Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/27 16:31:38


Post by: TangoTwoBravo


We had a thread that went dormant and had a ton of speculation. There have been some reveals since then, so I thought I would start a fresh one to recap what we know and what we think the implications are for list building. I'll keep the first post up to date. The drip feed from Articles has now been joined by a torrent of authentic-looking leaks. What I think we know is:

a. CPs are fixed to your game size: 3 CP for Combat Patrol, 6 for Incursion, 12 for Strike Force (1001 to 2000 points) and 18 for Onslaught. I imagine that most of us will play between 1500 and 2000 points, so 12 points will be the norm.

b. Patrols cost 2 CPs - this was revealed this week in the Combat Patrol mission reveal. The Org Chart is the same as 8th Edition. The cost of the Patrol is refunded if your Warlord is from the Patrol.

c. Battalions cost 3 CPs - once again the same Org Chart as 8th Edition and the cost of the Battalion is again refunded if your Warlord is from the Battalion.

d. Patrols, Battalions and Brigades (4 CP) are referred to as Core detachments where your CP cost gets refunded if your Warlord is from it. The implication is that other detachments are not Core and if your Warlord is drawn from those you do not get a CP refund.

e. Drukhari essentially get their CPs refunded if they run 3 Patrols with their Warlord from one of them.

f. Super Heavy Auxilia cost 3 CP and Super Heavy Detachment cost 3 or 6 CP with a refund hinted at for some (that article dropped as I was posting - LOL).

g. Supreme Command Detachment: 0 CP, must be a Primarch, Deamon Primarch or Supreme Commander (not sure what that is yet) and only one. It must be your Warlord. +4CP if you have any Brigades, +3 CP if you have any Battalion, +2 CP if you have any Patrol. So this basically gives you a refund on one Core Detachment since this must be your Warlord. By inference it would seem that a Brigade will cost 4 CP.

h. Outrider, Spearhead and Vanguard are 3 CP each and you do not get a CP rebate with your Warlord.

i. Auxiliary Detachment are 2 CP.

j. There is a Fortification Network that costs 1 CP that gets refunded if your Warlord is from the same faction. Must be some new Fortifications coming out.

There are number of implications from these reveals. The "Captain Obvious" one is that Soup (adding cheap Battalions from other Codexes) for the sake of getting CPs is no longer a thing. Soup to add a capability will still be a thing, but there is a built-in CP cost just adding a second Detachment. Along with that, there is no real incentive to take minimum-sized Detachments. As a Dark Angel my standard lists settled on two Battalions with minimal Troops. That would have given me 13 CPs. Now, taking two Battalions would leave me with 9 CPs. I think we'll see more single Battalion forces, with the odd Brigade coming in even for Marines when you really need more than 3 HQs and rely on CPs.

Related will be that taking sub-factions from the same Codex will come at a cost. My Astra Militarum lists with Scions and Catachans or Cadians will have much less CP than they do now. On the other hand, taking a small Patrol of Scions to go with my Catachans or Cadians will not be a big deal. Before I would find a way to get them to Battalion to have even more CP. My AM lists before the For the Greater Good book were usually looking for ways to spend CPs, but now I'll have to think about it.

Specialist lists like Ravenwing and Deathwing will either still use Battalions or take the CP hit. Pure Terminators or Bikes will be looking at a very reduced CP pool. Forces of Elites can make a Battalion work with those 6 slots, but Fast Attack forces will have some limitations with only 3 in a Battalion. A single Outrider Detachment list will start with 9 CP and have only two HQs. Oh well..

Lists that relied on characters might struggle, especially those that brought in a Supreme Command with heavy-hitting HQs. To some lists this will not be a big deal, but some of the extreme ones out there that relied on souped-in Supreme Command detachments might suffer - not a bad thing I suppose.

All in all I think that the new system looks like it will rein-in list building. We might see less Characters out there. I think we will see more mono-faction forces out there. I would have preferred that Outriders and Vanguards could have the CP cost refunded with the Warlord, but heh, you can't always get what you want.

Thoughts? Any "known" factors that I am missing?

Cheers,

T2B

ps Regarding Strike Force, who knew the GW designers were 1980s WWE fans? Didn't know the BBC carried it.



Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/27 16:47:35


Post by: Ork-en Man


https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/06/27/faction-focus-imperial-knights/





Tomorrow's Chaos Knights reveal will tell how the CP is refunded for the super heavy detachment.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/27 16:52:54


Post by: Dysartes


TangoTwoBravo wrote:
We do not know the full impact on specialist armies like Deathwing and Ravenwing. Without knowing the cost of Vanguards and Outriders its hard to say. Assuming that the CPs do not get refunded when your Warlord is drawn from an Outrider of Vanguard a "pure" Ravenwing list might be looking at around 9 CPs to start. Not as bad as the 4 or 5 CPs an 8th Ed one would have had, but again it will be quite constraining in terms of characters. The Sammael and two-Talonmaster build looks like a CP problem...


Speculation - Belial and Sammael (and other characters where this may be appropriate - not going to try to list them) gain a special rule where a, if they are the Warlord; and b, if they are in a Vanguard/Outrider Detachment, then the CP cost of that detachment is refunded in the same way a Battalion would be for a "normal" army.

Allows for that sort of "theme force" (to borrow a WMH term) without doing anything too game-breaking, I think?


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/27 16:53:06


Post by: Grimgold


They just added an article on Knights, 3 CP for a super heavy aux, 3 CP for a super heavy detachment if it doesn't include titanic units (IE: a pure armiger list), and 6 CP if the detachment does include titanic units.

At this point I think we have enough info to make an educated guess about the other force orgs. The cost for outriders, spearheads, Vanguards, airwings, and supreme command will probably be 3CP.

As for list building in 9th ed, the penalty is focused on additional detachments beyond the one your warlord is in, so there is no penalty for taking a non battalion as your primary. So necrons with a crowded fast attack slot, might be better off taking an outrider, and guard can do a tank army without loosing CP.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/27 17:22:56


Post by: TangoTwoBravo


 Grimgold wrote:
They just added an article on Knights, 3 CP for a super heavy aux, 3 CP for a super heavy detachment if it doesn't include titanic units (IE: a pure armiger list), and 6 CP if the detachment does include titanic units.

At this point I think we have enough info to make an educated guess about the other force orgs. The cost for outriders, spearheads, Vanguards, airwings, and supreme command will probably be 3CP.

As for list building in 9th ed, the penalty is focused on additional detachments beyond the one your warlord is in, so there is no penalty for taking a non battalion as your primary. So necrons with a crowded fast attack slot, might be better off taking an outrider, and guard can do a tank army without loosing CP.


I concur with your assessment on CP costs. Regarding Warlord refunds, the original article referred to Core detachments getting the Warlord refund, and that "your first detachment is usually free." Usually is not the same as always, but perhaps I am reading too much into that and I'd be happy to be wrong. Maybe its that your first Detachment would "usually" have your Warlord, and therefore be free? Guess we'll see. The Knights apparently getting some kind of refund that will be announced tomorrow does give me hope for my Deathwing/Ravenwing. Being completely free of the CP Troops Tax would be nice and would jive with what Stu was saying in the early chats.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/27 18:07:42


Post by: Grimgold


TangoTwoBravo wrote:
 Grimgold wrote:
They just added an article on Knights, 3 CP for a super heavy aux, 3 CP for a super heavy detachment if it doesn't include titanic units (IE: a pure armiger list), and 6 CP if the detachment does include titanic units.

At this point I think we have enough info to make an educated guess about the other force orgs. The cost for outriders, spearheads, Vanguards, airwings, and supreme command will probably be 3CP.

As for list building in 9th ed, the penalty is focused on additional detachments beyond the one your warlord is in, so there is no penalty for taking a non battalion as your primary. So necrons with a crowded fast attack slot, might be better off taking an outrider, and guard can do a tank army without loosing CP.


I concur with your assessment on CP costs. Regarding Warlord refunds, the original article referred to Core detachments getting the Warlord refund, and that "your first detachment is usually free." Usually is not the same as always, but perhaps I am reading too much into that and I'd be happy to be wrong. Maybe its that your first Detachment would "usually" have your Warlord, and therefore be free? Guess we'll see. The Knights apparently getting some kind of refund that will be announced tomorrow does give me hope for my Deathwing/Ravenwing. Being completely free of the CP Troops Tax would be nice and would jive with what Stu was saying in the early chats.


I can see that, though it could also be that super heavy is an exception. There are lots of super heavies out there that would make awkward super heavy armies, like baneblades or wraith knights. So maybe they took away the warlord benefit from the super heavy detachments to discourage those kind of forces, and will give knights something in specific to allow them to do it. Or it could be that only patrol, battalion, and brigade get the benefits of having the warlord, and GW is working to discourage all non-standard force orgs.

Random amusing tangent, could you build a 2k list using only a supreme command detachment?


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/27 18:18:23


Post by: tulun


 Grimgold wrote:
They just added an article on Knights, 3 CP for a super heavy aux, 3 CP for a super heavy detachment if it doesn't include titanic units (IE: a pure armiger list), and 6 CP if the detachment does include titanic units.

At this point I think we have enough info to make an educated guess about the other force orgs. The cost for outriders, spearheads, Vanguards, airwings, and supreme command will probably be 3CP.

As for list building in 9th ed, the penalty is focused on additional detachments beyond the one your warlord is in, so there is no penalty for taking a non battalion as your primary. So necrons with a crowded fast attack slot, might be better off taking an outrider, and guard can do a tank army without loosing CP.


I am curious as well if there will be any typical ways of refunding from vanguard / outrider and such.

I think not (maybe with the odd special character exception), as avoiding a troop tax is the benefit you get from those detachments. So you are trading CP for points. Seems perfectly fair to me.

The only ones I see as legitimately upset is maybe Chaos (Dark Eldar got a hand up), as their army is kind of designed to mix and match, as opposed to the Imperium just having a buffet of choices, cause fluff.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/27 18:25:53


Post by: PenitentJake


It's worth noting the detachment limit based on game size in your OP.

At Combat Patrol, you only get 1 detachment. Are you Drukhari? No raiding force for you. At Incursion Level? Nope, not there either. Stike Force? That's the sweet spot, but you've now got enough points that the heavy or fast attack spots from 3 patrols aren't enough- especially in the 1 Kabal, 1 Cult, 1 Coven model.

At onslaught, you could add a 4th patrol, but you'd have to pay for it. You could also add a battalion, shift your warlord to that detachment and pay for one of the 3 patrols.

But to describe Raiding force as functional for 9th is not accurate, unless they FAQ up an exception for Drukhari. It's also with noting that the advanced version of raiding force (+8CP / 6 Patrols) is not available at any size of game.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/27 18:33:12


Post by: alextroy


From what GW has said so far only Patrol, Battalion, and Brigade give CP refund if the Warlord is in it. They also said that Drukhari Raiding Party and the Knight Lance rules will still be in effect.

For Raiding Party, the can issue no errata and half the rule works in Strike Force or Onslaught games (+4 CP if your army includes 3 Drukari Patrols). The second half doesn't work because the rules no longer allow you to take 6 detachments.

Knight Lance needs updated errata since it used to increase the Command Points awarded by a Knight Lance based on the number of Titanic Knights in it. If they mimic the current rules, it will refund 3 CP if you Super Heavy detachment includes 1 Titanic Knight that is your warlord and possibly all 6 CP if the detachment includes 3 Titanic Knights including your warlord.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/27 18:53:39


Post by: Aash


I suspect the CP refund for knights and chaos knights will be an errata first their codexes rather than something for all armies using those detachments, similar the the DE getting their faction specific rule. That would explain why it’s not mentioned in the rules for the detachments themselves.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/27 18:58:07


Post by: Ice_can


Aash wrote:
I suspect the CP refund for knights and chaos knights will be an errata first their codexes rather than something for all armies using those detachments, similar the the DE getting their faction specific rule. That would explain why it’s not mentioned in the rules for the detachments themselves.

Yeah let's just Hope GW actually manage to word it correctly so it doesn't make Knight allies free for Guard and Admech too.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/27 19:13:16


Post by: ERJAK


TangoTwoBravo wrote:
 Grimgold wrote:
They just added an article on Knights, 3 CP for a super heavy aux, 3 CP for a super heavy detachment if it doesn't include titanic units (IE: a pure armiger list), and 6 CP if the detachment does include titanic units.

At this point I think we have enough info to make an educated guess about the other force orgs. The cost for outriders, spearheads, Vanguards, airwings, and supreme command will probably be 3CP.

As for list building in 9th ed, the penalty is focused on additional detachments beyond the one your warlord is in, so there is no penalty for taking a non battalion as your primary. So necrons with a crowded fast attack slot, might be better off taking an outrider, and guard can do a tank army without loosing CP.


I concur with your assessment on CP costs. Regarding Warlord refunds, the original article referred to Core detachments getting the Warlord refund, and that "your first detachment is usually free." Usually is not the same as always, but perhaps I am reading too much into that and I'd be happy to be wrong. Maybe its that your first Detachment would "usually" have your Warlord, and therefore be free? Guess we'll see. The Knights apparently getting some kind of refund that will be announced tomorrow does give me hope for my Deathwing/Ravenwing. Being completely free of the CP Troops Tax would be nice and would jive with what Stu was saying in the early chats.


I hope not. That's ridiculously punishing for armies that just like to mix and match chapter tactics. 2CP would be expensive enought that you'd only ever include one extra detachment, making them 3 would see them only ever used if there was some obscenely broken BS model like pre-nerf flyrants you could pick up with them.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/27 19:18:33


Post by: Aash


Ice_can wrote:
Aash wrote:
I suspect the CP refund for knights and chaos knights will be an errata first their codexes rather than something for all armies using those detachments, similar the the DE getting their faction specific rule. That would explain why it’s not mentioned in the rules for the detachments themselves.

Yeah let's just Hope GW actually manage to word it correctly so it doesn't make Knight allies free for Guard and Admech too.


Purely speculation on my part, but I expect they will have a rule in the knights and chaos knights codex that says that if a battle forged super heavy detachment of knights/chaos knights includes your warlord then it refunds the CPs for that detachment.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/27 20:07:27


Post by: sanguine40k


TangoTwoBravo wrote:
There are number of implications from these reveals. The "Captain Obvious" one is that Soup (adding cheap Battalions from other Codexes) for the sake of getting CPs is no longer a thing. Soup to add a capability will still be a thing, but there is a built-in CP cost just adding a second Detachment. Along with that, there is no real incentive to take minimum-sized Detachments. As a Dark Angel my standard lists settled on two Battalions with minimal Troops. That would have given me 13 CPs. Now, taking two Battalions would leave me with 9 CPs. I think we'll see more single Battalion forces, with the odd Brigade coming in even for Marines when you really need more than 3 HQs and rely on CPs.


Given patrols only cost 2CP *AND* have the lightest troop tax, I really don't consider Soup a dead concept.

The reason people used battalions over patrols in 8th was you effectively paid 2 extra units troop tax (which for plenty of armies was <100 points) in return for 5CP. I can imagine if there was a terrain piece that cost 100points but gave you 5CP, there would have been plenty of people taking them...

I expect to continue to see soup lists in 9th.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/27 20:17:26


Post by: TangoTwoBravo


sanguine40k wrote:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:
There are number of implications from these reveals. The "Captain Obvious" one is that Soup (adding cheap Battalions from other Codexes) for the sake of getting CPs is no longer a thing. Soup to add a capability will still be a thing, but there is a built-in CP cost just adding a second Detachment. Along with that, there is no real incentive to take minimum-sized Detachments. As a Dark Angel my standard lists settled on two Battalions with minimal Troops. That would have given me 13 CPs. Now, taking two Battalions would leave me with 9 CPs. I think we'll see more single Battalion forces, with the odd Brigade coming in even for Marines when you really need more than 3 HQs and rely on CPs.


Given patrols only cost 2CP *AND* have the lightest troop tax, I really don't consider Soup a dead concept.

The reason people used battalions over patrols in 8th was you effectively paid 2 extra units troop tax (which for plenty of armies was <100 points) in return for 5CP. I can imagine if there was a terrain piece that cost 100points but gave you 5CP, there would have been plenty of people taking them...

I expect to continue to see soup lists in 9th.


My point was that Soup to gain CP would no longer be a thing - you really want that extra capability for its own sake from Soup and pay CP for it.

Looking at the 3 x Knights, Loyal 32 and Supreme Comd Smash Captain list that was popular circa 2018/19, it would have started at around 15 CP. Now, it might have 6 or even 3 CP depending who the Warlord is and how Supreme Comd gets costed for CP. Do you still take those Smash Captains?


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/27 20:22:45


Post by: sanguine40k


TangoTwoBravo wrote:

My point was that Soup to gain CP would no longer be a thing - you really want that extra capability for its own sake from Soup and pay CP for it.

Looking at the 3 x Knights, Loyal 32 and Supreme Comd Smash Captain list that was popular circa 2018/19, it would have started at around 15 CP. Now, it might have 6 or even 3 CP depending who the Warlord is and how Supreme Comd gets costed for CP. Do you still take those Smash Captains?


Ah, you weren't clear about your point regarding soup for cp Vs soup for effect.

In your example, I would expect the loyal 32 to get dropped and an elite unit added to the Smash Caps in replacement, leaving the list on ~9cp base.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Personally, I would be very happy to see the Supreme Command detachment to go away in 9th...


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/27 20:25:58


Post by: Tyel


sanguine40k wrote:

Given patrols only cost 2CP *AND* have the lightest troop tax, I really don't consider Soup a dead concept.

The reason people used battalions over patrols in 8th was you effectively paid 2 extra units troop tax (which for plenty of armies was <100 points) in return for 5CP. I can imagine if there was a terrain piece that cost 100points but gave you 5CP, there would have been plenty of people taking them...

I expect to continue to see soup lists in 9th.


I think people saying its dead are possibly exaggerating the value of a few CP - but it may not be competitively optimal, which would make me happy.

If your soup list was say 2 battalions (okay it probably wasn't but go with it) - you go from 13 CP to 9+5 CP over a game, assuming there isn't some special soup tax. By turn 4 you are therefore in the same position. Your 2 turn 40k alpha strike is going to be down 2 CP, but I doubt that is the end of the world.

If spearheads/outriders etc wind up being 2 CP you are only 1 CP down by turn 2. And as you said - it may be possible to do a patrol (although I feel the inability to take say 3 of a key unite, dilutes its usefulness a bit.)


