR in a brigade might get you a good chunk of CP but Girlyman eats through his own bonus just being there.
Blackie wrote: Exactly this, assault oriented armies should get a massive buff, not nerfings. Deep striking abilities should be addressed and limited, but units like ork boyz, which are already mediocre, need some love. As an ork player I don't see this stratagem very useful for our army which is already extremely CPs hungry. I don't think I'd never use it with the current knowledge of the game.
Well in terms of what we know so far, there's this, plus the changes to cover. There could be other stuff too, but it's not a bad start. Honestly, I think some people just aren't ever happy unless their units/armies look like getting turned into a invincible, auto-kill-everything button.
Blackie wrote: Exactly this, assault oriented armies should get a massive buff, not nerfings. Deep striking abilities should be addressed and limited, but units like ork boyz, which are already mediocre, need some love. As an ork player I don't see this stratagem very useful for our army which is already extremely CPs hungry. I don't think I'd never use it with the current knowledge of the game.
Well in terms of what we know so far, there's this, plus the changes to cover. There could be other stuff too, but it's not a bad start. Honestly, I think some people just aren't ever happy unless their units/armies look like getting turned into a invincible, auto-kill-everything button.
I want functional melee without the gakshow of tripointing.
Also to notice that the stratagem does not target your unit, but the enemy unit. So if that unit was in range of models from more than one of your units, they all get a chance at hitting.
By the way, an hormagaunt on a MEQ target is actually more dangerous like this than with his standard attacks.
TheAvengingKnee wrote: The new detachment they showed is nice, having 6 elite slots makes me very happy as I have a lot of good options for elites.
I am just very happy that they are killing the CP batteries that ruined some factions stratagem costs.
Except they really have not changed anything Guard can still bring a bunch of free comand points heck even a brigade of them so far are free if your taking a battalion of your other faction as their warlord trait and relic give you 6 CP over the game for a net +3CP unless the additional codex costs more CP than that.
So you spend your warlord trait, any warlord abilities your own warlord has, a relic, and dramatically limit the flexibility of your list for not at all 3 CP? First of all, there's no guarantee that you'll actually get 6CP refunded, especially with CP battery armies actually having LESS total CP than they did before. If your opponent blows all their CP turn one and two and doesn't use a stratagem again until 6, you'll be lucky to your investment back in a 6 turn game. Also, if you use pregame CP like relics or infiltrates, you reduce your chance of refunding CP because you can't use either the relic of the WT on those abilities.
That's ignoring the fact that CP received on turn 5 and turn 6 are FAR less valuable than CP received on turn one. Let's say you do magically actually get the 6CP return the relic+WT can theoretically get you, you're actually netting maybe a 1.5CP worth of first turn CP. It's a pretty obnoxious trade-off in exchange for a very mediocre bonus.
The loyal 32 is well and truly dead as a result of this. The only reason you'd take allies like that is if you want the UNITS that come along with them. At best the CP generation is just paying yourself back for taking allies.
Blackie wrote: Exactly this, assault oriented armies should get a massive buff, not nerfings. Deep striking abilities should be addressed and limited, but units like ork boyz, which are already mediocre, need some love. As an ork player I don't see this stratagem very useful for our army which is already extremely CPs hungry. I don't think I'd never use it with the current knowledge of the game.
Well in terms of what we know so far, there's this, plus the changes to cover. There could be other stuff too, but it's not a bad start. Honestly, I think some people just aren't ever happy unless their units/armies look like getting turned into a invincible, auto-kill-everything button.
I want functional melee without the gakshow of tripointing.
Yeah well it think it's fair to say, given that you've done literally nothing but piss and moan ever since I've been coming to this forum – which is at least six years – there's a pretty good chance you're not going to be happy with anything you get in the latest edition. Maybe it's time to find a new hobby rather than just being an incessant, unrelenting bummer for people on the internet.
