40k 9th edition, : App released page 413

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**tneva82**

Nah Man Pichu wrote:
Noted that it specifies "Battle-Forged" forces will be the ones generating CP in the Command Phase. Could mitigate a lot of the concerns about Troops being invalidated if we've still got a motivation to take a Battalion.

Like battalion generates CP? Eh that would just mean they have been flat out lying from the get go about getting away from loyal 32's etc CP batteries. They would still be there.

Rather it's likely to refer to abilities we already have to generate more CP

**Necronmaniac05**

I wonder if CP generation goes something like:

Start game with X amount for buying detachments, putting units in reserve, buy more relics etc.

At the start of each command phase generate x command points for each HQ remaining in your army if your army is battle forged.

It seems logical (and is quite common in miniature wargames) for things like command points to be tied to your leader(s). Plus it gives an incentive to actually hunt down HQ models on the board.

**Eldarsif**

Battleforged might just indicate you have a single codex army or something else. Doesn't have to be bound to battalions as many people like to think.

Otherwise I think they are probably going to do something to Kill Team except you have a CP pool at the beginning to burn if needed. I've played a lot of KT and AoS and tend to like CP generation throughout the battle so this is promising.

**torblind**

tneva82 wrote:
Nah Man Pichu wrote:
Noted that it specifies "Battle-Forged" forces will be the ones generating CP in the Command Phase. Could mitigate a lot of the concerns about Troops being invalidated if we've still got a motivation to take a Battalion.

Like battalion generates CP? Eh that would just mean they have been flat out lying from the get go about getting away from loyal 32's etc CP batteries. They would still be there.

Rather it's likely to refer to abilities we already have to generate more CP

.. or just.. Troops not from your warlod's codex don't generate CP.

Anyway, is it clear that we are getting CPs per turn, Kill Team style, or could it be reserved for the old ways of generating CPs, via relics and abilities? Of course that would mean silly book keeping

**DarknessEternal**

UGO/IGO means skip this edition.

Maybe 10th will have alternate activations that actually make for a playable game.

**ClockworkZion**

DarknessEternal wrote:
UGO/IGO means skip this edition.

Maybe 10th will have alternate activations that actually make for a playable game.

Not likely. AA means changing the core of the game from the ground up and means another core rules reset and stsrting from near scratch.

Additionally AA comes with it's own issues and isn't automatically better than the current ruleset. I feel a lot of the AA arguements are a "grass is greener" mindset that figures the different thing is the better thing automatically.

**DarknessEternal**

ClockworkZion wrote:
DarknessEternal wrote:
UGO/IGO means skip this edition.

Maybe 10th will have alternate activations that actually make for a playable game.

Not likely. AA means changing the core of the game from the ground up and means another core rules reset and stsrting from near scratch.

Additionally AA comes with it's own issues and isn't automatically better than the current ruleset. I feel a lot of the AA arguements are a "grass is greener" mindset that figures the different thing is the better thing automatically.

Feel free to check the poll results on whether Apocalypse is better at being 40k than 40k is.

How many more years of unlimited turn one command points to lose half your army before you start playing do you really want?

**torblind**

I did a similar journey, picked up bolt action after a couple of years with 40k. The random alternate activation felt awesome. Then I moved on to "Battlegroup", a different ww2 rule set that was IGO/UGO, and more focused on authenticity perhaps, yet it feels way superior to bolt action. Activation matters less than I thought as long as rules are good.

**Leetown**

DarknessEternal wrote:
UGO/IGO means skip this edition.

Maybe 10th will have alternate activations that actually make for a playable game.

Normally I am just a lurker, but I registered for the sole purpose to say: this comment, along with your signature, is the neckbeard-iest thing I have ever seen.

You complain in your sig about players that whine about RAW, yet here you are, whining about RAW to the extent that you refuse to play. My gaming group has been happy to experiment with house rules outside of the 8th ed dogma, maybe find some likeminded players and actually enjoy the game again?