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/27 20:37:19


Post by: BrianDavion


the screw over to Gulliman is annoying. but maybe trhe brigade will now allow for 1 LOW slot thus making Gulliman etc more a "3000 points game" unit?


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/27 21:07:57


Post by: TangoTwoBravo


Let's look at my last Astra Militarum list (not saying that it was very meta or competitive but its what I know). I had a Battalion of Cadians, a Battalion of Catachans and a Battalion of Scions. This gave me 18 CPs, some of which went into secondary Warlord Traits and relics. It also gave me three complementary "doctrines." Now, I would have 6 CPs, or 7 if I made the Scions a Patrol. Seeing as I would likely be spending at least 2 CPs before the game I would be looking at starting with 4 or 5 CPs. So while the Scions might still make the cut for me next month, my line will either be Cadian or Catachan and not both. Additionally, it will likely be a Brigade. So there is still "Soup" for effectiveness, but certainly not the same level and its for effectiveness' sake only. I am sure other players will face similar decisions.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/27 21:12:24


Post by: grouchoben


I run Imperium and Eldar soup, and I love these new detachment rules so far. Cost/reward is finally getting applied to detachments properly, and unit restrictions are finally gaining some meaning. Whereas in 8th you had loads of spare slots in detachments, now pressure will be on you to cram and pare down to what fits. Very nice.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/27 21:38:19


Post by: Asmodai


Aash wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
Aash wrote:
I suspect the CP refund for knights and chaos knights will be an errata first their codexes rather than something for all armies using those detachments, similar the the DE getting their faction specific rule. That would explain why it’s not mentioned in the rules for the detachments themselves.

Yeah let's just Hope GW actually manage to word it correctly so it doesn't make Knight allies free for Guard and Admech too.


Purely speculation on my part, but I expect they will have a rule in the knights and chaos knights codex that says that if a battle forged super heavy detachment of knights/chaos knights includes your warlord then it refunds the CPs for that detachment.


Their existing rule (+3 CP for a Super-Heavy Detachment with at least one Titanic, +6 CP for one with at least 3 Titanics) works well to basically zero out with the new costs. Like with Dark Eldar, I think the fix will mostly be keeping the existing rule with minor errata.



Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/27 22:09:16


Post by: Ice_can


 Asmodai wrote:
Aash wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
Aash wrote:
I suspect the CP refund for knights and chaos knights will be an errata first their codexes rather than something for all armies using those detachments, similar the the DE getting their faction specific rule. That would explain why it’s not mentioned in the rules for the detachments themselves.

Yeah let's just Hope GW actually manage to word it correctly so it doesn't make Knight allies free for Guard and Admech too.


Purely speculation on my part, but I expect they will have a rule in the knights and chaos knights codex that says that if a battle forged super heavy detachment of knights/chaos knights includes your warlord then it refunds the CPs for that detachment.


Their existing rule (+3 CP for a Super-Heavy Detachment with at least one Titanic, +6 CP for one with at least 3 Titanics) works well to basically zero out with the new costs. Like with Dark Eldar, I think the fix will mostly be keeping the existing rule with minor errata.


Actually the codex one is +3CP for 3 titanic units and 0 for anything less, the one your refering to is only in the errata, which I believe die with 8th edition and are replaced with the day 1 FAQ's for each codex. However they did imply they are going to explain more stuff in the choas knights faction focus, which I suspect qill tell us that and more obvious blast weapons are blast weapons

However these articals haven't exactly been crammed with details and so far have already proven themselves to be wrong.
I'm also concerned that it doesn't line up with what stu said in the live and if he doesn't know well who the does know someone should have a studio copy of the rulebook by now for sake check it before you publish the articals lads.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/27 22:09:43


Post by: Daedalus81


 Asmodai wrote:
Aash wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
Aash wrote:
I suspect the CP refund for knights and chaos knights will be an errata first their codexes rather than something for all armies using those detachments, similar the the DE getting their faction specific rule. That would explain why it’s not mentioned in the rules for the detachments themselves.

Yeah let's just Hope GW actually manage to word it correctly so it doesn't make Knight allies free for Guard and Admech too.


Purely speculation on my part, but I expect they will have a rule in the knights and chaos knights codex that says that if a battle forged super heavy detachment of knights/chaos knights includes your warlord then it refunds the CPs for that detachment.


Their existing rule (+3 CP for a Super-Heavy Detachment with at least one Titanic, +6 CP for one with at least 3 Titanics) works well to basically zero out with the new costs. Like with Dark Eldar, I think the fix will mostly be keeping the existing rule with minor errata.



Not at least three - it is 6 for any Titantic.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/27 22:11:21


Post by: Ice_can


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Spoiler:
 Asmodai wrote:
Aash wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
Aash wrote:
I suspect the CP refund for knights and chaos knights will be an errata first their codexes rather than something for all armies using those detachments, similar the the DE getting their faction specific rule. That would explain why it’s not mentioned in the rules for the detachments themselves.

Yeah let's just Hope GW actually manage to word it correctly so it doesn't make Knight allies free for Guard and Admech too.


Purely speculation on my part, but I expect they will have a rule in the knights and chaos knights codex that says that if a battle forged super heavy detachment of knights/chaos knights includes your warlord then it refunds the CPs for that detachment.


Their existing rule (+3 CP for a Super-Heavy Detachment with at least one Titanic, +6 CP for one with at least 3 Titanics) works well to basically zero out with the new costs. Like with Dark Eldar, I think the fix will mostly be keeping the existing rule with minor errata.



Not at least three - it is 6 for any Titantic.

Wrong check the FAQ its atleast 3 dude

Change the last sentence to read:
‘The Command Benefit of each Imperial Knights Super-
heavy Detachment is changed to ‘None’ if it does not
contain at least one Imperial Knights Titanic unit,
and is changed to ‘+6 Command Points’ if it contains at
least three Imperial Knights Titanic units.’


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/27 22:31:28


Post by: Daedalus81


Oh. Right. I missed that you were referencing the old rule.

I think it may destroy any LoW that isnt in their own codex - wraithknight, stormsurge, etc. 3cp is a big hit just to take one of those if knights have a work around.

Should be interesting to see how they juggle this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On the other end triple Lord of Skulls is dead, so....I can cope.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/27 22:57:50


Post by: Drager


 Grimgold wrote:

Random amusing tangent, could you build a 2k list using only a supreme command detachment?


2x Farseer Syrunner
2x 10 Warlock Syrunner Conclave
Spiritseer
7 Wraithcannon Wraithguard
Wraithknight Sword n Board w/ 2 Starcannons.

Go Children of Prophecy and Wrath of the dead. It's... Ok. Not to tier competitive, but competent fur regular play.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/27 23:08:57


Post by: NoPoet


I wonder at which point 40K became all about CPs. A few years ago, no-one had heard of them. Now they govern every aspect of "competitive play". It controls our choice of army, it controls our strategy, it determines which units are useful, it compensates for crap units, in fact it now seems necessary to let many units do their job at all. "I can shoot my gun faster because the magical hand of the Emperor... er... does something really important."

I dunno, I remember when clever use of units and positioning could win games, instead of deus ex machina.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/27 23:20:53


Post by: Daedalus81


 NoPoet wrote:
I wonder at which point 40K became all about CPs. A few years ago, no-one had heard of them. Now they govern every aspect of "competitive play". It controls our choice of army, it controls our strategy, it determines which units are useful, it compensates for crap units, in fact it now seems necessary to let many units do their job at all. "I can shoot my gun faster because the magical hand of the Emperor... er... does something really important."

I dunno, I remember when clever use of units and positioning could win games, instead of deus ex machina.


Rose tinted glasses.

CP doesn't control our choice. It gives weight to choices.

Now that its level set CP becomes more like a resource to carefully manage and stratagems may not be the free for all that they were.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/27 23:48:51


Post by: PenitentJake


 NoPoet wrote:
I wonder at which point 40K became all about CPs. A few years ago, no-one had heard of them. Now they govern every aspect of "competitive play". It controls our choice of army, it controls our strategy, it determines which units are useful, it compensates for crap units, in fact it now seems necessary to let many units do their job at all. "I can shoot my gun faster because the magical hand of the Emperor... er... does something really important."

I dunno, I remember when clever use of units and positioning could win games, instead of deus ex machina.


I think now that we actually have terrain rules, positioning will become very important, and will win games.

I do see your point; and I think in 8th, it was way more of a problem because a) people had to build detachments to game the CP system and b) the only way to spend CP was on strats, which can definitely seem gimmicky.

Ninth eliminates the first of those problems outright. Now command points are still critically important to the game, for sure, but I think there are so many ways to use them now that they probably won't seem quite as gimmicky. You will find people using fewer stategems- 12 at 2k points is lower than what a lot of armies were hitting in the first place, and some of those 12 are going to be eaten before the battle. Using them for reserves is interesting too; I think that could give you the tactical feel you're looking for- I think it'll be really fun to coordinate deepstrikers with reserves given all the new terrain rules.

The small games and their limited CP is also worth mentioning. At those lower levels, I think the game will have a more tactical feel.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 00:34:56


Post by: Tycho


I initially disliked this, but with everything else we have seen, I’m starting to like it. Still think games will take too long but I could see this as a good middle ground to at least prevent CP farming if nothing else. Orks will probably need an almost total rewrite but I’ve been expecting that for most books anyway.

A little bumbed my mechanicus army is going to need to blow that much cp just to bring my loan knight errant, but thems the breaks.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 01:23:58


Post by: Daedalus81


Yea...my thoughts on tossing Magnus into reserves just went up to 6 CP. Oh well...


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 01:27:48


Post by: sanguine40k


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Oh. Right. I missed that you were referencing the old rule.

I think it may destroy any LoW that isnt in their own codex - wraithknight, stormsurge, etc. 3cp is a big hit just to take one of those if knights have a work around.

Should be interesting to see how they juggle this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On the other end triple Lord of Skulls is dead, so....I can cope.


I suspect that, outside of lone LOW's in Supreme Command detachments, non-knight super heavies are DOA in 9th.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 02:45:57


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Hierodules aren't worth the points you pay for them. Now you want me to pay CP on top of that???


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 02:59:14


Post by: Grimgold


sanguine40k wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Oh. Right. I missed that you were referencing the old rule.

I think it may destroy any LoW that isnt in their own codex - wraithknight, stormsurge, etc. 3cp is a big hit just to take one of those if knights have a work around.

Should be interesting to see how they juggle this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On the other end triple Lord of Skulls is dead, so....I can cope.


I suspect that, outside of lone LOW's in Supreme Command detachments, non-knight super heavies are DOA in 9th.


I think most knights will go away as well, since they were mostly used as a splash to help out an army that needed the extra beef. LoWs will have to be amazing to shell out the point cost and the 3 to 6 CP cost. But then again people were shelling out 5+ CP at the beginning of the game to get chapter master, and veteran intercessors, so there is prior precedence for taking a CP hit to add some extra bang to your army. It could also be that your not buying the model but instead are spending points and CP to get access to different stratagems.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 03:08:39


Post by: TangoTwoBravo


I guess if we are bringing a Titanic unit we are committing to it. An AM Bde at 2000 points would have 9 CP left if it took a Knight or Baneblade. Not too bad, but it does make you think about it beyond the points. Some lists rely heavily on CPs to fuel their power - those will have to make careful decisions about taking more than one Detachment. Its true that we get 1CP per round, but if you are spending several before the game you are looking at a thin wallet when the game starts if you take three Detachments. I feel fatalistic to go under 3 CP during a game now - that's when you pin your colours to the mast...you've selected the hill to die...Its all come down to this etc. Starting the game with 4 or 5 CP? Uh oh.

If extra detachments (whatever the flavour beyond the Core ones) cost 3 CP each then I doubt that we will have to pay extra to unlock an additional Codex. Of course, I could be wrong. I've been wrong before. I can't see them, though, costing less than a Patrol. If this means that the Supreme Command detachment is now a rarity I am happy. Since the current incarnation can take a LOW I can't see it costing less than 3 CP - it will likely cost more. Want Ahriman and two DPs to support your Night Lords? Pay the CP to the Ferryman...


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 03:08:56


Post by: Karol


Well the thing with knights is that Vet intercessors or relic TH on sgts made the units very good, and spamable. If a knight cost 3-6CP, but you still have to pay CP to give it the cawl gun and use its stratagems, it starts to cost too much. To be valid, the rule set for a knight would have to be something like a better pre nerf castellan.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 04:39:35


Post by: yukishiro1


A knight isn't worth it to begin with now, so I dunno why it would be in 9th unless they get a comparative points cut.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 04:59:17


Post by: Gadzilla666


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Hierodules aren't worth the points you pay for them. Now you want me to pay CP on top of that???

Hierodules overpriced? Hellforged fellblade says "Hi".

If they're isn't an additional CP cost for bringing another codex I don't understand the price of the super heavy auxiliary detachment. Shouldn't you get some kind of discount for for bringing a super heavy from your own faction? Guard and csm will be able to bring three knights for the same cost as a single LOW from their own codex if they make the knights their primary detachment. There must be an additional cost for bringing another codex.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 05:08:46


Post by: tulun


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Hierodules aren't worth the points you pay for them. Now you want me to pay CP on top of that???

Hierodules overpriced? Hellforged fellblade says "Hi".

If they're isn't an additional CP cost for bringing another codex I don't understand the price of the super heavy auxiliary detachment. Shouldn't you get some kind of discount for for bringing a super heavy from your own faction? Guard and csm will be able to bring three knights for the same cost as a single LOW from their own codex if they make the knights their primary detachment. There must be an additional cost for bringing another codex.


I think the idea now is that you get more CP for less points (theoretically) -- in fact, with a single basic detachment, 12 +6 CP is free. If you want to take these supplemental detachments, you exchange CP as part of the trade.

I think people just need to start thinking of CP more along the lines of something you're spending to improve your army with more force org slots, instead of gaining it through "good army building".


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 06:34:24


Post by: Ice_can


tulun wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Hierodules aren't worth the points you pay for them. Now you want me to pay CP on top of that???

Hierodules overpriced? Hellforged fellblade says "Hi".

If they're isn't an additional CP cost for bringing another codex I don't understand the price of the super heavy auxiliary detachment. Shouldn't you get some kind of discount for for bringing a super heavy from your own faction? Guard and csm will be able to bring three knights for the same cost as a single LOW from their own codex if they make the knights their primary detachment. There must be an additional cost for bringing another codex.


I think the idea now is that you get more CP for less points (theoretically) -- in fact, with a single basic detachment, 12 +6 CP is free. If you want to take these supplemental detachments, you exchange CP as part of the trade.

I think people just need to start thinking of CP more along the lines of something you're spending to improve your army with more force org slots, instead of gaining it through "good army building".

Except these units are part of the suplimentery units for said codex's.
And none of the "basic detachments" allow you to take a LoW.

So to take the Hellforged Fellblade, the thing is 1k + points for a unit thats maybe worth 600-700 points currently.

You expect people to pay 3CP for an over priced unit with zero strategums when they could spend 3 CP to unlock codex choas knights and Engine War for 30+ Strategums for the same cost?

Not to mention if GW do their usual shoddy job taking knight primary with allies will be way cheaper in CP without actually having a downside and will lead to the same mess both knoghts codex's ended up in 8th where they no longer work solo due to being nerfed repeatedly for issues with allies.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 07:44:17


Post by: ERJAK


 NoPoet wrote:
I wonder at which point 40K became all about CPs. A few years ago, no-one had heard of them. Now they govern every aspect of "competitive play". It controls our choice of army, it controls our strategy, it determines which units are useful, it compensates for crap units, in fact it now seems necessary to let many units do their job at all. "I can shoot my gun faster because the magical hand of the Emperor... er... does something really important."

I dunno, I remember when clever use of units and positioning could win games, instead of deus ex machina.


That's some pretty severe rose tinting going on there ngl. At least this edition it's not just 'pile 300 defensive buffs on one big unit and faceroll'.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 08:21:45


Post by: grouchoben


Ima just say it: I really like CPs and Strats. They have changed the game for the better, and most factions now have a really fluffy way to impact the crunch of their playstyle. They're highly modular, so strats can be nerfed, reworded or retired according to game balance while keeping units the same.

The main problem before was disparity in access to CPs, with janky lists being rewarded and thematic lists getting curbstomped. I'm really optimistic that this edition has addressed this problem very seriously, and I'm excited to see what will emerge.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 08:56:53


Post by: Nazrak


I'm kinda liking the look of all this so far – seems like there's actually some decisions to be made in terms of weighing up the benefits of putting something in your army vs. how many CPs you get.

• Want more than two of a slot in your core detachment? Spend CPs or take another Troops and another HQ.

• Want more than 3 of a slot? Spend CPs or fill out the minimum Brigade requirements.

• Want to ally some guys in to plug the gaps in your core Codex? Sure, but you need to weigh up whether that's more important to you than having the extra CPs.

I wasn't one of the people who had a particular beef with the old way CPs worked, but seeing this, it seems like a much more elegant system.

(I'm still kinda mad I'm limited to max. 3 clans in an Ork warband, but it seems GW have just decided to fire that longstanding bit of the lore into the bin)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 grouchoben wrote:
The main problem before was disparity in access to CPs, with janky lists being rewarded and thematic lists getting curbstomped. I'm really optimistic that this edition has addressed this problem very seriously, and I'm excited to see what will emerge.

Totally – it seems like this system essentially goes "we're not telling you you can't use your bizarre conglomeration of units that no really it's all about my own very niche fluff justification and not just trying to cheese the system while ignoring the background, BUT there are some consequences to doing so now"


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 09:50:46


Post by: princeyg


I agree, I think its definitely for the better with regards to balancing the game and I think that having some armies start with less cp than they do now is also a good thing for the game, it means we are definitely going to be seeing less of the "blow all your strats in the first 2 turns" type of play.

Can,t speak about superheavies as the only one I own Is a Stompa (which needs more work than fiddling around with cps i can tell you).

One fun thing is as a Tyranid player, if for example, my splinter fleet wants to run a Kraken detachment and a Kronos one, I can pretend the CP loss is representative of the biomass and effort used to create these particular nids...very fluffly and i like that (of course i understand this has nothing to do with the game mechanics itself but I thought I,d mention it anyway).

I can probably see them playing around with the cp refunding mechanic as someone mentioned with regards to Belial and Sammael and other characters of that ilk. Maybe not immediately in the faqs, but possibly in the codex eventually (can you guess what my other army is?)


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 09:57:27


Post by: Eldarsif


sanguine40k wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Oh. Right. I missed that you were referencing the old rule.