I hope they show the prices for the other detachments soon. If the other detachment styles cost more than the battalion, we'll be in the same situation we were in during 8th.
Blackie wrote: Exactly this, assault oriented armies should get a massive buff, not nerfings. Deep striking abilities should be addressed and limited, but units like ork boyz, which are already mediocre, need some love. As an ork player I don't see this stratagem very useful for our army which is already extremely CPs hungry. I don't think I'd never use it with the current knowledge of the game.
Well in terms of what we know so far, there's this, plus the changes to cover. There could be other stuff too, but it's not a bad start. Honestly, I think some people just aren't ever happy unless their units/armies look like getting turned into a invincible, auto-kill-everything button.
I want functional melee without the gakshow of tripointing.
So you want melee to kill a bunch of stuff but don't want to actually do anything more complex or involved than push your models into your opponent's models? Have you heard of 7th edition?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ArcaneHorror wrote: I hope they show the prices for the other detachments soon. If the other detachment styles cost more than the battalion, we'll be in the same situation we were in during 8th.
...how? If a Vanguard costs 4 no one will ever use a vanguard ever again. Remember, only battalions, brigades and patrols get the warlord bonus. If the other styles of detachments cost MORE than a battalion you will literally never see them except in armies that have expensive, terrible troops and yet somehow need more slots than a battalion allows for.
ERJAK wrote: So you want melee to kill a bunch of stuff but don't want to actually do anything more complex or involved than push your models into your opponent's models? Have you heard of 7th edition?
Personally, I'd prefer if melee weren't made 'complex and involved' solely through nonsensical, game-y mechanics like tri-pointing. I'm not familiar with 7th, but somehow we enjoyed 3rd-5th without this gimmick.
TheAvengingKnee wrote: The new detachment they showed is nice, having 6 elite slots makes me very happy as I have a lot of good options for elites.
I am just very happy that they are killing the CP batteries that ruined some factions stratagem costs.
Except they really have not changed anything Guard can still bring a bunch of free comand points heck even a brigade of them so far are free if your taking a battalion of your other faction as their warlord trait and relic give you 6 CP over the game for a net +3CP unless the additional codex costs more CP than that.
So you spend your warlord trait, any warlord abilities your own warlord has, a relic, and dramatically limit the flexibility of your list for not at all 3 CP? First of all, there's no guarantee that you'll actually get 6CP refunded, especially with CP battery armies actually having LESS total CP than they did before. If your opponent blows all their CP turn one and two and doesn't use a stratagem again until 6, you'll be lucky to your investment back in a 6 turn game. Also, if you use pregame CP like relics or infiltrates, you reduce your chance of refunding CP because you can't use either the relic of the WT on those abilities.
That's ignoring the fact that CP received on turn 5 and turn 6 are FAR less valuable than CP received on turn one. Let's say you do magically actually get the 6CP return the relic+WT can theoretically get you, you're actually netting maybe a 1.5CP worth of first turn CP. It's a pretty obnoxious trade-off in exchange for a very mediocre bonus.
The loyal 32 is well and truly dead as a result of this. The only reason you'd take allies like that is if you want the UNITS that come along with them. At best the CP generation is just paying yourself back for taking allies.
Assuming you can still only gain 1 CP per
In the live stream they confirmed it's still only 1 CP per round generation.
My example is the least efficent way to justify taking the 32.
If you're main army is in one of the detachments that doesn't refund for having your warlord in, your down maybe 1 or 2 CP if you by in a warlord trait and relic (which you probably will want to do anyway as I belive the CP per turn might rely on your warlord being alive) and can generate 6CP over the game.
Loyal 32 is far from dead, it's not quite the +5, plus regen broken of 8th but given an additional codex seems to come very cheap as apparently adding a Knight costs 1-2CP the idea of soup being dead was way oversold.
ERJAK wrote: So you want melee to kill a bunch of stuff but don't want to actually do anything more complex or involved than push your models into your opponent's models? Have you heard of 7th edition?