**TangoTwoBravo**

the_scotsman wrote:
Crimson wrote:
Getting the CP during the game instead of getting it all at once is excellent. It reduces the alpha-strikeyness and keeps the latter turns more interesting.

It is odd that so many abilities that they've added late in the edition "Designed for 9th ed" seem to be based around having a pool of command points available before the game to spend on innumerable relics, WL traits, special upgrades, etc....

I wonder if we'll have kind of a "Quasi-Kill Team" setup where you've got a pool of CP available at the start to spend on army upgrades, allies, etc, and then you generate CP to use on stratagems throughout the game.

I guess we're all trying to glean as much as we can from the words of the various Q&A. In the Q&A last week they implied that you start with the same number of CPs and that you could spend them on things like allies or use them in game for Stratagems. The PA for my two main armies certainly had plenty of in-game Stratagems added along with the pre-game ones. Having additional ones generate during the game is a nice touch, perhaps, to make the later turns more meaningful.

**Nah Man Pichu**

DarknessEternal wrote:
UGO/IGO means skip this edition.

Maybe 10th will have alternate activations that actually make for a playable game.

Thanks for your thoughtful contribution to the conversation.

I do really like the HQ idea, I'm just spitballing but it might reduce the prevalence of one-dimensional HQ's like Smash Captains if you're at risk of losing CP if they die.

Or you just plan for that. Either way it's an interesting addition to the slot that a lot of the times has struggled to find it's niche.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
Crimson wrote:
Getting the CP during the game instead of getting it all at once is excellent. It reduces the alpha-strikeyness and keeps the latter turns more interesting.

It is odd that so many abilities that they've added late in the edition "Designed for 9th ed" seem to be based around having a pool of command points available before the game to spend on innumerable relics, WL traits, special upgrades, etc....

I wonder if we'll have kind of a "Quasi-Kill Team" setup where you've got a pool of CP available at the start to spend on army upgrades, allies, etc, and then you generate CP to use on stratagems throughout the game.

I guess we're all trying to glean as much as we can from the words of the various Q&A. In the Q&A last week they implied that you start with the same number of CPs and that you could spend them on things like allies or use them in game for Stratagems. The PA for my two main armies certainly had plenty of in-game Stratagems added along with the pre-game ones. Having additional ones generate during the game is a nice touch, perhaps, to make the later turns more meaningful.

Where things might get REALLY wacky is all the in-turn stratagems that don't have the new structured step declaration they discussed in today's Q and A. That's going to be a lot of bookkeeping until that given army's 9th ed codex arrives.

**ClockworkZion**

DarknessEternal wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
DarknessEternal wrote:
UGO/IGO means skip this edition.

Maybe 10th will have alternate activations that actually make for a playable game.

Not likely. AA means changing the core of the game from the ground up and means another core rules reset and stsrting from near scratch.

Additionally AA comes with it's own issues and isn't automatically better than the current ruleset. I feel a lot of the AA arguements are a "grass is greener" mindset that figures the different thing is the better thing automatically.

Feel free to check the poll results on whether Apocalypse is better at being 40k than 40k is.

How many more years of unlimited turn one command points to lose half your army before you start playing do you really want?

Apoc has more than AA working in its favor. For one you pull casualties at the end of the turn meaning alpha strikes are nerfed by default. You're comparing apples to oranges and declaring the pear the winner and none of this has to do with 9th ed.

**Slayer-Fan123**

ClockworkZion wrote:
DarknessEternal wrote:
UGO/IGO means skip this edition.

Maybe 10th will have alternate activations that actually make for a playable game.

Not likely. AA means changing the core of the game from the ground up and means another core rules reset and stsrting from near scratch.

Additionally AA comes with it's own issues and isn't automatically better than the current ruleset. I feel a lot of the AA arguements are a "grass is greener" mindset that figures the different thing is the better thing automatically.