I think it may destroy any LoW that isnt in their own codex - wraithknight, stormsurge, etc. 3cp is a big hit just to take one of those if knights have a work around.

Should be interesting to see how they juggle this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On the other end triple Lord of Skulls is dead, so....I can cope.


I suspect that, outside of lone LOW's in Supreme Command detachments, non-knight super heavies are DOA in 9th.


Have to agree with that. I wasn't really putting my Wraithknights on the table much in 8th. Can't really see I'll be more willing to do that 9th with the extra CP cost.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 10:47:32


Post by: Dysartes


As an aside, any strat which is a before-the-game-starts unit upgrade - like Chapter Master, Skarboyz or Veteran Intercessors - should be retired and replaced with either a new datasheet or just a points/PL upgrade cost on the appropriate base datasheet(s).


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 11:06:06


Post by: KurtAngle2


 grouchoben wrote:
Ima just say it: I really like CPs and Strats. They have changed the game for the better, and most factions now have a really fluffy way to impact the crunch of their playstyle. They're highly modular, so strats can be nerfed, reworded or retired according to game balance while keeping units the same.

The main problem before was disparity in access to CPs, with janky lists being rewarded and thematic lists getting curbstomped. I'm really optimistic that this edition has addressed this problem very seriously, and I'm excited to see what will emerge.


You should remove this statement because this edition STILL has this problem where armies that need at least 2 detachments to properly function EFFECTIVELY start the game with fewer CPs than ANYONE else (GSC, Guard, Orks and so on). Having a detachment limit and making people PAY for any detachment when CPs are fixed is outright stupid, incoherent and does not solve any issue (in fact it exacerbates even more the problem with many codices design), while also punishing any army that just needs a detachment REGARDLESS of the detachment being from the same codex (punishing mono armies the same way they would punish detachments from different armies).
It's bad on so many levels that I'm pretty sure they're gonna change it in few months (most likely by reducing all the detachment costs which are CRAZY HIGH right now).


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 11:12:59


Post by: Ice_can


KurtAngle2 wrote:
 grouchoben wrote:
Ima just say it: I really like CPs and Strats. They have changed the game for the better, and most factions now have a really fluffy way to impact the crunch of their playstyle. They're highly modular, so strats can be nerfed, reworded or retired according to game balance while keeping units the same.

The main problem before was disparity in access to CPs, with janky lists being rewarded and thematic lists getting curbstomped. I'm really optimistic that this edition has addressed this problem very seriously, and I'm excited to see what will emerge.


You should remove this statement because this edition STILL has this problem where armies that need at least 2 detachments to properly function EFFECTIVELY start the game with fewer CPs than ANYONE else (GSC, Guard, Orks and so on). Having a detachment limit and making people PAY for any detachment when CPs are fixed is outright stupid, incoherent and does not solve any issue (in fact it exacerbates even more the problem with many codices design), while also punishing any army that just needs a detachment REGARDLESS of the detachment being from the same codex (punishing mono armies the same way they would punish detachments from different armies).
It's bad on so many levels that I'm pretty sure they're gonna change it in few months (most likely by reducing all the detachment costs which are CRAZY HIGH right now).

No army outside of Drukari needs multiple detachments.

Also if you want to add some scions 2CP isnt exactly a massive cost.

Too many people have got too used to min maxing subfactions in 8th and they are going to have to suck it up for 9th.

I do hope the roumered CP cost for additional codex's does materialise.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 11:25:18


Post by: Karol


Well for some faction something like lets say the elite section requires more then 6 slots. Same with HQ which require you to play with more then 3.

It really isn't people foult that GW designed their codex that way. Same as it isn't people foult that their codex didnt get updated in 8th ed, and they now get to enjoy playing 9th with a codex ment for 6th or 7th ed. And it gets double that, if the faction were some sort of a power house in 8th. I get GW wanting to nerf some good stuff, but they really don't have to nerf weak or weaker factions or ways of playing on top of it.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 11:38:27


Post by: KurtAngle2


Ice_can wrote:
KurtAngle2 wrote:
 grouchoben wrote:
Ima just say it: I really like CPs and Strats. They have changed the game for the better, and most factions now have a really fluffy way to impact the crunch of their playstyle. They're highly modular, so strats can be nerfed, reworded or retired according to game balance while keeping units the same.

The main problem before was disparity in access to CPs, with janky lists being rewarded and thematic lists getting curbstomped. I'm really optimistic that this edition has addressed this problem very seriously, and I'm excited to see what will emerge.


You should remove this statement because this edition STILL has this problem where armies that need at least 2 detachments to properly function EFFECTIVELY start the game with fewer CPs than ANYONE else (GSC, Guard, Orks and so on). Having a detachment limit and making people PAY for any detachment when CPs are fixed is outright stupid, incoherent and does not solve any issue (in fact it exacerbates even more the problem with many codices design), while also punishing any army that just needs a detachment REGARDLESS of the detachment being from the same codex (punishing mono armies the same way they would punish detachments from different armies).
It's bad on so many levels that I'm pretty sure they're gonna change it in few months (most likely by reducing all the detachment costs which are CRAZY HIGH right now).

No army outside of Drukari needs multiple detachments.

Also if you want to add some scions 2CP isnt exactly a massive cost.

Too many people have got too used to min maxing subfactions in 8th and they are going to have to suck it up for 9th.

I do hope the roumered CP cost for additional codex's does materialise.


No, these armies are outright bad without access to multiple HQs/different Chapter Tactics to perform superspecific role


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 11:41:03


Post by: Karol


I think that for some people having the option to play a very bad and unfun to play list, counts as having a list to play with. I could be wrong though.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 11:41:46


Post by: KurtAngle2


Karol wrote:
I think that for some people having the option to play a very bad and unfun to play list, counts as having a list to play with. I could be wrong though.


But the same Marines army can be very effective with a single Detachment and have the maximum amout of CPs they can start with


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 11:42:12


Post by: Ice_can


Karol wrote:
Well for some faction something like lets say the elite section requires more then 6 slots. Same with HQ which require you to play with more then 3.

It really isn't people foult that GW designed their codex that way. Same as it isn't people foult that their codex didnt get updated in 8th ed, and they now get to enjoy playing 9th with a codex ment for 6th or 7th ed. And it gets double that, if the faction were some sort of a power house in 8th. I get GW wanting to nerf some good stuff, but they really don't have to nerf weak or weaker factions or ways of playing on top of it.

No-one is playing with a codex designed for 6 or 7th dude.

No-one needs 7+ elites or 4+ HQ's, you might want them but that doesn't mean that their shouldn't be a trade off.
Every codex has been updated for 8th and will recieve a Day 1 FAQ.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 11:44:15


Post by: KurtAngle2


Ice_can wrote:
Karol wrote:
Well for some faction something like lets say the elite section requires more then 6 slots. Same with HQ which require you to play with more then 3.

It really isn't people foult that GW designed their codex that way. Same as it isn't people foult that their codex didnt get updated in 8th ed, and they now get to enjoy playing 9th with a codex ment for 6th or 7th ed. And it gets double that, if the faction were some sort of a power house in 8th. I get GW wanting to nerf some good stuff, but they really don't have to nerf weak or weaker factions or ways of playing on top of it.

No-one is playing with a codex desihned for 6 or 7th dude.

No-one needs 7+ elites or 4+ HQ's, you might want them but that doesn't mean that their shouldn't be a trade off.


"No one needs 4+ HQs".

HELLO I AM A GSC PLAYER WITH A LIMIT OF 1 TYPE OF CHARACTER PER DETACHMENT

HELLO I AM A T'AU PLAYER WITH A LIMIT OF 1 COMMANDER PER DETACHMENT

HELLO I AM A IG PLAYER THAT HAS TANK COMMANDERS AND COMPANY COMMANDERS IN THE SAME SLOT WITH COMPLETELY DIFFERENT BONUSES THAT AFFECT ONLY INFANTRIES OR VEHICLES


You're thinking using Space Marines logic if you REALLY BELIEVE that these factions are PLAYABLE with one detachment


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 11:49:38


Post by: Karol


Ice_can wrote:
Karol wrote:
Well for some faction something like lets say the elite section requires more then 6 slots. Same with HQ which require you to play with more then 3.

It really isn't people foult that GW designed their codex that way. Same as it isn't people foult that their codex didnt get updated in 8th ed, and they now get to enjoy playing 9th with a codex ment for 6th or 7th ed. And it gets double that, if the faction were some sort of a power house in 8th. I get GW wanting to nerf some good stuff, but they really don't have to nerf weak or weaker factions or ways of playing on top of it.

No-one is playing with a codex designed for 6 or 7th dude.

No-one needs 7+ elites or 4+ HQ's, you might want them but that doesn't mean that their shouldn't be a trade off.
Every codex has been updated for 8th and will recieve a Day 1 FAQ.


Well I don't know for what the GK codex was designed then, because it sure as hell wasn't designed for 8th. And GW faqs for my army leave me cold as far as improvements go. Each FAQ in 8th was a nerf to GK, and it is not like they were some evil army with too high win rates.

As someone already said about their armies, there very well are armies that require more then 3 HQs or more then 6 elites to run a proper army.
If GW gives psychic powers I can only use on characters and there is the rule of 3, in effect and I can't cast more then one of same psychic power other then baby smite. Then I very much need 4 HQs, and I am not trading anything. If I don't take them, then my army goes back to pre PA status, and pre that it was one of the worse armies, if not the worse, in game.



Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 11:51:27


Post by: Ice_can


KurtAngle2 wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
Karol wrote:
Well for some faction something like lets say the elite section requires more then 6 slots. Same with HQ which require you to play with more then 3.

It really isn't people foult that GW designed their codex that way. Same as it isn't people foult that their codex didnt get updated in 8th ed, and they now get to enjoy playing 9th with a codex ment for 6th or 7th ed. And it gets double that, if the faction were some sort of a power house in 8th. I get GW wanting to nerf some good stuff, but they really don't have to nerf weak or weaker factions or ways of playing on top of it.

No-one is playing with a codex desihned for 6 or 7th dude.

No-one needs 7+ elites or 4+ HQ's, you might want them but that doesn't mean that their shouldn't be a trade off.


"No one needs 4+ HQs".

HELLO I AM A GSC PLAYER WITH A LIMIT OF 1 TYPE OF CHARACTER PER DETACHMENT

HELLO I AM A T'AU PLAYER WITH A LIMIT OF 1 COMMANDER PER DETACHMENT

HELLO I AM A IG PLAYER THAT HAS TANK COMMANDERS AND COMPANY COMMANDERS IN THE SAME SLOT WITH COMPLETELY DIFFERENT BONUSES THAT AFFECT ONLY INFANTRIES OR VEHICLES


You're thinking using Space Marines logic if you REALLY BELIEVE that these factions are PLAYABLE with one detachment

Yeah funnily enough I am a Tau player my current list for 9th is 1 detachment and I can add a patrol for 2CP for the additional commander.

Oh boo ho you cant have 3 tank commanders and 3 Company commanders without spending some extra CP. It would be nice to see a Guard army that isnt 3 regiments magically.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 11:53:17


Post by: Karol


KurtAngle2 789533 10844806 wrote:
You're thinking using Space Marines logic if you REALLY BELIEVE that these factions are PLAYABLE with one detachment

I guess you are paying for that marine flexibility your army does not have. I say this is one of those changes like the rule of 3. Instead of making Hive tyrants 0-X, where X was smaller then 7, everyone got forced in to 3 non troop units. For some armies this ment they had to use some of their soup flyers, maybe some FW, and others stoped making sense as an army played out of 8th ed codex.


Ice_can 789533 10844811 wrote:

Yeah funnily enough I am a Tau player my current list for 9th is 1 detachment and I can add a patrol for 2CP for the additional commander.

Oh boo ho you cant have 3 tank commanders and 3 Company commanders without spending some extra CP. It would be nice to see a Guard army that isnt 3 regiments magically.


Why don't you adress the 1 per detachmant GSC HQs, or GK having their upgrades from PA put all in the elite and HQ section ? And it is not like GK are super point efficient like marines and go, well I will just take another battlion with my cheap troops and those extra HQs for a 2 CP hit. Because GK do not have the option to take 15 scouts or nurgling bases, the cheapest troops are costed like other army elites. Now I would love of course for apothecaries to be one elite slot, or all ancients or have my troops use psychic powers from the PA books. Would be great.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 12:03:08


Post by: KurtAngle2


Karol wrote:
KurtAngle2 789533 10844806 wrote:
You're thinking using Space Marines logic if you REALLY BELIEVE that these factions are PLAYABLE with one detachment

I guess you are paying for that marine flexibility your army does not have. I say this is one of those changes like the rule of 3. Instead of making Hive tyrants 0-X, where X was smaller then 7, everyone got forced in to 3 non troop units. For some armies this ment they had to use some of their soup flyers, maybe some FW, and others stoped making sense as an army played out of 8th ed codex.


Ice_can 789533 10844811 wrote:

Yeah funnily enough I am a Tau player my current list for 9th is 1 detachment and I can add a patrol for 2CP for the additional commander.

Oh boo ho you cant have 3 tank commanders and 3 Company commanders without spending some extra CP. It would be nice to see a Guard army that isnt 3 regiments magically.


Why don't you adress the 1 per detachmant GSC HQs, or GK having their upgrades from PA put all in the elite and HQ section ? And it is not like GK are super point efficient like marines and go, well I will just take another battlion with my cheap troops and those extra HQs for a 2 CP hit. Because GK do not have the option to take 15 scouts or nurgling bases, the cheapest troops are costed like other army elites. Now I would love of course for apothecaries to be one elite slot, or all ancients or have my troops use psychic powers from the PA books. Would be great.


It's the fallacy of the new detachment system. We're already limited CP wise and Detachment wise, why are we suddendly having the necessity to further reduce CPs via Detachments and NOT through additional Codex cost? This effectively punishes mono armies the same way it does with "allies" since they both pay a hefty amount of CPs to just include a detachments that MIGHT BE a necessity for the mono codex player but could be a luxury for the Soup player...


It won't last like this for sure


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 12:11:00


Post by: Ice_can


Karol wrote:
KurtAngle2 789533 10844806 wrote:
You're thinking using Space Marines logic if you REALLY BELIEVE that these factions are PLAYABLE with one detachment

I guess you are paying for that marine flexibility your army does not have. I say this is one of those changes like the rule of 3. Instead of making Hive tyrants 0-X, where X was smaller then 7, everyone got forced in to 3 non troop units. For some armies this ment they had to use some of their soup flyers, maybe some FW, and others stoped making sense as an army played out of 8th ed codex.


Ice_can 789533 10844811 wrote:

Yeah funnily enough I am a Tau player my current list for 9th is 1 detachment and I can add a patrol for 2CP for the additional commander.

Oh boo ho you cant have 3 tank commanders and 3 Company commanders without spending some extra CP. It would be nice to see a Guard army that isnt 3 regiments magically.


Why don't you adress the 1 per detachmant GSC HQs, or GK having their upgrades from PA put all in the elite and HQ section ? And it is not like GK are super point efficient like marines and go, well I will just take another battlion with my cheap troops and those extra HQs for a 2 CP hit. Because GK do not have the option to take 15 scouts or nurgling bases, the cheapest troops are costed like other army elites. Now I would love of course for apothecaries to be one elite slot, or all ancients or have my troops use psychic powers from the PA books. Would be great.

I don't play GSC well enough to know them.
Multiple GK players have already mentioned to you that they dont need too take multiple apocothorys etc but you insist you do.
Also why are you obsessed with troops dude a patrol only needs 1 Troops thats way less than double battalion which gave 13 CP in 8th, a Battalion and Patrol is 10CP pregame with another CP per turn your using less troops tax more CP and your objection is I can't have 7 Elites in my list for free.

A Battalion plus Vanguard is 9CP currently, with no additional per turn.

You have More CP less troops and yet your still complaining.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 12:12:03


Post by: sanguine40k


Ice_can wrote:
No army outside of Drukari needs multiple detachments.

Also if you want to add some scions 2CP isnt exactly a massive cost.

Too many people have got too used to min maxing subfactions in 8th and they are going to have to suck it up for 9th.

I do hope the roumered CP cost for additional codex's does materialise.


Some armies require multiple detachments to take more than one of a particular HQ (and for certain of those armies, the non-limited HQ's are so sub-par that they effectively have an HQ tax *AS WELL* as a troop tax).

2CP for another detachment can be worthwhile, but that varies from army to army.

Ofc, the factions with the most functional single detachment were often the ones who most abused multi-battalion lists (SM-Successor lists, I am looking at you!).

Again, that would have been another buff for certain armies that can do everything well *cough*Codex Marines*cough* so, even though my armies are all single codex armies, I would be happy for multi-codex lists not getting an additional CP nerf.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 12:52:26


Post by: Galas


Armies in 9th will have to be less optimized. Each detachment slot will be much more valuable. I'm sorry guys but is something we will have to suck it up.


Yeah I know space marines have the better subfaction of the game, but that has nothing to do with this general rule being actually better than what we have now.

People will have to adapt to play with fewer CP, with fewer subfactions so you will not be able to have each units in each detachment to receive the best subfaction for them.

I mean, the worst out of this detachment and CP change are Chaos lists, because chaos to be competitive needed a TON of inter-faction sinergyes and a TON of CP, both things they cannot have with this new system.

They should change the Tau commander rule and the Genestealer Cult rule.

But I mean. How can't imperial guard function under this new system? Make a Brigade and you have 5 HQs. Yeah maybe you can't have 3 tank commanders and 3 officers, but you can have a couple of each and have space for other things.


Soup is death in 9th guys. Is what most people wanted. I know many people wont like it. I do. And I'm affected by it because my most played army (Adeptus Custodes batallion+Tempestus Scions batallion+Sisters of Battle batallion) that was NOT a competitive army will be even worse under this new rules. But I know as a whole is best for the game.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 12:55:45


Post by: KurtAngle2


 Galas wrote:
Armies in 9th will have to be less optimized. Each detachment slot will be much more valuable. I'm sorry guys but is something we will have to suck it up.


Yeah I know space marines have the better subfaction of the game, but that has nothing to do with this general rule being actually better than what we have now.

People will have to adapt to play with fewer CP, with fewer subfactions so you will not be able to have each units in each detachment to receive the best subfaction for them.

I mean, the worst out of this detachment and CP change are Chaos lists, because chaos to be competitive needed a TON of inter-faction sinergyes and a TON of CP, both things they cannot have with this new system.

They should change the Tau commander rule and the Genestealer Cult rule.