Personally, I'd prefer if melee weren't made 'complex and involved' solely through nonsensical, game-y mechanics like tri-pointing. I'm not familiar with 7th, but somehow we enjoyed 3rd-5th without this gimmick.
This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Tripointing is cancer and the opposite of glorious charges for the emprah.
So you want melee to kill a bunch of stuff but don't want to actually do anything more complex or involved than push your models into your opponent's models? Have you heard of 7th edition?
Melee in 7th wasn't extremely powerful though. It's always the combo deep strike+assault that is broken. The most competitive lists in 7th were all shooting oriented. But shooting has become insane, orks in order to be competitive have been turned into tau which is a joke. People look to data and say orks are fine or even good but all the performing lists are gunlines plus screeners and/or tarpits. I refuse to play orks that way.
1. Fall back from Boyz.
2. Hope your opponent wastes CP inflicting MW on your sacrificial screen.
3. Blast Boyz off the table.
I'm really hoping there are mechanical changes to Fall Back that will make it harder to escape combat, or it's not going to fix the really critical problem with melee.
You're assuming someone would use this on a trash unit. People are also making assumptions on what 'Engagement Range' is, which is very clearly a new definition that we don't have. Finally, Mob Up.
With this I doubt there will be any other structural changes to fall back.
ERJAK wrote: ...how? If a Vanguard costs 4 no one will ever use a vanguard ever again. Remember, only battalions, brigades and patrols get the warlord bonus. If the other styles of detachments cost MORE than a battalion you will literally never see them except in armies that have expensive, terrible troops and yet somehow need more slots than a battalion allows for.
That's what I'm trying to say. If battalions cost the least amount of CP, we'll have to go right back to using battalions and filling out our armies with troops we may not want just to keep the CP, just as in 8th where one has to take troops to maximize CP. It will kill the opportunity to put the other detachments on an equal playing field. For example, if someone wants to run an army based primarily around tanks (or in my case, daemon engines and princes), I shouldn't be punished for doing that.
Indeed. Whenever people say Melee in 8th is weak I'm thinking of 7th and am like, naaa, it's okay. You have a tactical aspect to it, you don't have to pull the kills of overwatch from the front, you can still maneuver around, units are generally faster, you don't have challenges, you have buffs from stratagems...
Daedalus81 wrote: You're assuming someone would use this on a trash unit.
I'm asserting that trash units are the main problem for melee, and against a competent player who understands screening, trash units are the most likely thing for a big unit of Boyz to wind up in melee with.
So either you're using the stratagem on trash units, or you're not using it at all, and either way your Boyz get shot off the table immediately thereafter. It doesn't matter what the definition of Engagement Range is- the stratagem could be 'instantly kill a unit that tries to fall back', and the problem would be the same. Yes, please Mob Up, it reduces the amount of overkill when I unload my gunline on the combined unit.
I'm holding out hope that there are other changes to fall back, because otherwise melee is going to still be stuck in the same rut. Just too easy to mitigate for minimal cost.
ERJAK wrote: ...how? If a Vanguard costs 4 no one will ever use a vanguard ever again. Remember, only battalions, brigades and patrols get the warlord bonus. If the other styles of detachments cost MORE than a battalion you will literally never see them except in armies that have expensive, terrible troops and yet somehow need more slots than a battalion allows for.
That's what I'm trying to say. If battalions cost the least amount of CP, we'll have to go right back to using battalions and filling out our armies with troops we may not want just to keep the CP, just as in 8th where one has to take troops to maximize CP. It will kill the opportunity to put the other detachments on an equal playing field. For example, if someone wants to run an army based primarily around tanks (or in my case, daemon engines and princes), I shouldn't be punished for doing that.
You pay more CP to not have to spend 150 to 300 points on units you don't / won't use. Jury is still out on whether or not that will be worthwhile.
Daedalus81 wrote: You're assuming someone would use this on a trash unit.