But I mean. How can't imperial guard function under this new system? Make a Brigade and you have 5 HQs. Yeah maybe you can't have 3 tank commanders and 3 officers, but you can have a couple of each and have space for other things.


Soup is death in 9th guys. Is what most people wanted. I know many people wont like it. I do. And I'm affected by it because my most played army (Adeptus Custodes batallion+Tempestus Scions batallion+Sisters of Battle batallion) that was NOT a competitive army will be even worse under this new rules. But I know as a whole is best for the game.


The guard part is a joke
Go brigade but you won't be having Scions AND Infantry/Vehicle related custom regiments...it's a no starter


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 13:07:45


Post by: Galas


Yeah... you'll have to sacrifice subfaction optimization like most armies of the game. Imperial Guard can't complain about it, they have some of the best generic subfaction traits. Genestealer Cultists or Tyranids are very much fethed, because their subfactions are made to basically only benefit X units.
But thats what most people wanted. And thats what we will get.

GW listened to their customers in this one.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 13:10:41


Post by: KurtAngle2


 Galas wrote:
Yeah... you'll have to sacrifice subfaction optimization like most armies of the game. Imperial Guard can't complain about it, they have some of the best generic subfaction traits. Genestealer Cultists or Tyranids are very much fethed, because their subfactions are made to basically only benefit X units.
But thats what most people wanted. And thats what we will get.

GW listened to their customers in this one.


All guard custom regiments are either only infantry/only vehicle based whose purpose is to be specifically used for self contained vehicle/infantry detachments; Marines on the other hand have subfaction traits that apply to ALL MODELS in the detachment, regardless of their keywords.
GW didn't listen to gak, they're clueless as usual.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 13:20:34


Post by: grouchoben


My thoughts exactly. An of course it's 9+5 Cp in effect, assuming a 5-turn game, as each commander gets 1cp at the start of their turn.

If you want to spam strong HQs now you have to pay.
If you want to jank your list to run three different subfactions, you have to pay.
If you want to soup in to cover weakness of your primary faction, you have to pay.

All seems great to me, and all affect me directly. These are the changes the community as a whole has been crying out for.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 13:45:00


Post by: Gadzilla666


tulun wrote:
Spoiler:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Hierodules aren't worth the points you pay for them. Now you want me to pay CP on top of that???

Hierodules overpriced? Hellforged fellblade says "Hi".

If they're isn't an additional CP cost for bringing another codex I don't understand the price of the super heavy auxiliary detachment. Shouldn't you get some kind of discount for for bringing a super heavy from your own faction? Guard and csm will be able to bring three knights for the same cost as a single LOW from their own codex if they make the knights their primary detachment. There must be an additional cost for bringing another codex.


I think the idea now is that you get more CP for less points (theoretically) -- in fact, with a single basic detachment, 12 +6 CP is free. If you want to take these supplemental detachments, you exchange CP as part of the trade.

I think people just need to start thinking of CP more along the lines of something you're spending to improve your army with more force org slots, instead of gaining it through "good army building".

But that's not how it works with the information we currently have. If there isn't an additional cost for bringing a second codex and making a super heavy detachment your primary detachment refunds the 6CP, then running a soup list of three knights and a battalion of another faction will have you starting at 9CP, which is the same as bringing a mono codex army consisting of a single super heavy and a battalion of a single faction. That doesn't discourage soup. If their isn't an additional cost for bringing another codex then soup will still be perfectly viable for knights, but bringing a super heavy from your own faction will be less so. Soup should be penalized, not mono faction.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 13:49:32


Post by: Ice_can


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
tulun wrote:
Spoiler:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Hierodules aren't worth the points you pay for them. Now you want me to pay CP on top of that???

Hierodules overpriced? Hellforged fellblade says "Hi".

If they're isn't an additional CP cost for bringing another codex I don't understand the price of the super heavy auxiliary detachment. Shouldn't you get some kind of discount for for bringing a super heavy from your own faction? Guard and csm will be able to bring three knights for the same cost as a single LOW from their own codex if they make the knights their primary detachment. There must be an additional cost for bringing another codex.


I think the idea now is that you get more CP for less points (theoretically) -- in fact, with a single basic detachment, 12 +6 CP is free. If you want to take these supplemental detachments, you exchange CP as part of the trade.

I think people just need to start thinking of CP more along the lines of something you're spending to improve your army with more force org slots, instead of gaining it through "good army building".

But that's not how it works with the information we currently have. If there isn't an additional cost for bringing a second codex and making a super heavy detachment your primary detachment refunds the 6CP, then running a soup list of three knights and a battalion of another faction will have you starting at 9CP, which is the same as bringing a mono codex army consisting of a single super heavy and a battalion of a single faction. That doesn't discourage soup. If their isn't an additional cost for bringing another codex then soup will still be perfectly viable for knights, but bringing a super heavy from your own faction will be less so. Soup should be penalized, not mono faction.

I really hope that GW makes Knight's only refund the full 6CP if they are mono.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 14:01:37


Post by: Galas


They have said that using additional codex will have an extra cost on Cp on top of normal detachment ones.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 14:01:37


Post by: Gadzilla666


That would work. We should know later today.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 14:03:52


Post by: Spoletta


Ice_can wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
tulun wrote:
Spoiler:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Hierodules aren't worth the points you pay for them. Now you want me to pay CP on top of that???

Hierodules overpriced? Hellforged fellblade says "Hi".

If they're isn't an additional CP cost for bringing another codex I don't understand the price of the super heavy auxiliary detachment. Shouldn't you get some kind of discount for for bringing a super heavy from your own faction? Guard and csm will be able to bring three knights for the same cost as a single LOW from their own codex if they make the knights their primary detachment. There must be an additional cost for bringing another codex.


I think the idea now is that you get more CP for less points (theoretically) -- in fact, with a single basic detachment, 12 +6 CP is free. If you want to take these supplemental detachments, you exchange CP as part of the trade.

I think people just need to start thinking of CP more along the lines of something you're spending to improve your army with more force org slots, instead of gaining it through "good army building".

But that's not how it works with the information we currently have. If there isn't an additional cost for bringing a second codex and making a super heavy detachment your primary detachment refunds the 6CP, then running a soup list of three knights and a battalion of another faction will have you starting at 9CP, which is the same as bringing a mono codex army consisting of a single super heavy and a battalion of a single faction. That doesn't discourage soup. If their isn't an additional cost for bringing another codex then soup will still be perfectly viable for knights, but bringing a super heavy from your own faction will be less so. Soup should be penalized, not mono faction.

I really hope that GW makes Knight's only refund the full 6CP if they are mono.


That won't happen and that shouldn't happen.

Knights are a faction which is meant to be complementary to another one.

I don't see a problem with it. You either play a full knight army at 12 CP, or you soup into a (small) battalion for 3CP. Seems fine.

Remember that to refund the CP, you need to have at least 3 titanic units inside. Assuming that after the point increase a knight goes to 450-500 points, you are talking about souping into 500 points of stuff. For 3CP seems fine and in line with what the other factions can do.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 14:05:07


Post by: yukishiro1


 Galas wrote:
They have said that using additional codex will have an extra cost on Cp on top of normal detachment ones.


Where did they say that? They've talked about "soup" this whole time, but unless I missed the specific quote, they've never made clear whether they meant something beyond just the cost of another detachment.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 14:06:59


Post by: Sgt_Smudge


De-incentivising optimisation?

Sounds fun to me.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 14:08:30


Post by: KurtAngle2


 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
De-incentivising optimisation?

Sounds fun to me.


Yeah let's play braindead!


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 14:10:44


Post by: TangoTwoBravo


Considering what we know, and making a few guesses, what types of armies are the winners and losers from the upcoming 9th Edition list building methods?

If you were playing with less than 12 CP at 2000 points in 8th with a single Detachment then clearly you are ahead with the new system. Not sure if many folks played this way, but if your single Battalion is effective on its own then you are doing well in 9th since you will have more CP while everyone else might be dealing with less. Custodes might be winners here? I think we will see an interesting effect on list building, a flipping of the script. In 8th you went for minimum requirements to get as many Battalions as you could. Now, I think we'll try to max out our slots in the core formations before adding a second Detachment.

If you were starting with more than 12 CP in 8th and you really needed those CPs to power your army then 9th is going to be a tough adjustment. I faced many lists that had three Battalions and relied heavily on expensive Stratagems. Yes we get 1 CP a turn, but I see some armies out there that are burning through six or more CPs in a single phase.

Armies that brought lots of HQs (more than 3) will also face challenges, unless they don't care about CPs. I think this is a good thing.

Armies that brought together Detachments from three Codexes (Eldar, some Chaos, Imp Soup) are certainly hurt. They can't find ways to combine those into less than three Detachments, so their starting CPs will likely be quite a bit lower than before. I think this is a good thing. Armies that brought together Detachments from different sub-factions from the same Codex (AM, GSC, Orks) are also hurt. While I am one of them I think its a good thing? List building should be about choices with consequences for choices. You can still mix to gain effectiveness, but you pay a cost in CP. OK.

For me, my Dark Angels might have some new opportunities when we learn about Vanguards and Outriders. Some of my Character-heavy lists have taken a hit. My Astra Militarum have taken a hit, but I think its survivable. An effective Brigade is certainly achievable. Cadian and Catachan traits benenfit both tanks and infantry, so now I will make a decision and pick one Brigade instead of having a Battalion of each. I think thats good for the game?


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 14:14:09


Post by: Galas


KurtAngle2 wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
De-incentivising optimisation?

Sounds fun to me.


Yeah let's play braindead!


Actually now you have to make decisions. With the current system you don't. Because is detrimental to not optimize. In 8th, if you bring each subsections of units on their own detachment with the most optimal subfaction rules you are rewarded with extra CP. THATS braindead. Now you have to actually make a choice: You want more CP, or you want more optimized units with better subfaction rules?


yukishiro1 wrote:
 Galas wrote:
They have said that using additional codex will have an extra cost on Cp on top of normal detachment ones.


Where did they say that? They've talked about "soup" this whole time, but unless I missed the specific quote, they've never made clear whether they meant something beyond just the cost of another detachment.


I cannot quote it but I remember they said it in one of the first streams or one of the first community posts. But don't take it as granted, I can be missremembering, but I'm quite sure I'm not.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 14:31:37


Post by: KurtAngle2


 Galas wrote:
KurtAngle2 wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
De-incentivising optimisation?

Sounds fun to me.


Yeah let's play braindead!


Actually now you have to make decisions. With the current system you don't. Because is detrimental to not optimize. In 8th, if you bring each subsections of units on their own detachment with the most optimal subfaction rules you are rewarded with extra CP. THATS braindead. Now you have to actually make a choice: You want more CP, or you want more optimized units with better subfaction rules?


yukishiro1 wrote:
 Galas wrote:
They have said that using additional codex will have an extra cost on Cp on top of normal detachment ones.


Where did they say that? They've talked about "soup" this whole time, but unless I missed the specific quote, they've never made clear whether they meant something beyond just the cost of another detachment.


I cannot quote it but I remember they said it in one of the first streams or one of the first community posts. But don't take it as granted, I can be missremembering, but I'm quite sure I'm not.


No you don't actually make decisions because your CP allocation is for the most part defined when choosing an Army rather than another. Entire codices are made with superspecific subfaction traits that only apply to a handful of units by design and they will be left in a totally unplayable state until they redo the aforementioned codices again in 9th.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 14:35:14


Post by: Galas


I agree with that. I even put examples. But I disagree thats a general problem, or that it affects imperial guard specifically. Is something that has an easy fix. But that doesnt mean this new CP and detachment system is bad. Is quite better, actually.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 14:38:26


Post by: Sgt_Smudge


KurtAngle2 wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
De-incentivising optimisation?

Sounds fun to me.


Yeah let's play braindead!
If that's more fun than endlessly optimising, yeah, I'll play "braindead". Now, if you don't mind, quit being all condescending that someone enjoys the game in a different way?


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 14:38:36


Post by: Aash


 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
De-incentivising optimisation?

Sounds fun to me.


I don't really see it as disincentivising optimisation so much as changing the parameters so that there is a new optimal.

More restricitons help to make more meaningful choices, and hopefully more viable lists leading to greater variety in the game. At least I think that's the intention. Whether or not that is achieved is another matter.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 14:41:25


Post by: KurtAngle2


 Galas wrote:
I agree with that. I even put examples. But I disagree thats a general problem, or that it affects imperial guard specifically. Is something that has an easy fix. But that doesnt mean this new CP and detachment system is bad. Is quite better, actually.


It's bad because it doesn't really fix the problem they had with the previous detachment rules (Fix Soup? Removal of the need for Battalion farms?) and instead only made many things worse and other better


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 14:45:06


Post by: Galas


How does this not fix soup and the need for batallion farms? Of course each change will make some things worse and others better. Thats a unavoidable reality.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 14:45:13


Post by: Ice_can


Spoletta wrote:
Spoiler:
Ice_can wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
tulun wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Hierodules aren't worth the points you pay for them. Now you want me to pay CP on top of that???

Hierodules overpriced? Hellforged fellblade says "Hi".

If they're isn't an additional CP cost for bringing another codex I don't understand the price of the super heavy auxiliary detachment. Shouldn't you get some kind of discount for for bringing a super heavy from your own faction? Guard and csm will be able to bring three knights for the same cost as a single LOW from their own codex if they make the knights their primary detachment. There must be an additional cost for bringing another codex.


I think the idea now is that you get more CP for less points (theoretically) -- in fact, with a single basic detachment, 12 +6 CP is free. If you want to take these supplemental detachments, you exchange CP as part of the trade.

I think people just need to start thinking of CP more along the lines of something you're spending to improve your army with more force org slots, instead of gaining it through "good army building".

But that's not how it works with the information we currently have. If there isn't an additional cost for bringing a second codex and making a super heavy detachment your primary detachment refunds the 6CP, then running a soup list of three knights and a battalion of another faction will have you starting at 9CP, which is the same as bringing a mono codex army consisting of a single super heavy and a battalion of a single faction. That doesn't discourage soup. If their isn't an additional cost for bringing another codex then soup will still be perfectly viable for knights, but bringing a super heavy from your own faction will be less so. Soup should be penalized, not mono faction.

I really hope that GW makes Knight's only refund the full 6CP if they are mono.


That won't happen and that shouldn't happen.

Knights are a faction which is meant to be complementary to another one.

I don't see a problem with it. You either play a full knight army at 12 CP, or you soup into a (small) battalion for 3CP. Seems fine.

Remember that to refund the CP, you need to have at least 3 titanic units inside. Assuming that after the point increase a knight goes to 450-500 points, you are talking about souping into 500 points of stuff. For 3CP seems fine and in line with what the other factions can do.
i completely disagree if it has it's own codex it's supposed to function Mono, that is the point of a codex.

Also noone will be allying a Battalion it'll be a patrol .
Knights are already 450-500 points and simply arn't worth their points currently, not to mention so far every change to the rules from 8th to 9th hurts them more than helps them.
Seeing any points increases for a faction already over paying for most of their weapons would be a great way for GW to ensure they are unplayable in anything but narative games where people complain about then being OP.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 15:01:05


Post by: tulun


 Galas wrote:
They have said that using additional codex will have an extra cost on Cp on top of normal detachment ones.


That would be good. To be honest, though, people seem skittish about even using a second detachment period at current CP costs -- if they wanted people to focus on mono subfaction, it seems they've succeeded.

I somehow doubt this will stand the smell test, though. People love herohammer too much, and brigades are a bit bonkers for a lot of factions to actually field.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 15:16:26


Post by: Aash


Aash wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
Aash wrote:
I suspect the CP refund for knights and chaos knights will be an errata first their codexes rather than something for all armies using those detachments, similar the the DE getting their faction specific rule. That would explain why it’s not mentioned in the rules for the detachments themselves.

Yeah let's just Hope GW actually manage to word it correctly so it doesn't make Knight allies free for Guard and Admech too.


Purely speculation on my part, but I expect they will have a rule in the knights and chaos knights codex that says that if a battle forged super heavy detachment of knights/chaos knights includes your warlord then it refunds the CPs for that detachment.


Called it!!

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/06/28/faction-focus-chaos-knights/


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 15:20:42


Post by: KurtAngle2


 Galas wrote:
How does this not fix soup and the need for batallion farms? Of course each change will make some things worse and others better. Thats a unavoidable reality.


Because the costs for detachments are the same/only 1 CP higher (but the latter is not confirmed) in case of another Codex.
Enjoy the "Soup Fix" but realize that you're paying the same/almost the same EVEN for mono Codex army


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 15:21:08


Post by: TangoTwoBravo


Makes sense(the Knights rule quoted in by Aash) - goes with the idea of rewarding mono-faction. Hopefully some similar rules come in for themed "Elite" armies to allow things like single Vanguards and Outriders viable from a CP perspective.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 15:22:37


Post by: Galas


KurtAngle2 wrote:
 Galas wrote:
How does this not fix soup and the need for batallion farms? Of course each change will make some things worse and others better. Thats a unavoidable reality.


Because the costs for detachments are the same/only 1 CP higher (but the latter is not confirmed) in case of another Codex.
Enjoy the "Soup Fix" but realize that you're paying the same/almost the same EVEN for mono Codex army


The thing is: In 8th, the more detachment you have, the more CP you have. That rewards soup. In 9th, the less detachment you have, the more CP you have, thats reward mono armies.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 15:24:42


Post by: Spoletta


KurtAngle2 wrote:
 Galas wrote:
How does this not fix soup and the need for batallion farms? Of course each change will make some things worse and others better. Thats a unavoidable reality.


Because the costs for detachments are the same/only 1 CP higher (but the latter is not confirmed) in case of another Codex.
Enjoy the "Soup Fix" but realize that you're paying the same/almost the same EVEN for mono Codex army


A mono codex army has its full allotment of 12 CP as long as you properly build the army.

If you want to soup (and bringin different subfactions is soup), then you pay the cost. Easy.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 15:24:50


Post by: Ice_can


TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Makes sense(the Knights rule quoted in by Aash) - goes with the idea of rewarding mono-faction. Hopefully some similar rules come in for themed "Elite" armies to allow things like single Vanguards and Outriders viable from a CP perspective.

Just wish it didnt make it sound like the additional Codex CP isn't actually happening after all as right now 2CP for an allied Patrol seems very cheap.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 15:25:03


Post by: KurtAngle2


 Galas wrote:
KurtAngle2 wrote:
 Galas wrote:
How does this not fix soup and the need for batallion farms? Of course each change will make some things worse and others better. Thats a unavoidable reality.


Because the costs for detachments are the same/only 1 CP higher (but the latter is not confirmed) in case of another Codex.
Enjoy the "Soup Fix" but realize that you're paying the same/almost the same EVEN for mono Codex army


The thing is: In 8th, the more detachment you have, the more CP you have. That rewards soup. In 9th, the less detachment you have, the more CP you have, thats reward mono armies.


No, the latter doesn't reward mono armies because MANY mono armies actually field MULTIPLE detachments. It only rewards Marines, Custodes and monoKnights


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 15:30:20


Post by: Ice_can


KurtAngle2 wrote:
 Galas wrote:
KurtAngle2 wrote:
 Galas wrote:
How does this not fix soup and the need for batallion farms? Of course each change will make some things worse and others better. Thats a unavoidable reality.


Because the costs for detachments are the same/only 1 CP higher (but the latter is not confirmed) in case of another Codex.
Enjoy the "Soup Fix" but realize that you're paying the same/almost the same EVEN for mono Codex army


The thing is: In 8th, the more detachment you have, the more CP you have. That rewards soup. In 9th, the less detachment you have, the more CP you have, thats reward mono armies.


No, the latter doesn't reward mono armies because MANY mono armies actually field MULTIPLE detachments. It only rewards Marines, Custodes and monoKnights

Mono Brigade Guard works perfectly well too., the only reason it doesn't happen in 8th is an additional Battalion for 200 pointa nets you 5CP. Yes I have seen people playing mono subfaction in multiple detachments for CP.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 15:32:29


Post by: Galas


KurtAngle2 wrote:
 Galas wrote:
KurtAngle2 wrote:
 Galas wrote:
How does this not fix soup and the need for batallion farms? Of course each change will make some things worse and others better. Thats a unavoidable reality.


Because the costs for detachments are the same/only 1 CP higher (but the latter is not confirmed) in case of another Codex.
Enjoy the "Soup Fix" but realize that you're paying the same/almost the same EVEN for mono Codex army


The thing is: In 8th, the more detachment you have, the more CP you have. That rewards soup. In 9th, the less detachment you have, the more CP you have, thats reward mono armies.


No, the latter doesn't reward mono armies because MANY mono armies actually field MULTIPLE detachments. It only rewards Marines, Custodes and monoKnights


9th edition problems need 9th edition solutions. Stop thinking about how things are now in 8th. In 8th having 9 cps is garbage because you see armies with 15-20 everyday. Things will change in 9th. If the normal is 12, 9 are comparatively more CP.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 15:32:31


Post by: TangoTwoBravo


Ice_can wrote:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Makes sense(the Knights rule quoted in by Aash) - goes with the idea of rewarding mono-faction. Hopefully some similar rules come in for themed "Elite" armies to allow things like single Vanguards and Outriders viable from a CP perspective.

Just wish it didnt make it sound like the additional Codex CP isn't actually happening after all as right now 2CP for an allied Patrol seems very cheap.


Yeah, it sounds like that is not happening. Perhaps the Codex unlocking cost we (well me at least) were inferring from the early reveals is simply baked into the new Detachment costing CP system. If you have two Codexes you are certainly taking two Detachments, so it costs you CPs. When you figure in that the 8th Edition way rewarded you for taking additional Detachments we can see a double-hit to Soup.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 15:43:44


Post by: Spoletta


Add to this that all 9th codici will have super doctrines unlocked by staying mono codex.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 15:52:50


Post by: tulun


Ice_can wrote:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Makes sense(the Knights rule quoted in by Aash) - goes with the idea of rewarding mono-faction. Hopefully some similar rules come in for themed "Elite" armies to allow things like single Vanguards and Outriders viable from a CP perspective.

Just wish it didnt make it sound like the additional Codex CP isn't actually happening after all as right now 2CP for an allied Patrol seems very cheap.


Honestly, this doesn't seem cheap.

The fact is GW was quite clever. Sure, you get "18 CP" over the course of the game, but many armies are crippled / practically dead by turn 3 (my own included). We might win because we scored early, but the fact is, I can probably only really bank on 14-15 CP over the course of a game realistically in a lot of matchups.

Some armies can really play the game over 6 turns. Maybe the general shift to the game will make it easier for any army to do so, but I'll doubt it until I see the killing power of units get reduced, or their price get jacked up so you're seeing less of them.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 15:55:03


Post by: yukishiro1


If that happens I hope Harlequins finally get a full army codex, not just 8 units, 4 of which are characters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
tulun wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Makes sense(the Knights rule quoted in by Aash) - goes with the idea of rewarding mono-faction. Hopefully some similar rules come in for themed "Elite" armies to allow things like single Vanguards and Outriders viable from a CP perspective.

Just wish it didnt make it sound like the additional Codex CP isn't actually happening after all as right now 2CP for an allied Patrol seems very cheap.


Honestly, this doesn't seem cheap.

The fact is GW was quite clever. Sure, you get "18 CP" over the course of the game, but many armies are crippled / practically dead by turn 3 (my own included). We might win because we scored early, but the fact is, I can probably only really bank on 14-15 CP over the course of a game realistically in a lot of matchups.

Some armies can really play the game over 6 turns. Maybe the general shift to the game will make it easier for any army to do so, but I'll doubt it until I see the killing power of units get reduced, or their price get jacked up so you're seeing less of them.


Initial reports from playtesters are to the contrary, that the changes to the game make it even faster and deadlier. Brad Chester, by far the highest ranked person to be involved in playtesting, said in a podcast interview the other day that most games seem to be a hugh moshpit of death that results in 80% of both armies being dead by T3.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 15:59:54


Post by: tulun


yukishiro1 wrote:
If that happens I hope Harlequins finally get a full army codex, not just 8 units, 4 of which are characters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
tulun wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Makes sense(the Knights rule quoted in by Aash) - goes with the idea of rewarding mono-faction. Hopefully some similar rules come in for themed "Elite" armies to allow things like single Vanguards and Outriders viable from a CP perspective.

Just wish it didnt make it sound like the additional Codex CP isn't actually happening after all as right now 2CP for an allied Patrol seems very cheap.


Honestly, this doesn't seem cheap.

The fact is GW was quite clever. Sure, you get "18 CP" over the course of the game, but many armies are crippled / practically dead by turn 3 (my own included). We might win because we scored early, but the fact is, I can probably only really bank on 14-15 CP over the course of a game realistically in a lot of matchups.

Some armies can really play the game over 6 turns. Maybe the general shift to the game will make it easier for any army to do so, but I'll doubt it until I see the killing power of units get reduced, or their price get jacked up so you're seeing less of them.



Initial reports from playtesters are to the contrary, that the changes to the game make it even faster and deadlier. Brad Chester, by far the highest ranked person to be involved in playtesting, said in a podcast interview the other day that most games seem to be a hugh moshpit of death that results in 80% of both armies being dead by T3.


Well that does sound fun, it doesn't bode well for total CP What podcast was that?


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 16:06:54


Post by: Ice_can


tulun wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Makes sense(the Knights rule quoted in by Aash) - goes with the idea of rewarding mono-faction. Hopefully some similar rules come in for themed "Elite" armies to allow things like single Vanguards and Outriders viable from a CP perspective.

Just wish it didnt make it sound like the additional Codex CP isn't actually happening after all as right now 2CP for an allied Patrol seems very cheap.


Honestly, this doesn't seem cheap.

The fact is GW was quite clever. Sure, you get "18 CP" over the course of the game, but many armies are crippled / practically dead by turn 3 (my own included). We might win because we scored early, but the fact is, I can probably only really bank on 14-15 CP over the course of a game realistically in a lot of matchups.

Some armies can really play the game over 6 turns. Maybe the general shift to the game will make it easier for any army to do so, but I'll doubt it until I see the killing power of units get reduced, or their price get jacked up so you're seeing less of them.

For sone codex's like Tau with 1 commander per Detachment and GSC I suspect ecen mono the additional patrol is going to be common.

Akso 18CP is just the base CP if you have regen and its still capped at 1CP per turn you gain 1 per round ontop of the 1 per turn for Battle-forged and thats ontop of the 12CP could see you have 22 to 23 CP plus any CP for named Charictors. 2CP for a Patrol or 3 for a Battalion is cheap. I know it doesnt sound cheap against 12 but gaining 2 per round is a lot.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 16:10:30


Post by: yukishiro1


tulun wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
If that happens I hope Harlequins finally get a full army codex, not just 8 units, 4 of which are characters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
tulun wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Makes sense(the Knights rule quoted in by Aash) - goes with the idea of rewarding mono-faction. Hopefully some similar rules come in for themed "Elite" armies to allow things like single Vanguards and Outriders viable from a CP perspective.

Just wish it didnt make it sound like the additional Codex CP isn't actually happening after all as right now 2CP for an allied Patrol seems very cheap.


Honestly, this doesn't seem cheap.

The fact is GW was quite clever. Sure, you get "18 CP" over the course of the game, but many armies are crippled / practically dead by turn 3 (my own included). We might win because we scored early, but the fact is, I can probably only really bank on 14-15 CP over the course of a game realistically in a lot of matchups.

Some armies can really play the game over 6 turns. Maybe the general shift to the game will make it easier for any army to do so, but I'll doubt it until I see the killing power of units get reduced, or their price get jacked up so you're seeing less of them.



Initial reports from playtesters are to the contrary, that the changes to the game make it even faster and deadlier. Brad Chester, by far the highest ranked person to be involved in playtesting, said in a podcast interview the other day that most games seem to be a hugh moshpit of death that results in 80% of both armies being dead by T3.


Well that does sound fun, it doesn't bode well for total CP What podcast was that?


AoW 40k, I can't remember if that particular comment was in the free part or the patreon part, but he talks a lot about 9th in both bits. It's probably in the first, free bit actually since that's the more general discussion. But if you're not a patreon I think it'll be another day or two before the free half is released to the public. It looks like it isn't up yet.

https://www.theartofwar40k.com/home/category/Podcast


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 16:17:31


Post by: ERJAK


Ice_can wrote:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Makes sense(the Knights rule quoted in by Aash) - goes with the idea of rewarding mono-faction. Hopefully some similar rules come in for themed "Elite" armies to allow things like single Vanguards and Outriders viable from a CP perspective.

Just wish it didnt make it sound like the additional Codex CP isn't actually happening after all as right now 2CP for an allied Patrol seems very cheap.


Not really. Keep in mind that, by the end of 8th, the vast majority of souping was done in order to maximize command points, with a subsection of that being dedicated to armies that would maximize command points and pick up a few really solid units as a secondary bonus, ala the rusty 17 with dunecrawelers. The number of armies that souped in order to use other armies units without getting a nice injection of CP out of it was pretty much limited to knights and smashcaptain supreme commands.

With soup lists having a cost rather than a benefit there's no reason to soup any more unless what you could bring in your list is at least 2CP worse than what you plan to bring in your allied detachment.

Admittedly, one unintended consequence is that if you run out of slots or if you run out of units that can take advantage of your primary chapter tactic, it's exactly the same price to add another chapter tactic as it is to add a whole new faction.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 16:21:11


Post by: yukishiro1


Most (or at least many) chaos lists souped multiple codexes too. As did 95%+ of competitive quins lists (not that this was a big number to begin with).

2CP for an allied patrol feels absolutely right, though. There's no reason it needs to be penalized any more than that.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 16:34:55


Post by: Gadzilla666


TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Makes sense(the Knights rule quoted in by Aash) - goes with the idea of rewarding mono-faction. Hopefully some similar rules come in for themed "Elite" armies to allow things like single Vanguards and Outriders viable from a CP perspective.

No, it encourages souping in knights if you want to play super heavys. Three knights plus a detachment from another faction nets the same CP as running a single super heavy from the same codex as the other detachment. That's backwards if you want to discourage soup.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 17:45:25


Post by: alextroy


And if there is a 1 CP cost per detachment if the detachment isn't from the same Codex as the Warlord? That will certainly change the calculation a bit.

As for all those people going crazy about not getting enough X slots, I want to introduce you the red-headed stepchild of detachments, the Auxiliary Support detachment (1 Unit of any type except Lord of War). Who wants to bet its cost will be 1 CP? Perfect if you need just one more unit to make your list work, especially if that unit isn't and HQ or Troop unit.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 17:46:13


Post by: Pyroalchi


What would be a nice touch would be a small discount if your second detachment is still the same subfaction. So if you really don't take it for some special bonus, but just because you ran out of a specific slot for your favourite subfaction, you might save a CP.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 18:29:44


Post by: TangoTwoBravo


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Makes sense(the Knights rule quoted in by Aash) - goes with the idea of rewarding mono-faction. Hopefully some similar rules come in for themed "Elite" armies to allow things like single Vanguards and Outriders viable from a CP perspective.

No, it encourages souping in knights if you want to play super heavys. Three knights plus a detachment from another faction nets the same CP as running a single super heavy from the same codex as the other detachment. That's backwards if you want to discourage soup.


True, but running mono-Knights nets you even more CPs than souping in a battalion of allies. That's my point - this allows the Knights to function as a mono-faction. Is this fair to those with Superheavies in their Codex? Maybe not, but its pretty much the only way to make the Knights work as a faction.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 18:35:34


Post by: Gadzilla666


TangoTwoBravo wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Makes sense(the Knights rule quoted in by Aash) - goes with the idea of rewarding mono-faction. Hopefully some similar rules come in for themed "Elite" armies to allow things like single Vanguards and Outriders viable from a CP perspective.

No, it encourages souping in knights if you want to play super heavys. Three knights plus a detachment from another faction nets the same CP as running a single super heavy from the same codex as the other detachment. That's backwards if you want to discourage soup.


True, but running mono-Knights nets you even more CPs than souping in a battalion of allies. That's my point - this allows the Knights to function as a mono-faction. Is this fair to those with Superheavies in their Codex? Maybe not, but its pretty much the only way to make the Knights work as a faction.

I agree. I just don't like the additional cost applied to taking a LOW from your own faction. That price should be paid for in points. Perhaps super heavys will not be hit as hard by the day one errata in points increases.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 18:37:23


Post by: TangoTwoBravo


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Makes sense(the Knights rule quoted in by Aash) - goes with the idea of rewarding mono-faction. Hopefully some similar rules come in for themed "Elite" armies to allow things like single Vanguards and Outriders viable from a CP perspective.

No, it encourages souping in knights if you want to play super heavys. Three knights plus a detachment from another faction nets the same CP as running a single super heavy from the same codex as the other detachment. That's backwards if you want to discourage soup.


True, but running mono-Knights nets you even more CPs than souping in a battalion of allies. That's my point - this allows the Knights to function as a mono-faction. Is this fair to those with Superheavies in their Codex? Maybe not, but its pretty much the only way to make the Knights work as a faction.

I agree. I just don't like the additional cost applied to taking a LOW from your own faction. That price should be paid for in points. Perhaps super heavys will not be hit as hard by the day one errata in points increases.


I could get behind adding a Lord of War slot to the Brigade organization chart. There might be some negative second-order effects, but it would be considering. Academic, I suppose!


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 21:06:01


Post by: Daedalus81


 Gadzilla666 wrote:

No, it encourages souping in knights if you want to play super heavys. Three knights plus a detachment from another faction nets the same CP as running a single super heavy from the same codex as the other detachment. That's backwards if you want to discourage soup.


Not the completely the same.

Three knights doesn't leave a lot of room for other stuff. And depending how missions score - those knights will need buddies.

When the "soup" is something like 25% of your list it isn't doing that much - especially when it no longer provides CP, which was the primary purpose for knights doing that.

There's a distinction to be made.





Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 21:30:27


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:

No, it encourages souping in knights if you want to play super heavys. Three knights plus a detachment from another faction nets the same CP as running a single super heavy from the same codex as the other detachment. That's backwards if you want to discourage soup.


Not the completely the same.

Three knights doesn't leave a lot of room for other stuff. And depending how missions score - those knights will need buddies.

When the "soup" is something like 25% of your list it isn't doing that much - especially when it no longer provides CP, which was the primary purpose for knights doing that.

There's a distinction to be made.




Yes, they will need "buddies" for purposes such as scoring and screening, that's one of the reasons players soup in other factions, to make up for what they lack in their own codex.

I'm not opposed to knights getting this rule, my problem is if the CP cost associated with bringing a super heavy from your own faction isn't mitigated by the points cost of those units. If they continue to be as relatively expensive compared to other units while also costing 3CP to field its another detriment to bringing them and it means an automatic nerf along with the ones they're already getting from the new terrain rules. Are things like baneblades and fellblades currently breaking the game?

Maybe there's something else that will be revealed that will help them. But right now it looks like my favorite model will be sitting on the sidelines for another edition, right when I thought that the new fw books would finally make it viable again.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 21:40:56


Post by: PenitentJake


I play Sisters, and we have an Order called Bloody Rose, which gives a cool close combat buff. All the other Orders give buffs that are more shooty. So in 8th, it was cool to field one detachment from a shooty order that contained all the shooty units, plus a Bloody Rose detachment, which contains all of your close combat units.

Now in order to do that, I have to pay CP. I think that's totally fair because it is a HUGE advantage. I'm also really stoked because in this system, a lot of the old "slotless" rules were a disadvantage since you were trying to field as many detachments as possible for CP; now it's a huge advantage because we're trying to use as few detachments as possible. So I can take 2 units of Repentia in a patrol because I know I can take their Superia as a slotless elite.

Now if I was a guard player, I would probably be a bit choked about being required to pay for the Super Heavy Auxiliary needed to field my Baneblade. But I'm not sure, maybe for some guard players, that is worth the 3CP, maybe it isn't. There may also be an offset coming for guard that we don't know about it... Actually, I think there already is: don't guard have a WL trait/ relic combo that blasts CP recovery?

If so, you take that combo every time you want to field your baneblade to help you afford the CP. Against certain enemies, you might decide to leave the Baneblade at home to get a more suitable WL trait/ Relic combo and the extra 3 CP.

Finally, I want to challenge the notion that all of the rules presented so far are bad for knights. I can agree that all TERRAIN rules previewed so far are bad for knights. We also haven't seen anywhere near all of the terrain rules- I think we know exactly how 4 of the 12 traits work, and another 3 of those 12 traits have been named but not clearly explained. I'm hoping there's a keyword that makes some terrain vulnerable to destruction by LOW to make up for some of their terrain-based woes.