I'm asserting that trash units are the main problem for melee, and against a competent player who understands screening, trash units are the most likely thing for a big unit of Boyz to wind up in melee with.
So either you're using the stratagem on trash units, or you're not using it at all, and either way your Boyz get shot off the table immediately thereafter. It doesn't matter what the definition of Engagement Range is- the stratagem could be 'instantly kill a unit that tries to fall back', and the problem would be the same. Yes, please Mob Up, it reduces the amount of overkill when I unload my gunline on the combined unit.
I'm holding out hope that there are other changes to fall back, because otherwise melee is going to still be stuck in the same rut. Just too easy to mitigate for minimal cost.
And all those trash units are going to cost more points. And Orks will benefit from cover more often. And this stratagem applies to all models in your army against the fleeing unit. Doesn't need to be a single unit of Boyz.
The melee units will cost more too. Melee will continue to be easily dominated by cheap screens. Unless you tripoint and turn their entire off. What awesome choices.
Overall I have to say that I'm loving the changes so far.
Being able to take my whole army on a single detachment and getting MORE CP then I was using 3 detachments before is great
I feel like this simple change with stop all the silly faction combos to min/max CPs.
It also might bring back proper themed armies, like Deathwing/Ravenwing with proper Termies/Bikes.
If I can take an Outrider Detachment and still get plenty of CPs, my Windriders might see the table again as a proper core for my army.
In general I think the new CP system is moving in the right direction.
A concern is that taking more than one Tau Commander is now going to cost not only the points for filling a detachment but some/a CP, unless they change the one-per-detachment rule (seems unlikely with the FSE rule in the PA book).
That's a pretty annoying nerf. Particularly in the face of the kinds of killy HQs that are out there these days.
We have an entirely new term where they would have said "within 1 inch" in 8th. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect some rules changes to make it so large units can actually fully engage a charged enemy, rather than just the front two rows.
rbstr wrote: Taking more than one Tau Commander is now going to cost not only the points for filling a detachment but a CP, unless they change the one-per-detachment rule (seems unlikely with the FSE rule in the PA book).
That's a pretty annoying nerf. Particularly in the face of the kinds of killy HQs that are out there these days.
Roumer doing the rounds is that may no longer be such a Tau only limit imbalance as apparently GW didn't appreciate 3 smash captains.
I doubt it's tau levels of ouch but yeah Tau are going to need some serious errata at this rate
rbstr wrote: Taking more than one Tau Commander is now going to cost not only the points for filling a detachment but a CP, unless they change the one-per-detachment rule (seems unlikely with the FSE rule in the PA book).
That's a pretty annoying nerf. Particularly in the face of the kinds of killy HQs that are out there these days.
Roumer doing the rounds is that may no longer be such a Tau only limit imbalance as apparently GW didn't appreciate 3 smash captains.
I doubt it's tau levels of ouch but yeah Tau are going to need some serious errata at this rate
I’ve always thought that top level leaders should be limited to one per detachment, Tau commanders, space marine captains, hive tyrants etc. The only problem is that some factions don’t have enough HQ options to make this viable. If that rumour does turn out to be true I really hope they expand the HQ options where needed.
rbstr wrote: Taking more than one Tau Commander is now going to cost not only the points for filling a detachment but a CP, unless they change the one-per-detachment rule (seems unlikely with the FSE rule in the PA book).
That's a pretty annoying nerf. Particularly in the face of the kinds of killy HQs that are out there these days.
Roumer doing the rounds is that may no longer be such a Tau only limit imbalance as apparently GW didn't appreciate 3 smash captains.
I doubt it's tau levels of ouch but yeah Tau are going to need some serious errata at this rate
I’ve always thought that top level leaders should be limited to one per detachment, Tau commanders, space marine captains, hive tyrants etc. The only problem is that some factions don’t have enough HQ options to make this viable. If that rumour does turn out to be true I really hope they expand the HQ options where needed.