But even if not, some other rules have been at least good for knights, and some have been great:

- Blast Weapons are okay for Knights (being better for some factions than others is not the same as being bad for you)
- Reserves are okay for knights (pretty costly for knights because it's done by PL, but still could be game changing for Alpha Strike avoidance)
- Having the option of 12CP +1 per turn at 2k points in a mono-knight army is great for knights- previously, they could never have hit this height
- Not sure if Knights always had the capacity to fire into hand to hand, but they certainly do now. If they didn't before, this is huge!

I think imbalances will be there- a new system can't help but benefit different armies in different ways. A lot of folks on Dakka see 'It's not as good for me as it is for some other factions" and "It's bad for me" as being the same thing; they are not the same thing. In fact they are not even close to the same thing.

I also think that armies in most need of a balance boost based on what we know now will get it quickly- in a day one FAQ, in a first year codex release, in a WD article or in this year's CA.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 22:44:17


Post by: Daedalus81


 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Yes, they will need "buddies" for purposes such as scoring and screening, that's one of the reasons players soup in other factions, to make up for what they lack in their own codex.

I'm not opposed to knights getting this rule, my problem is if the CP cost associated with bringing a super heavy from your own faction isn't mitigated by the points cost of those units. If they continue to be as relatively expensive compared to other units while also costing 3CP to field its another detriment to bringing them and it means an automatic nerf along with the ones they're already getting from the new terrain rules. Are things like baneblades and fellblades currently breaking the game?

Maybe there's something else that will be revealed that will help them. But right now it looks like my favorite model will be sitting on the sidelines for another edition, right when I thought that the new fw books would finally make it viable again.


There's a lot of variation in that. *Blades aren't breaking the game, but they do offer a greater density of weapons than most units. And where their points have landed is still well up in the air.

Castellan, BA smash cap(s), IG - Smash Caps do something Castellans can't. The rest of the IG don't do something another knight couldn't provide except objectives and CP. This kind of list will stand at 3 CP now unless you want your Castellan sitting on a 5++ or you spend points to bring him Armigers.
Castellan, Ogryns/IG Brigade - Same situation except the Ogryns are way less CP intensive, but require a bunch of points for support. I'm not sure how this will work now, either.
3 Knights & IG - IG isn't doing jack other than CP and maybe enough bodies for objectives. What's the benefit now? They're a CP drain unless they devote more to that detachment.

Adding a Felblade or Magnus or a single Knight is adding killing power rather than replacing a deficiency.

I know the analogy isn't always going to be perfect, but there's a whole lot we don't know. I'm itching to run Magnus. I don't know if I can do it without reserves yet nor do I know if I can sneak by on 6+6 CP.

Is GW going to nail every facet of this? No, no they will not. The important thing for the Felblade is that one group is responsible for points and rules now, so, you might see more traction on updates if things aren't quite right.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/28 23:44:54


Post by: DarkHound


PenitentJake wrote:
- Not sure if Knights always had the capacity to fire into hand to hand, but they certainly do now. If they didn't before, this is huge!
Just a nitpick, most Knight weapons will be blast weapons that can't shoot in close combat. Granted, Knights can Fallback, traveling over any models, and still shoot/assault with no penalty. I think it's very unlikely that Knights will stick around to shoot in close combat.

Knights came out a big winner with these changes, which is exactly what GW intended and that bodes well for their other stated goals. Knights with allies are the same or slightly better (my Knight+AdMech 1500pt list gained 3 CP), and mono-Knights are vastly stronger than in 8th.

I think the meta is going to shake out to taking a single additional detachment at ~3CP, and we'll all just come to accept that as the cost of doing business. A huge element of list building that nobody's talking about is the secondary objectives. Of course it's too early to plan around specifics, but I think we aren't going to build lists in abstract. We'll build lists planning to meet pre-selected secondaries. That's going to really expand the decision tree for taking additional detachments. You're not just trying to cover weaknesses generically, you're trying to achieve this particular result.

Maybe there's particularly lucrative secondary that is hard to achieve with your own faction, but you can take allies more suited to it. I'm sure sometimes we'll see the Warlord taken for the faction secondary objectives, and a larger Brigade or Battalion of another faction to capitalize on it. Essentially paying CPs to skew your victory conditions rather than your dice effectiveness.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/29 00:13:12


Post by: Daedalus81


 DarkHound wrote:

Maybe there's particularly lucrative secondary that is hard to achieve with your own faction, but you can take allies more suited to it. I'm sure sometimes we'll see the Warlord taken for the faction secondary objectives, and a larger Brigade or Battalion of another faction to capitalize on it. Essentially paying CPs to skew your victory conditions rather than your dice effectiveness.


Well said.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/29 00:39:43


Post by: DarknessEternal


So long as you can take a single Knight in a patrol level game, it is broken.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/29 00:40:41


Post by: Martel732


Mostly because AT guns don't work vs them.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/29 00:57:52


Post by: Grimgold


I don't think armies in 9th will be less optimized, they will just be optimized in a different manner. The incentive in 8th ed was to have as many detachments as you could squeeze into a list, this gave you more CP and extra stratagems. In 9th ed the optimization will work in the opposite direction, your looking to minimize the number of detachments, while still getting access to useful stratagems and units. Some factions are self contained and fairly well rounded so they'll go with a single detachment. Other faction will benefit more from souping, and will figure out the minimum number of CPs they have to sacrifice to get what they need. Soup was so easy in 8th ed we took it for granted, in 9th ed the cost makes it more of an investment, but I think people will still find reasons to make that investment.

I think it will be useful in 9th ed to have more specific nomenclature around the types of additional detachments, because there will be multiple detachments where you add a second detachment within the same faction (adding LoW such as Guilliman or Szarek), and souping where you add a second detachment from a different faction (adding demons to a Tsons list, or adding a knight to an IoM list). For running multiple detachments in the same faction I was thinking of the number of detachments, the letter D, and then the faction, such as a 2D necron list. However I'm sure someone more clever than myself will come up with a better name for that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 DarknessEternal wrote:
So long as you can take a single Knight in a patrol level game, it is broken.


You can't it's patrol detachment only, so no super heavies.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/29 01:12:31


Post by: TangoTwoBravo


 Grimgold wrote:
I don't think armies in 9th will be less optimized, they will just be optimized in a different manner. The incentive in 8th ed was to have as many detachments as you could squeeze into a list, this gave you more CP and extra stratagems. In 9th ed the optimization will work in the opposite direction, your looking to minimize the number of detachments, while still getting access to useful stratagems and units. Some factions are self contained and fairly well rounded so they'll go with a single detachment. Other faction will benefit more from souping, and will figure out the minimum number of CPs they have to sacrifice to get what they need. Soup was so easy in 8th ed we took it for granted, in 9th ed the cost makes it more of an investment, but I think people will still find reasons to make that investment.

I think it will be useful in 9th ed to have more specific nomenclature around the types of additional detachments, because there will be multiple detachments where you add a second detachment within the same faction (adding LoW such as Guilliman or Szarek), and souping where you add a second detachment from a different faction (adding demons to a Tsons list, or adding a knight to an IoM list). For running multiple detachments in the same faction I was thinking of the number of detachments, the letter D, and then the faction, such as a 2D necron list. However I'm sure someone more clever than myself will come up with a better name for that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 DarknessEternal wrote:
So long as you can take a single Knight in a patrol level game, it is broken.


You can't it's patrol detachment only, so no super heavies.


I assumed that as well, but the Combat Patrol article mentions at the bottom (footnotes) that Imperial Knights and Chaos Knights can still take part in Combat Patrol.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/29 01:35:51


Post by: yukishiro1


The reserves strat is pretty useless for proper knights, even if you could afford the CP cost, why? They'll just shoot at a different knight in your list instead. It doesn't reduce their alpha because they still have a target to shoot at, and it just reduces your ability to strike back.

It might have some uses on the cheaper mini-knights I guess.



Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/29 02:09:00


Post by: Daedalus81


DarknessEternal wrote:So long as you can take a single Knight in a patrol level game, it is broken.


Martel732 wrote:Mostly because AT guns don't work vs them.


A single knight can't possibly cover an entire table. Let's not forget terrain. Additionally, it would start with 0 CP since the refund is not to the Aux. Last I checked Knights don't fair super well with just a 5++. And I guess good luck holding one objective at a time.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/29 02:49:40


Post by: Grimgold


Like Daedalus says, there is no way a single knight could do it, in the example mission they gave you'd have to table them super quick, and then go camp on their objective to win. To make it worse you'd have to table them in an environment where they could trace LoS through ruins to you, but you couldn't trace LoS back. If you did the smart thing and went to camp the objective in their deployment zone (the only way you could make more than 5 a round) you could find yourself in CC with a squad of thunderhammers without them having to make a charge roll or you getting to shoot overwatch.

Armigers might work, as long as you have deep pockets. At 25 PL you could get three armigers, but only if your using 2 of the forge world armigers.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/29 02:52:13


Post by: Gadzilla666


Not a single knight. The article says knights can only come in super heavy detachments, not auxiliaries. It's talking about armigiers and wardogs. Not the big knights.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/29 03:18:27


Post by: Grimgold


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Not a single knight. The article says knights can only come in super heavy detachments, not auxiliaries. It's talking about armigiers and wardogs. Not the big knights.


You can only take a single unit in an aux (so two armigers since they can be taken in pairs, which would leave 7 PL+ on the table), so they'd have to break at least on of the rules they've stated so far to have knights in combat patrol. However three armigers would be tolerable, it's not fundamentally different from a chaplain dread a scout squad and two dreads which also cost 25pl. That also makes a good case for not using PL for this since they could have hundreds of points in upgrades that are not accounted for in PL.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/29 03:25:31


Post by: Daedalus81


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
[size=18] The article says knights can only come in super heavy detachments, not auxiliaries.


Huh? Where do you see that?

Only the Super Heavy gets a refund. Aux does not. Is that what you mean? You can take 3 or 4 dogs (points dependent), but those are most definitely vulnerable to AT.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/29 03:36:42


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
[size=18] The article says knights can only come in super heavy detachments, not auxiliaries.


Huh? Where do you see that?

Only the Super Heavy gets a refund. Aux does not. Is that what you mean? You can take 3 or 4 dogs (points dependent), but those are most definitely vulnerable to AT.

The article says knights can only come in super heavy detachments. A super heavy auxiliary detachment is an auxiliary detachment. That's why they don't get traits. You need to be battle forged for the missions, and apparently auxiliary detachments don't count. That's my guess. It's in the asterisk section at the end of the article.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/29 03:43:09


Post by: sanguine40k


 Daedalus81 wrote:
There's a lot of variation in that. *Blades aren't breaking the game, but they do offer a greater density of weapons than most units. And where their points have landed is still well up in the air.

Castellan, BA smash cap(s), IG - Smash Caps do something Castellans can't. The rest of the IG don't do something another knight couldn't provide except objectives and CP. This kind of list will stand at 3 CP now unless you want your Castellan sitting on a 5++ or you spend points to bring him Armigers.
Castellan, Ogryns/IG Brigade - Same situation except the Ogryns are way less CP intensive, but require a bunch of points for support. I'm not sure how this will work now, either.
3 Knights & IG - IG isn't doing jack other than CP and maybe enough bodies for objectives. What's the benefit now? They're a CP drain unless they devote more to that detachment.

Adding a Felblade or Magnus or a single Knight is adding killing power rather than replacing a deficiency.

I know the analogy isn't always going to be perfect, but there's a whole lot we don't know. I'm itching to run Magnus. I don't know if I can do it without reserves yet nor do I know if I can sneak by on 6+6 CP.

Is GW going to nail every facet of this? No, no they will not. The important thing for the Felblade is that one group is responsible for points and rules now, so, you might see more traction on updates if things aren't quite right.


AM super heavies lack Invulns, which I suspect is why you don't see them competitively. Plus, most of their main armaments are likely to be blasts, so even if they can shoot in combat, it's mostly going to be their secondary armaments, which are not necessarily capable of clearing many of the tougher CC units (especially with the -1 on top of AM BS and any profile degradation).

Objectives are meant to be the name of the game in 9th, so having a bunch of bodies is still incredibly useful.

Adding a Fellblade/Magnus/etc is only adding killing power if they provide more killing power per point than an equivalent amount of non-super heavies.

Magnus, however, I expect to see regularly in Supreme Command detachments given TS's have some excellent HQ options.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/29 03:45:28


Post by: Daedalus81


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
[size=18] The article says knights can only come in super heavy detachments, not auxiliaries.


Huh? Where do you see that?

Only the Super Heavy gets a refund. Aux does not. Is that what you mean? You can take 3 or 4 dogs (points dependent), but those are most definitely vulnerable to AT.

The article says knights can only come in super heavy detachments. A super heavy auxiliary detachment is an auxiliary detachment. That's why they don't get traits. You need to be battle forged for the missions, and apparently auxiliary detachments don't count. That's my guess. It's in the asterisk section at the end of the article.


I can't locate what you're talking about. I went through both of them. Do I need new eyeballs?


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/29 03:53:53


Post by: Gadzilla666


The weapons that will be blast are most likely the ones that already can't be fired in cc, baneblade cannons, demolisher cannons, volcano cannons, and the like. They also can already shoot and charge after falling back, and fire in combat at full ballistic skill because of the steel behemoth rule. I expect they will keep those abilities.

And if the fellblade's accelerator cannon's he shells loose their special rule to be replaced with the new blast weapons rules I would consider it a nerf.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
I can't locate what you're talking about. I went through both of them. Do I need new eyeballs?

You're killing me Daedalus.
Except for Imperial Knights and Chaos Knights - they can only fit in a super heavy detachment, but they can still take part in combat patrols.

Bottom of the article marked with 5*

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/6/26/join-the-combat-patrolgw-homepage-post-1fw-homepage-post-3/


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/29 04:09:51


Post by: alextroy


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
[size=18] The article says knights can only come in super heavy detachments, not auxiliaries.


Huh? Where do you see that?

Only the Super Heavy gets a refund. Aux does not. Is that what you mean? You can take 3 or 4 dogs (points dependent), but those are most definitely vulnerable to AT.

The article says knights can only come in super heavy detachments. A super heavy auxiliary detachment is an auxiliary detachment. That's why they don't get traits. You need to be battle forged for the missions, and apparently auxiliary detachments don't count. That's my guess. It's in the asterisk section at the end of the article.


I can't locate what you're talking about. I went through both of them. Do I need new eyeballs?
From the Join the Combat Patrol article:
An army for Combat Patrol is based on a single Patrol Detachment,***** which gives you a nice amount of flexibility and choice for the size of battle.

.....

***** Except for Imperial Knights and Chaos Knights – they can only fit in a Super-heavy Detachment, but they can still take part in Combat Patrols.
Note that this is probably a matter of them simplifying the language since Faction Focus: Imperial Knights makes it clear they can be taken in both Super-heavy and Super-heavy Auxiliary detachments.

My suspicion is that Imperial Knights and Chaos Knights will be allowed to take a Super-heavy Detachment, which would have to be 3 Armigers/War Dogs. That does assume they reduce the PL to be more inline with the points values and that those don't exceed and average of 166 points a model. It might be a bit of a challenge, but I would think it 36 T7 3+/5++ wounds would not be too much to expect a Combat Patrol to be able to deal with. It's not like you won't see multiple vehicles in other factions Combat Patrols, even if not as destructive as an Armiger/War Dog.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/29 04:17:02


Post by: Daedalus81


 Gadzilla666 wrote:

You're killing me Daedalus.


Wearin' you down!



Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/29 04:27:32


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:

You're killing me Daedalus.


Wearin' you down!


Right, just get your glasses checked.

And I still say this is unless either taking detachments outside of your core detachment's codex costs extra or taking one from your own codex comes with a refund. Or if super heavys in general see a very small rise in points, or in the case of the hellforged/relic super heavys, an even bigger drop than I'm expecting. Because if they raise those prices then they have definitely lost the plot.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/29 05:05:09


Post by: Daedalus81


 alextroy wrote:
It might be a bit of a challenge, but I would think it 36 T7 3+/5++ wounds would not be too much to expect a Combat Patrol to be able to deal with. It's not like you won't see multiple vehicles in other factions Combat Patrols, even if not as destructive as an Armiger/War Dog.


I don't imagine i'll even play CP, but if I did...

Ahriman on Disc
20 Tzaangors
Vindicator with gubbins (maybe a daemon engine, but like the idea of T8 in that point bracket)

Not sure how much room i'd have left after that, but it'd take a long time to clear through those Tzaangors. Run em with -1 and 4++. Toss heals on the vindicator.



Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/29 10:37:25


Post by: Nazrak


Seen a couple of people saying restrictions on numbers of certain characters per detachment should be dropped now – I couldn't disagree more. In fact, I'd like to see it become more prevalent for other Codices too – since when did Space Marines have multiple Captains available all to join in a battle with like half a company's worth of guys?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It also quite neatly fixes things like people saying "well why would I take a normal Russ when Tank Commanders are so much better for the points?" which resulted in lists that flew in the face of the background. Now, you take regular Russes because, even they might not be as optimal on paper as a commander, you have more available to you, which is how it should be.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/29 10:47:13


Post by: ewar


 Nazrak wrote:
Seen a couple of people saying restrictions on numbers of certain characters per detachment should be dropped now – I couldn't disagree more. In fact, I'd like to see it become more prevalent for other Codices too – since when did Space Marines have multiple Captains available all to join in a battle with like half a company's worth of guys?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It also quite neatly fixes things like people saying "well why would I take a normal Russ when Tank Commanders are so much better for the points?" which resulted in lists that flew in the face of the background. Now, you take regular Russes because, even they might not be as optimal on paper as a commander, you have more available to you, which is how it should be.


Couldn't agree more, there should be more choice restrictions to match some of the fluff. I never run more than one captain, and only take a chapter master and captain in suitably large games (4k+). I'm not a fan of seeing lists with 3/4 points in characters and their handful of backfield camping cheerleaders.

From what I've seen so far, I think 9th will do a good job of pushing/incentivising players to make use of a wider range of slots in battalions and brigades to really help armies reflect the background a bit better.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/29 12:28:07


Post by: Nazrak


 ewar wrote:

From what I've seen so far, I think 9th will do a good job of pushing/incentivising players to make use of a wider range of slots in battalions and brigades to really help armies reflect the background a bit better.

Indeed – there really wasn't a lot to incentivise you to fill up non-compulsory slots before – you were almost always better off rolling htem over into another detachment to maximise your CPs.

Something else that just occurred to me is that the removal of functionally infinite force org slot might help create some space in armies for support characters, when previously the thinking was perhaps "well why not just spend those points on more of whatever they buff?" – Runtherds and Waagh Banners spring immediately to mind.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/29 13:02:53


Post by: Martel732


Make tau commanders BS 3+ and there's no reason for the restriction.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/29 13:07:21


Post by: alextroy


Or just make the points valuation between Commanders and Crisis Suits better so that you actually want to purchase Crisis Suits? The problem isn't that Commanders are better. Every character model is better than the non-character model of the same time. It's that a comparable points value of Commanders is better than the same points in Crisis Suits.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/29 13:08:15


Post by: Martel732


It's hard to do that with BS 2+ in play. Just like its hard to make regular marine dreads desirable with BS 2+ FW dreads in play.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/29 13:15:38


Post by: the_scotsman


Martel732 wrote:
It's hard to do that with BS 2+ in play. Just like its hard to make regular marine dreads desirable with BS 2+ FW dreads in play.


Particularly because GW insists that valuing weapons off the datasheet is a good idea.

That powerfist costs the same on an A2 sarge with WS3+ as it does on an A4 captain with WS2+ and reroll 1s to hit....yeah....that makes sense....

Costing weapons separately from datasheets while also trying to limit the options of weapons datasheets can take is one of the weirdest organizational choices out of 8th IMO. Seems like NMNR and the philosophy of "bespoke rules" is the perfect opportunity to self-contain point costs right on the datasheet to reflect the different value a unit gets out of various options. Is a Heavy Flamer really the same value on a long range battle tank that has it as an Auxiliary/Emergency weapon as it is on a close range squad? is a Storm Shield really the same value on a 1W model as a 5W model that starts from a 4++?


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/29 13:21:23


Post by: Kanluwen


 alextroy wrote:
Or just make the points valuation between Commanders and Crisis Suits better so that you actually want to purchase Crisis Suits? The problem isn't that Commanders are better. Every character model is better than the non-character model of the same time. It's that a comparable points value of Commanders is better than the same points in Crisis Suits.

Also a big issue is that except for Commanders and Farsight, you have no Crisis Suited character options.

A Lieutenant level character or swapping Bodyguards to be something similar would be a welcome move.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/29 13:34:11


Post by: Nazrak


 Kanluwen wrote:

A Lieutenant level character or swapping Bodyguards to be something similar would be a welcome move.

I'd like to see this as an option for most armies tbh – similar to the old minor/major hero situation in the early editions. I guess Warlord Traits *kinda* allow for this, but it can still seem a bit weird at times.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/29 13:34:58


Post by: Sterling191


Martel732 wrote:
Make tau commanders BS 3+ and there's no reason for the restriction.


Sure thing, lets get on that right after we push all Marine characters to WS/BS3+ since apparently theyre not in need of being restricted at all.

Oh. Right.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/29 13:36:47


Post by: Martel732


Sterling191 wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Make tau commanders BS 3+ and there's no reason for the restriction.


Sure thing, lets get on that right after we push all Marine characters to WS/BS3+ since apparently theyre not in need of being restricted at all.

Oh. Right.


That's fine, too. I don't really care. But the jump from 4+ to 2+ makes even less sense. It would be nice if we had more than 4 different skill profiles.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/29 13:38:50


Post by: Nazrak


I'd happily see Marines limited to 1 each of Captain, Lieutenant (slot, so up to 2), Librarian, Chaplain per Detachment. Although I guess that's likely to kinda happen anyway as a result of the new way Detachments work.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/29 13:49:13


Post by: Zustiur


My only complaint with this rule is that we didn't get it 18 months ago in Chapter Approved.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/29 13:49:41


Post by: Daedalus81


the_scotsman wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
It's hard to do that with BS 2+ in play. Just like its hard to make regular marine dreads desirable with BS 2+ FW dreads in play.


Particularly because GW insists that valuing weapons off the datasheet is a good idea.

That powerfist costs the same on an A2 sarge with WS3+ as it does on an A4 captain with WS2+ and reroll 1s to hit....yeah....that makes sense....

Costing weapons separately from datasheets while also trying to limit the options of weapons datasheets can take is one of the weirdest organizational choices out of 8th IMO. Seems like NMNR and the philosophy of "bespoke rules" is the perfect opportunity to self-contain point costs right on the datasheet to reflect the different value a unit gets out of various options. Is a Heavy Flamer really the same value on a long range battle tank that has it as an Auxiliary/Emergency weapon as it is on a close range squad? is a Storm Shield really the same value on a 1W model as a 5W model that starts from a 4++?


They did this to some degree. The most obvious was the Thunderhammer. Does a Captain getting a fist at a "discount" really matter overall though?

The rest of your point stands though there is some nuance needed on some other levels, but then that becomes bloat so a fine line to walk.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/29 13:54:08


Post by: Kanluwen


 Nazrak wrote:
I'd happily see Marines limited to 1 each of Captain, Lieutenant (slot, so up to 2), Librarian, Chaplain per Detachment. Although I guess that's likely to kinda happen anyway as a result of the new way Detachments work.

Some of the biggest things that need to happen with regards to Marines?

Chapter Masters, period, need to be given the rules from the Chapter Master stratagem. It's silly that Shrike and Azrael can't call down orbital strikes.
I guess Calgar and Grimnar too.
Armies(not detachments) need to be limited to one keyworded Chapter Master.

Captains need to be 1 per Detachment.
Lieutenants need to be 0-2(there's 4 per Company from what I've been able to dig up).
Librarians and Chaplains should be 1 per Detachment as well.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/29 14:08:38


Post by: Martel732


Librarians typically only function well in multiples; there's no point to a single librarian.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/29 14:12:30


Post by: Aash


 Kanluwen wrote:
 Nazrak wrote:
I'd happily see Marines limited to 1 each of Captain, Lieutenant (slot, so up to 2), Librarian, Chaplain per Detachment. Although I guess that's likely to kinda happen anyway as a result of the new way Detachments work.

Some of the biggest things that need to happen with regards to Marines?

Chapter Masters, period, need to be given the rules from the Chapter Master stratagem. It's silly that Shrike and Azrael can't call down orbital strikes.
I guess Calgar and Grimnar too.
Armies(not detachments) need to be limited to one keyworded Chapter Master.

Captains need to be 1 per Detachment.
Lieutenants need to be 0-2(there's 4 per Company from what I've been able to dig up).
Librarians and Chaplains should be 1 per Detachment as well.


I'd totally get behind this, and similar for all the factions. Its a company level game, there shouldn't be multiple Captains (or equivalents running around in a single detachment, and it should be rare to have multiples in a single army. The biggest hurdle to this is that many factions have too few HQ options if the number in a detachment is limited, but too few HQ options is a problem that should be rectified anyway! Space Marines certainly don't suffer form too few options and I'd welcome a limit on the number of specific HQs that can be taken.

If this sort of philosophy was introduced across the board there would be no need for sweeping rules like the "rule of 3" as each faction would have its own faction-specific limits.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/29 14:20:13


Post by: Nazrak


Aash wrote:
The biggest hurdle to this is that many factions have too few HQ options if the number in a detachment is limited, but too few HQ options is a problem that should be rectified anyway! Space Marines certainly don't suffer form too few options and I'd welcome a limit on the number of specific HQs that can be taken.

Deffo agree it'd be nice for some armies to have more options, but it's a less pressing problem now people won't be trying to maximise the number of detachments they're taking, which required you to load up on HQs. Which, in my book, is another reason to like the new system.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/29 14:37:06


Post by: Aash


 Nazrak wrote:
Aash wrote:
The biggest hurdle to this is that many factions have too few HQ options if the number in a detachment is limited, but too few HQ options is a problem that should be rectified anyway! Space Marines certainly don't suffer form too few options and I'd welcome a limit on the number of specific HQs that can be taken.

Deffo agree it'd be nice for some armies to have more options, but it's a less pressing problem now people won't be trying to maximise the number of detachments they're taking, which required you to load up on HQs. Which, in my book, is another reason to like the new system.


That's true, it would be nice though if it were possible for every faction to make a Battalion (Knights/Chaos Knights being an understandable exception) without having the the same set of HQs in every list. Whether that's because there are too few choices, or because the choices that are available have clearly "better" and "worse" choices.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/29 14:38:13


Post by: sanguine40k


 Nazrak wrote:
Aash wrote:
The biggest hurdle to this is that many factions have too few HQ options if the number in a detachment is limited, but too few HQ options is a problem that should be rectified anyway! Space Marines certainly don't suffer form too few options and I'd welcome a limit on the number of specific HQs that can be taken.

Deffo agree it'd be nice for some armies to have more options, but it's a less pressing problem now people won't be trying to maximise the number of detachments they're taking, which required you to load up on HQs. Which, in my book, is another reason to like the new system.


It's not a less pressing problem if the other HQ's are junk, because you still have to fill out the slots.

More wargear options for the substandard HQ's would help - Fireblades currently have a markerlight or a pulse rifle (not even the snazzy MC bolt weapons that the {substandard by Primaris standards} Phobos characters get) - even if they got the option to take an Ion or Rail Rifle it would make the choice between weapons a bit more interesting.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/29 15:28:07


Post by: Wakshaani


Yeah, there needs to be a gradual recalibration of HQs across the board. Get limitations in there for X per army (Such as a single Captain or Tau Commander), 1 per Detachment (Marine Chaplains and Librarians), and introduce some medium-weight HQ options for everyone missing them.

Heck, I'd go so far as to redo the Command HQ logo to have stars floating over it (1-4 stars) saying that a game has to be at that point level or more to take 'em… so Chapter master would be ****, only showing up at games of 3000+, while a Tau Fireblade would be a *, showing up at Patrols or greater.

This gets around the silliness of Chapter Master Dante going on patrol, for instance.

I want more fluff in army composition, and adding more options, like an Ork Big Boss, who can lead small forces alone or be taken as middleweights for bigger battles (Like Marine Lieutenants) only helps that.

And give us more customization options for all HQs. Not, you know, 2nd ed levels of insane, but more than just "This is what is in box. You take only this." I mean, I can convert my Painboy to have things other than a Power Klaw, let me do it! Harumph.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/29 15:34:20


Post by: Ice_can


Martel732 wrote:
It's hard to do that with BS 2+ in play. Just like its hard to make regular marine dreads desirable with BS 2+ FW dreads in play.

No your just flat out wrong here.

The issue is Crisis suits are way too many points period.
Those new Marines with their assualt multiMeltas.

T5 3W 3+ Sv Ws3+, BS3+
Crisis suit Ws5+, BS4+ without any weapons is 24 points give him a fusion blaster and he's 38 points for 1 shot of assulat melta with 18 inch range
These new primaris are less points and get free double shooting with additional 6 inches of range.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/29 15:36:33


Post by: Nazrak


Wakshaani wrote:
Yeah, there needs to be a gradual recalibration of HQs across the board. Get limitations in there for X per army (Such as a single Captain or Tau Commander), 1 per Detachment (Marine Chaplains and Librarians), and introduce some medium-weight HQ options for everyone missing them.

Heck, I'd go so far as to redo the Command HQ logo to have stars floating over it (1-4 stars) saying that a game has to be at that point level or more to take 'em… so Chapter master would be ****, only showing up at games of 3000+, while a Tau Fireblade would be a *, showing up at Patrols or greater.

This gets around the silliness of Chapter Master Dante going on patrol, for instance.

I want more fluff in army composition, and adding more options, like an Ork Big Boss, who can lead small forces alone or be taken as middleweights for bigger battles (Like Marine Lieutenants) only helps that.

And give us more customization options for all HQs. Not, you know, 2nd ed levels of insane, but more than just "This is what is in box. You take only this." I mean, I can convert my Painboy to have things other than a Power Klaw, let me do it! Harumph.

Nothing I don't like here in terms of suggestions, would be delighted with any of this happening.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/29 15:50:25


Post by: Martel732


Ice_can wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
It's hard to do that with BS 2+ in play. Just like its hard to make regular marine dreads desirable with BS 2+ FW dreads in play.

No your just flat out wrong here.

The issue is Crisis suits are way too many points period.
Those new Marines with their assualt multiMeltas.

T5 3W 3+ Sv Ws3+, BS3+
Crisis suit Ws5+, BS4+ without any weapons is 24 points give him a fusion blaster and he's 38 points for 1 shot of assulat melta with 18 inch range
These new primaris are less points and get free double shooting with additional 6 inches of range.


I'm not wrong. The jump from BS 4+ to BS 2+ is dumb. I don't even think FW dreads should have BS 2+.

Suits being miscosted has nothing to do with the jump from BS 4+ suits and BS 2+ commanders.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/29 16:01:55


Post by: sanguine40k


Martel732 wrote:
I'm not wrong. The jump from BS 4+ to BS 2+ is dumb. I don't even think FW dreads should have BS 2+.

Suits being miscosted has nothing to do with the jump from BS 4+ suits and BS 2+ commanders.


BS2+ Commanders are only an issue because almost every one of them is quad fusion or quad Ion. They used to have to take at least one support system.

OTOH, crisis suits only get 3 slots, so have to choose between 3 weapons or 2 and (generally) ATS.

Making them both have 4 slots, but only 3 can be weapons (much like in the old days) would close the gap without needing to mess with BS scores.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/29 16:03:54


Post by: Martel732


The commanders shouldn't have BS 2+ at all. And yes, they should have equal slots. They should just make all suits BS 3+ because of computers.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/29 16:41:00


Post by: sanguine40k


Martel732 wrote:
The commanders shouldn't have BS 2+ at all. And yes, they should have equal slots. They should just make all suits BS 3+ because of computers.


Between this and the Eradicators thread, I can only assume you are trolling.

I will no longer be directly responding to your posts.

Thanks.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/29 17:40:29


Post by: Nazrak


sanguine40k wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
The commanders shouldn't have BS 2+ at all. And yes, they should have equal slots. They should just make all suits BS 3+ because of computers.


Between this and the Eradicators thread, I can only assume you are trolling.

I will no longer be directly responding to your posts.

Thanks.

I'm amazed there's still anyone without him on Ignore, tbh.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/29 21:23:35


Post by: Dysartes


sanguine40k wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
The commanders shouldn't have BS 2+ at all. And yes, they should have equal slots. They should just make all suits BS 3+ because of computers.


Between this and the Eradicators thread, I can only assume you are trolling.

I will no longer be directly responding to your posts.

Thanks.


You passed up a perfect opportunity for a "Good day to you, sir"?


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/29 21:33:41


Post by: sanguine40k


 Dysartes wrote:
sanguine40k wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
The commanders shouldn't have BS 2+ at all. And yes, they should have equal slots. They should just make all suits BS 3+ because of computers.


Between this and the Eradicators thread, I can only assume you are trolling.

I will no longer be directly responding to your posts.

Thanks.


You passed up a perfect opportunity for a "Good day to you, sir"?


Damn!

In my defence, I have been up since 4am...


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/29 23:44:21


Post by: Slayer6


The biggest issue I am seeing with 9E, is the advent of units with advanced rules and/or built in rules which provide benefits almost akin to Stratagems.

Let's use Imperial Guard as an example.

Valkyries have several rules, that when put together make them just *THAT* much more than merely another transport flyer... When combined with Scions, they can conduct a turn 1 melta/OC plasma drop right on top of an important unit for the grand cost of 0CP.

Orders, are essentially mini-stratagems, and when utilized with the right relics, actually become equally strong as full fledged stratagems.

Some armies could definitely do with more of their mundane stratagems being baked into some of their units' profiles, some examples can include:
Tyranids - Grisly Feast, and Implant Attack - these could be basic unit rules, in the case of the former, and the latter as an upgrade for X points.
Orks - Grot Shields comes to mind, as it's just a fallible version of Tau's Saviour Protocols.
Tau - Kroot stratagems could be baked into the various profiles, maybe this would entice their use a bit more.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/30 00:35:30


Post by: alextroy


GW actually explained this rather nicely in one of their streams. They view Stratagems as thematic abilities that it would be cool for units to be able to do, but not for them to do all the time. You are left to decide which of those heroic actions you want to happen in your story and use them at the appropriate time, based on your available CP.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/30 00:53:48


Post by: Castozor


 alextroy wrote:
GW actually explained this rather nicely in one of their streams. They view Stratagems as thematic abilities that it would be cool for units to be able to do, but not for them to do all the time. You are left to decide which of those heroic actions you want to happen in your story and use them at the appropriate time, based on your available CP.

Which makes sense until you realize a lot of units/armies depend on their theme to be expressed trough CP. Until of course you run out of them and say (for me) my plague marines are suddenly mostly regular marines whose bolters are suddenly no longer plague weapons because I run out of magic juice. My main issue with stratagems is the thematic ones that really should just be baked into data sheets/points costs like they used to be. For example one of the most powerful Chaos one, Veterans, you are trying to tell me only one squad at a time remembers they are 10k old veterans, and also it varies from turn to turn which squad is the veteran one? Thematic abilities abilities should be mostly baked into the datasheet/payed for with points, which both makes it easier to balance and doesn't create the weird sensation that I play the right faction for 3 turns and after that my army forgets what it is all about and does nothing special anymore.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/30 03:42:57


Post by: alextroy


It's like you didn't read what I wrote. Do you want to imagine the game where every one of those thematic rules was a permenant part of the unit's datasheet?

Chaos Space Marines who always have +1 to Wound?
Space Marines who can never be damaged on an unmodified Dice roll of 1-3?
Deathwing Terminators who always get a free round of shooting when they deploy via teleportation?
GSC units that always get to move d6" after deep striking and then immediately fire?

I can go on and on and on.

The point of the stratagem is these thematic things happen at key parts of the story. Yes, all those Chaos Space Marines are Veterans of the Long War. That doesn't show up in the story every time they fire a bolter or swing a chainsword.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/30 03:44:45


Post by: yukishiro1


Indeed. Only Primaris get to be heroes all the time.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/30 03:45:53


Post by: alextroy


Really? I'm missing the Primaris models with permanent Transhuman Psychology in their base rules.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/30 03:55:21


Post by: yukishiro1


But not the ones that get to fire twice (now two varieties of those!), or the ones that get +2 extra attacks on the charge beyond the normal ones they also get for being Space Marines. Or the repulsor with built in disembark-after-moving that is a stratagem for other factions, etc etc. Or all the doctrines, super doctrines, reroll bubbles, etc that all Space Marines just get for being the heroes that replicate what other factions have to pay CP for, for that matter.