Yeah though in the mean time my Tau will be all in on being Farsight.
GW said that Raiding Party will still work under the new rules. For those who have forgotten, Raiding Party gives 4 CP to an army with 3 Drukhari Patrol detachments and 8 CP do an army with 6 Drukhari Patrol detachments. Knowing this, what is the Command Cost of a Patrol detachment?
I theorize the more units a detachment can have, the more CP it will cost. Otherwise, it would be too expensive to add a second small detachment to your army in a small game.
So if a Patrol is 2 CP and Raiding Party gives you 4 CP for taking 3 Patrols, a 3 Patrol Drukhari army will have no net cost for extra detachments: Patrol with Warlord is free, 2 additional patrols cost 4, you gain 4 from Raiding Party. And a 6 Patrol army would cost the Drukhari army only 2 CP: Free first Patrol with Warlord, pay 10 for 5 more Patrols, gain 8 for Raiding party.
Did GW just back into making Drukhari play they way they wrote the book? All they have to do is remove the detachment limitation from Tournament play. Why wouldn't then when it cost CP to add detachments?
alextroy wrote: Interesting thought about Patrol detachment cost.
GW said that Raiding Party will still work under the new rules. For those who have forgotten, Raiding Party gives 4 CP to an army with 3 Drukhari Patrol detachments and 8 CP do an army with 6 Drukhari Patrol detachments. Knowing this, what is the Command Cost of a Patrol detachment?
I theorize the more units a detachment can have, the more CP it will cost. Otherwise, it would be too expensive to add a second small detachment to your army in a small game.
So if a Patrol is 2 CP and Raiding Party gives you 4 CP for taking 3 Patrols, a 3 Patrol Drukhari army will have no net cost for extra detachments: Patrol with Warlord is free, 2 additional patrols cost 4, you gain 4 from Raiding Party. And a 6 Patrol army would cost the Drukhari army only 2 CP: Free first Patrol with Warlord, pay 10 for 5 more Patrols, gain 8 for Raiding party.
Did GW just back into making Drukhari play they way they wrote the book? All they have to do is remove the detachment limitation from Tournament play. Why wouldn't then when it cost CP to add detachments?
Thoughts?
That seems like a solid theory. I figured Patrols would cost 1CP and Brigades would cost 5CP, basically inverting the bonuses from when 8th launched, but then there wouldn't be much reason to take Battalions or Brigades as additional detachments since you could fit more stuff in Patrols. 2CP for a Patrol and maybe 4CP for a Brigade seems likely to me.
No idea what they'll do with Vanguard/Outrider/Spearhead, but I would assume probably 3CP. Same cost as a Battalion, fewer slots overall, but more slots in the type you want. Aside from Vanguard, but that really ought to allow up to 12 Elites to match the pattern established by the other two.
Argive wrote: so a g-man ultra marine brigade now makes you 15 cp +1 cp each turn ? lol...
Isn't G-man a LoW? So he can't be your warlord and in your brigade AND he doesn't get the benefit of eliminating CP costs, so best case scenario with him as your warlord with Superheavy Aux and Brigade costing 1 each it's 13+1, which forces you to run a brigade, which really limits your options in a UM setup. SuperheavyAux could also cost 3+ CP as well.
Now CALGAR in a brigade might get you a good chunk of CP but Girlyman eats through his own bonus just being there.
My bad. Keep forgetting hes a LOW. So he will pay for the supreme command or aux you put him in while calgar will effectively give you a free detachment.
Other HQ that Generate CP just for existing are going to skew this CP malarkay.
I'm not sure how I feel about his as not all faction have access to a characters that generates CP when you take them. I think we will see some armies starting on 15 CP and others on 6 because they cant just mono cheese their traits/doctrines.
Whats interesting is that they changed the detachment structure for the battalion. So its very early days to make an educated judgement. For all we know a brigade might be totaly different and not require elites at all for example.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
alextroy wrote: Interesting thought about Patrol detachment cost.