But it was meant more to be a tongue-in-cheek observation about the way the game went in 8th edition than a serious comment.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/30 04:14:09


Post by: Insectum7


 alextroy wrote:
Do you want to imagine the game where every one of those thematic rules was a permenant part of the unit's datasheet?
I played that game. It was called Warhammer 40,000. My Terminators were Relentless and ignored penalties for moving and firing heavy weapons all the time.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/30 04:16:58


Post by: yukishiro1


I think the main issue is that there doesn't seem to be a lot of rhyme and reason between how abilities get divided between "that unit should just have it period, always" and "let's make that a stratagem that costs CP." The latter are often no stronger than the former.

This has become even more blurred as PA started giving basically every unit its own special stratagem. Something like Vets of the Long War is interesting design because you can slap it on almost anything, meaning there is a reason for it not to just be on a datasheet. A lot of the unit-specific stratagems lack that aspect, though, and feel like they're things that could just as easily be on the datasheet as a base ability - especially the 1CP ones.



Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/30 04:25:54


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Insectum7 wrote:
 alextroy wrote:
Do you want to imagine the game where every one of those thematic rules was a permenant part of the unit's datasheet?
I played that game. It was called Warhammer 40,000. My Terminators were Relentless and ignored penalties for moving and firing heavy weapons all the time.

I seem to recall playing a game that allowed jump infantry to reroll charges. And any infantry could attack a vehicle in close combat by planting bombs on it if they were equipped with them, which somehow makes more sense than hitting a tank with swords......


Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote:
I think the main issue is that there doesn't seem to be a lot of rhyme and reason between how abilities get divided between "that unit should just have it period, always" and "let's make that a stratagem that costs CP." The latter are often no stronger than the former.

This has become even more blurred as PA started giving basically every unit its own special stratagem. Something like Vets of the Long War is interesting design because you can slap it on almost anything, meaning there is a reason for it not to just be on a datasheet. A lot of the unit-specific stratagems lack that aspect, though, and feel like they're things that could just as easily be on the datasheet as a base ability - especially the 1CP ones.


It's a "new unit vs old unit" thing. New units get new stats and bespoke rules that make them competitive with other new units. Old units generally have the same stats as in older editions without their previously inherent special abilities, and are made competitive by either giving them those old abilities back or getting new ones through strategems. For some reason gw just doesn't want to rewrite older units data sheets so they can compete with the new stuff without strategems.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/30 06:32:27


Post by: AngryAngel80


yukishiro1 wrote:
But not the ones that get to fire twice (now two varieties of those!), or the ones that get +2 extra attacks on the charge beyond the normal ones they also get for being Space Marines. Or the repulsor with built in disembark-after-moving that is a stratagem for other factions, etc etc. Or all the doctrines, super doctrines, reroll bubbles, etc that all Space Marines just get for being the heroes that replicate what other factions have to pay CP for, for that matter.

But it was meant more to be a tongue-in-cheek observation about the way the game went in 8th edition than a serious comment.



See here is the thing, every non primaris marine army are just filled with the soldiers we needed them to be. Primaris Marines have a monument built for their sins of greatness. It makes total sense when you look at it that way. Primaris are just that good baby, all that, a bag of chips and a sweet a**foot massage, it don't be tickling or nothing.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/30 16:49:31


Post by: catbarf


 alextroy wrote:
Yes, all those Chaos Space Marines are Veterans of the Long War. That doesn't show up in the story every time they fire a bolter or swing a chainsword.


That seems more like a flaw than a feature. I've played a number of cinematic, fun games that didn't need layered card-game-esque resource management to give the different factions unique flavor. A well-designed system makes it emergent through the core rules or specific unit traits.

I mean, there are a couple of categories of stratagem that really don't need to be stratagems:
-Stratagems that represent equipment can just be upgrades (eg 'Ard Boyz).
-Stratagems that represent unique units can just be their own unit (eg Chapter Master).
-Stratagems that represent unit-specific abilities can be unit-specific abilities, toned down as necessary or priced appropriately.

And when you have stratagems that represent innate army-wide abilities, but not tangible support assets, I'd think really long and hard about whether it needs to be a stratagem or if it can be better represented as an army-wide rule, or baked into the unit profiles. Case in point, why is Transhuman Physiology a stratagem, but Bolter Discipline isn't? Marines getting disciplined volleys of precise bolter fire is pretty thematic and cinematically appropriate, right? And surely you could represent transhuman physiology through, I don't know, maybe an innate 6+ invuln to Marines- or just accept that having transhuman physiology is what makes them T4 and not T3 to begin with.

The stratagem implementation where these abilities are extremely potent but only once-per-turn adds another level of resource management (and complexity) to the game, but as a means of reflecting the fluff I would say it is generally worse than just having the unit's core capabilities reflect the fluff.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/30 17:31:55


Post by: the_scotsman


Also, what stops GW from putting abilities on unit datasheets that they can't do all the time? It certainly doesn't stop them when it comes to Orbital Bombardments, or Montka/Kauyon, or stuff like that.

once per game abilities are already a thing. Always have been.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/30 20:16:19


Post by: TangoTwoBravo


Well, Stratagems are clearly a big feature of 9th just like they were in 8th. I think that the new CP generation/costing system will certainly change things up, except for those who didn't really need or use Stratagems.

I've been playing around with my lists. The HQ restriction is the big obstacle I face in getting full CP at 2000 points. I've gotten used to having Azrael, Lieutenant, Librarian and (since PA) a Chaplain. Heck, some of my lists had at least six HQ choices. Now I'll have to add at least a Patrol or consider building a Brigade. I can certainly get by with 9 to 10 CPs to start, but its something to consider. My Astra Militarum will likely now be a single Brigade and maybe a Scions Patrol. My Drukhari will happily run the 3 Patrol set.

Will GSC players still take three different forces to be able to mix and match abilities (is the Brood Brothers rule in the Preview of allowing "AM" units to be included in a GSC Detachment without breaking Cult benefits new to 9th?)? Will Orks have a mixture of Klans/Kultures or focus on one?


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/30 21:28:12


Post by: Castozor


 alextroy wrote:
It's like you didn't read what I wrote. Do you want to imagine the game where every one of those thematic rules was a permenant part of the unit's datasheet?

Chaos Space Marines who always have +1 to Wound?
Space Marines who can never be damaged on an unmodified Dice roll of 1-3?
Deathwing Terminators who always get a free round of shooting when they deploy via teleportation?
GSC units that always get to move d6" after deep striking and then immediately fire?

I can go on and on and on.

The point of the stratagem is these thematic things happen at key parts of the story. Yes, all those Chaos Space Marines are Veterans of the Long War. That doesn't show up in the story every time they fire a bolter or swing a chainsword.

I´ll be honest I rather they would not be in the game to begin with. GW´s own LoTR seems to play perfectly fine without random magical power ups and so did WHFB in the past. Lots of thematic stuff that used to be upgrades are now stratagems and I dislike that, especially since it seems like a balancing nightmare. Do we price oblits around being able to fire twice as Slaanesh or not? I can see were you are coming from, don't get me wrong, but for me the game is about being an actual game not a way to make some weird narrative come about. CCG style power ups don't belong in a wargame for me.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/30 21:35:29


Post by: alextroy


A valid opinion. GW thinks players want cool stuff to toss around, so that is what we got. Players seem to like it, so we keep getting more.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/06/30 23:02:09


Post by: PenitentJake


 catbarf wrote:
 alextroy wrote:
Yes, all those Chaos Space Marines are Veterans of the Long War. That doesn't show up in the story every time they fire a bolter or swing a chainsword.


That seems more like a flaw than a feature. I've played a number of cinematic, fun games that didn't need layered card-game-esque resource management to give the different factions unique flavor. A well-designed system makes it emergent through the core rules or specific unit traits.

I mean, there are a couple of categories of stratagem that really don't need to be stratagems:
-Stratagems that represent equipment can just be upgrades (eg 'Ard Boyz).
-Stratagems that represent unique units can just be their own unit (eg Chapter Master).
-Stratagems that represent unit-specific abilities can be unit-specific abilities, toned down as necessary or priced appropriately.

And when you have stratagems that represent innate army-wide abilities, but not tangible support assets, I'd think really long and hard about whether it needs to be a stratagem or if it can be better represented as an army-wide rule, or baked into the unit profiles. Case in point, why is Transhuman Physiology a stratagem, but Bolter Discipline isn't? Marines getting disciplined volleys of precise bolter fire is pretty thematic and cinematically appropriate, right? And surely you could represent transhuman physiology through, I don't know, maybe an innate 6+ invuln to Marines- or just accept that having transhuman physiology is what makes them T4 and not T3 to begin with.

The stratagem implementation where these abilities are extremely potent but only once-per-turn adds another level of resource management (and complexity) to the game, but as a means of reflecting the fluff I would say it is generally worse than just having the unit's core capabilities reflect the fluff.


I see your point, but I think there's a narrow lens here, and if you open it up to include people who play the game in different ways, it helps give a more complete picture of why the rules work the way they do.

Take the chapter Master type option that you talk about as being just a unit choice. If they go with this option, taking it impacts the player by limiting how many points are available and that's it. Simple choice- boil it down to another stupid math hammer formula and choose based on the highest number. But if they leave it as is, there's this other cost to making that choice, that could be anything from an outflanking manoueuver later in the game, to a set of allies, to an additional detachment for a specialist army to a heroic single action, which may change the course of a battle. That makes the choice so much more interesting- it isn't just a formula that determines inclusion or exclusion- it's potential.

Some people HATE strats, and think they ruin the game. Others hate rerolls. Having character upgrade strats, or secondary warlord strats, or extra relic strats give people an alternate way to make meaningful choices with regard to their usage of a core mechanic. The fact that 9th is giving us even more ways to spend CP, while simultaneously rebuilding the CP system to take away one of the reasons people used to HQ spam, while simultaneously rebuilding the detachment system to actively de-incentivise HQ spam... Well, really it's just such a sweet little package of game improvement rolled into a nice little package.

One of these days, just to say I've done it, I'm going to spend every single command point I get upfront on pregame choices- I'll run 2 subfaction detachments, one optimized to support shooty units and one optimized to support close combat units; I'll make the leader of the non-core detachment a virtual warlord and give it an extra relic. I'll set key units in reserve, and do any other pregame augmentation I can- heck, maybe even blow the dust off Vigilus and see if there's a cool specialist detachment. I just want to see how much of a difference it makes- I don't want to isolate it in a mathematical equation and compare it to other equations based on isolated units; I want to play it in army with other unit interactions against an enemy army full of unique unit and upgrade interactions and actually see what happens.



Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/07/01 10:29:21


Post by: Slipspace


PenitentJake wrote:
 catbarf wrote:
 alextroy wrote:
Yes, all those Chaos Space Marines are Veterans of the Long War. That doesn't show up in the story every time they fire a bolter or swing a chainsword.


That seems more like a flaw than a feature. I've played a number of cinematic, fun games that didn't need layered card-game-esque resource management to give the different factions unique flavor. A well-designed system makes it emergent through the core rules or specific unit traits.

I mean, there are a couple of categories of stratagem that really don't need to be stratagems:
-Stratagems that represent equipment can just be upgrades (eg 'Ard Boyz).
-Stratagems that represent unique units can just be their own unit (eg Chapter Master).
-Stratagems that represent unit-specific abilities can be unit-specific abilities, toned down as necessary or priced appropriately.

And when you have stratagems that represent innate army-wide abilities, but not tangible support assets, I'd think really long and hard about whether it needs to be a stratagem or if it can be better represented as an army-wide rule, or baked into the unit profiles. Case in point, why is Transhuman Physiology a stratagem, but Bolter Discipline isn't? Marines getting disciplined volleys of precise bolter fire is pretty thematic and cinematically appropriate, right? And surely you could represent transhuman physiology through, I don't know, maybe an innate 6+ invuln to Marines- or just accept that having transhuman physiology is what makes them T4 and not T3 to begin with.

The stratagem implementation where these abilities are extremely potent but only once-per-turn adds another level of resource management (and complexity) to the game, but as a means of reflecting the fluff I would say it is generally worse than just having the unit's core capabilities reflect the fluff.


I see your point, but I think there's a narrow lens here, and if you open it up to include people who play the game in different ways, it helps give a more complete picture of why the rules work the way they do.

Take the chapter Master type option that you talk about as being just a unit choice. If they go with this option, taking it impacts the player by limiting how many points are available and that's it. Simple choice- boil it down to another stupid math hammer formula and choose based on the highest number. But if they leave it as is, there's this other cost to making that choice, that could be anything from an outflanking manoueuver later in the game, to a set of allies, to an additional detachment for a specialist army to a heroic single action, which may change the course of a battle. That makes the choice so much more interesting- it isn't just a formula that determines inclusion or exclusion- it's potential.


The problem with that is, just like with points, the CP cost has a chance to be wrong and unbalance things and adding more levers to pull just seems to give GW more avenues to break their own game. The Chapter Master stratagem is a perfect example. You mention mathammer, which seems odd since it's almost certainly the best stratagem in the game right now, to the point where I don't think there's any choice at all as to whether you take it: if you want the most effective army and wat to spend your CPs as effectively as you can you take the CM upgrade without hesitation. I'm not really sure what CP cost would be balanced for it, such is its effectiveness. Your comparison is like taking something that's massively underpointed and saying it's fine because taking it means you have fewer points to spend elsewhere.

I think Catbarf is spot on that too many stratagems represent things that they just shouldn't and in many cases it break immersion too. Why can my SM unit hold firm in the face of withering fire from an entire artillery company or the most powerful weapons the siege specialist of the Iron Warriors can throw at them for an entire phase thanks to their Transhuman Physiology...then die ignominiously in the next phase to a single PF because I didn't spend the CP to buff them again? Stratagems representing strategic things are actually a good idea IMO. One of the things I like about 9th is the idea of spending your CPs on strategic resources like expanding your army's flexibility through extra detachments or allies, or sending units on outflanking missions. That's what CPs should be for, not just arbitrarily making units better. The approach isn't even consistent. Why is the RF2 ability a strat but Bolter Discipline a core rule, for example?

Taking the CM stratagem as a perfect example, that's a unit that should be paid for in points. That way you can more effectively balance it in a couple of ways. First, it costing more means there are fewer units to benefit from its brilliant aura ability and secondly you can make the unit more thematic so he's not just a random Captain with a bolter and a chainsword but is a mighty champion equipped with the best gear his Chapter has to offer, eager to wade into the fight and smite the Emperor's enemies as an example to the troops around him.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/07/01 15:49:25


Post by: Aash


From today’s Thousand Son’s faction focus: 4CP for a Brigade detachment.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/07/01 17:45:26


Post by: TangoTwoBravo


Aash wrote:
From today’s Thousand Son’s faction focus: 4CP for a Brigade detachment.


The change to the Supreme Command detachment is very welcome, although we need a little more information to see the full implications. I am curious how other named characters will work in (for me, will Azrael be a Supreme Commander?). It will mean you have to commit when list building and you want a major character. He is your Warlord with all that goes with that. We still have to see how Outriders and Vanguards work out. If they work out?


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/07/01 17:45:41


Post by: Wakshaani


And the full details on the Supreme Command detachment.

Which has a Lord of War spot... sorta.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/07/01 21:04:56


Post by: TangoTwoBravo


The change to the Supreme Command detachment certainly removes one of the aspects of Soup that we saw: adding powerful HQs from a different Codex to an army. We saw this with Smash Captains, Ahriman and DPs, Dawn Eagle Jet Captains and others. Now, if you really want to add Smash Captains to support your Knights in addition to having to spend CP on a Detachment you are probably looking at at least a Patrol just to get two of your Souped power-HQs. I think its a positive thing for list design. Brigades will, I think, either have your Warlord or be affiliated with your Supreme Command. Will we see them? I expect for AM, Orks and GSC. Space Marines might if they really want more than 3 HQ slots and full CPs.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/07/01 21:15:11


Post by: Mr Morden


Fortification is good for those with their own terrain piece

Spoiler:


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/07/01 21:19:59


Post by: TangoTwoBravo


That's quite a leak! Too bad that page didn't have the Vanguard and Outrider. Auxiliary Detachment of a single unit costing 2 CP makes sense.

As a complete aside, are there any Fortifications that are HQs?


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/07/01 21:24:20


Post by: Ice_can


TangoTwoBravo wrote:
That's quite a leak! Too bad that page didn't have the Vanguard and Outrider. Auxiliary Detachment of a single unit costing 2 CP makes sense.

As a complete aside, are there any Fortifications that are HQs?

Vanguard outruder are all 3CP


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/07/01 21:26:42


Post by: Mr Morden


TangoTwoBravo wrote:
That's quite a leak! Too bad that page didn't have the Vanguard and Outrider. Auxiliary Detachment of a single unit costing 2 CP makes sense.

As a complete aside, are there any Fortifications that are HQs?


Other detachments

Spoiler:


Good question - not that I am aware of - yet.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/07/01 21:56:26


Post by: yukishiro1


Specialist detachments are all 3CP, and there is no soup penalty unless I missed it somewhere.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/07/01 21:58:43


Post by: TangoTwoBravo


Mr Morden,

Great finds! Guess the book is out there now.

I will update the first post of this thread to capture all that.

No Command Benefits for Vanguard and Spearhead - to be expected given the CP article but good to be confirmed.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/07/01 22:13:16


Post by: Mr Morden


TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Mr Morden,

Great finds! Guess the book is out there now.

I will update the first post of this thread to capture all that.

No Command Benefits for Vanguard and Spearhead - to be expected given the CP article but good to be confirmed.


Whole book here
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/789637.page


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/07/01 22:35:02


Post by: alextroy


For those who didn't notice, the Air Wing detachment is conspicuously absent.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/07/02 00:09:38


Post by: Voss


 Mr Morden wrote:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Mr Morden,

Great finds! Guess the book is out there now.

I will update the first post of this thread to capture all that.

No Command Benefits for Vanguard and Spearhead - to be expected given the CP article but good to be confirmed.


Whole book here
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/789637.page


Nuked link. I suspect that was rather too much of a leak for the admins.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/07/02 01:52:12


Post by: Wakshaani


 alextroy wrote:
For those who didn't notice, the Air Wing detachment is conspicuously absent.


That's weird. I'd have MUCH rather the planes get pulled off of Patrol and Battalion and moved to their own thing.


Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command) @ 2020/07/02 02:57:44


Post by: Daedalus81


yukishiro1 wrote:
Specialist detachments are all 3CP, and there is no soup penalty unless I missed it somewhere.


No penalty as such. Detachment penalties are enough in my opinion based on the removal of air wing and change to supreme. That was the most abusive soup. Anything more would have really punished CSM / Daemons.