GW said that Raiding Party will still work under the new rules. For those who have forgotten, Raiding Party gives 4 CP to an army with 3 Drukhari Patrol detachments and 8 CP do an army with 6 Drukhari Patrol detachments. Knowing this, what is the Command Cost of a Patrol detachment?
I theorize the more units a detachment can have, the more CP it will cost. Otherwise, it would be too expensive to add a second small detachment to your army in a small game.
So if a Patrol is 2 CP and Raiding Party gives you 4 CP for taking 3 Patrols, a 3 Patrol Drukhari army will have no net cost for extra detachments: Patrol with Warlord is free, 2 additional patrols cost 4, you gain 4 from Raiding Party. And a 6 Patrol army would cost the Drukhari army only 2 CP: Free first Patrol with Warlord, pay 10 for 5 more Patrols, gain 8 for Raiding party.
Did GW just back into making Drukhari play they way they wrote the book? All they have to do is remove the detachment limitation from Tournament play. Why wouldn't then when it cost CP to add detachments?
Thoughts?
Who knows right now. A lot of change is happening the battalion has been changed so who knows what the others will look like or what the final costs will be. Im really surprised they didint do a cost for 1500pts game it seems stupid and players will have to come up with a number on their own. Dumb.
Maybe by the time the DE book comes out all that nonsense will be fixed.
alextroy wrote: Interesting thought about Patrol detachment cost.
GW said that Raiding Party will still work under the new rules. For those who have forgotten, Raiding Party gives 4 CP to an army with 3 Drukhari Patrol detachments and 8 CP do an army with 6 Drukhari Patrol detachments. Knowing this, what is the Command Cost of a Patrol detachment?
I theorize the more units a detachment can have, the more CP it will cost. Otherwise, it would be too expensive to add a second small detachment to your army in a small game.
So if a Patrol is 2 CP and Raiding Party gives you 4 CP for taking 3 Patrols, a 3 Patrol Drukhari army will have no net cost for extra detachments: Patrol with Warlord is free, 2 additional patrols cost 4, you gain 4 from Raiding Party. And a 6 Patrol army would cost the Drukhari army only 2 CP: Free first Patrol with Warlord, pay 10 for 5 more Patrols, gain 8 for Raiding party.
Did GW just back into making Drukhari play they way they wrote the book? All they have to do is remove the detachment limitation from Tournament play. Why wouldn't then when it cost CP to add detachments?
Thoughts?
10 of us was asking GW about Raiding Force, they didn't say a word about it, where did they say something about it?
alextroy wrote: He specifically stated the the Drukhari and Knights special detachment rules would still be in effect.
Yes like they are now, all rules are porting over, thats not what i was tlaking about, I'm saying he didn't say it was going to be useful, a 1 to 1 port doesn't mean it got changed.
This seems like it's going to take a pretty massive overhaul for strategem costs. 12 CP goes a lot farther for Knights/Marines/Custodes than it does Tau/Guard/orks..
DominayTrix wrote: This seems like it's going to take a pretty massive overhaul for strategem costs. 12 CP goes a lot farther for Knights/Marines/Custodes than it does Tau/Guard/orks..
DominayTrix wrote: This seems like it's going to take a pretty massive overhaul for strategem costs. 12 CP goes a lot farther for Knights/Marines/Custodes than it does Tau/Guard/orks..
Or csm....
Whats there to not Like about beeing for 2 turns your favourite Legion and afterwards generic splinter warband 10882749?
/S
Every Chaos list I've built this edition has been Red Corsairs Battalion, or Red Corsairs Battalion + an Alpha Spearhead. The new system means more CP for me (unless Spearheads cost heaps of CP).
But here's a question I have: In this new system what is the purpose of a Brigade Detachment? About the only advantage to a Brigade that could see was that you got more from it than 2x Battalion. Now there's no inherent advantage over a Brigade that we can see so far, and it'll cost more CP to take.