1. The game needs a rehaul from the ground up anyway
2. What's the best "grass is greener" point you have then?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Leetown wrote:
DarknessEternal wrote:
UGO/IGO means skip this edition.

Maybe 10th will have alternate activations that actually make for a playable game.

Normally I am just a lurker, but I registered for the sole purpose to say: this comment, along with your signature, is the neckbeard-iest thing I have ever seen.

You complain in your sig about players that whine about RAW, yet here you are, whining about RAW to the extent that you refuse to play. My gaming group has been happy to experiment with house rules outside of the 8th ed dogma, maybe find some likeminded players and actually enjoy the game again?

You can find a like minded group of people to experiment with Snakes and Ladders but chances are most people won't defend the core rules of it

**tneva82**

Nah Man Pichu wrote:
Where things might get REALLY wacky is all the in-turn stratagems that don't have the new structured step declaration they discussed in today's Q and A. That's going to be a lot of bookkeeping until that given army's 9th ed codex arrives.

Well most will likely play same as before. Play when you select unit to shoot is unlikely to change. The ones that will are likely easy enough to remember and day 1 faq will sort that out.

**kodos**

torblind wrote:
I did a similar journey, picked up bolt action after a couple of years with 40k. The random alternate activation felt awesome. Then I moved on to "Battlegroup", a different ww2 rule set that was IGO/UGO, and more focused on authenticity perhaps, yet it feels way superior to bolt action. Activation matters less than I thought as long as rules are good.

It really depends what the game wants to be
a game that is about units and strategy, alternating player turns are fine, Kings of War, Warmachine, Battlegroup etc

if it is a skirmish game were model interaction is important and tactics matter, alternating activation is the better choice, Bolt Action, Deadzone, Warpath, ASoIaF

for 40k they would need to decide what they want design the game around it
adding dice rules for the illusion of player interaction instead of getting proper rules is no solution

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

2. What's the best "grass is greener" point you have then?

this is more about that no matter what GW uses, Alternating Player Turn, Alternating Phases , or Alternating Unit Activation, they are going to screw it up anyway

**ziggurattt**

I don't mind IGOUGO that much, but it does give me pause when trying to play a footslogging guard army. It just takes forever to move the models.

**ERJAK**

DarknessEternal wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
DarknessEternal wrote:
UGO/IGO means skip this edition.

Maybe 10th will have alternate activations that actually make for a playable game.

Not likely. AA means changing the core of the game from the ground up and means another core rules reset and stsrting from near scratch.

Additionally AA comes with it's own issues and isn't automatically better than the current ruleset. I feel a lot of the AA arguements are a "grass is greener" mindset that figures the different thing is the better thing automatically.

Feel free to check the poll results on whether Apocalypse is better at being 40k than 40k is.

How many more years of unlimited turn one command points to lose half your army before you start playing do you really want?

One. Haven't had that yet though because I'm not gak. And yes, I'm sure both people who play Apoc and the several hundred people who talk about how much they want to play apoc but just haven't gotten around to it yet. love it very much.

**tneva82**

ziggurattt wrote:
I don't mind IGOUGO that much, but it does give me pause when trying to play a footslogging guard army. It just takes forever to move the models.

AA wouldn't solve that though. You move same number of models anyway. What it does though you can't move in one go but have to pause periodically as you swap activations.

**Slayer-Fan123**

kodos wrote:
torblind wrote:
I did a similar journey, picked up bolt action after a couple of years with 40k. The random alternate activation felt awesome. Then I moved on to "Battlegroup", a different ww2 rule set that was IGO/UGO, and more focused on authenticity perhaps, yet it feels way superior to bolt action. Activation matters less than I thought as long as rules are good.

It really depends what the game wants to be
a game that is about units and strategy, alternating player turns are fine, Kings of War, Warmachine, Battlegroup etc

if it is a skirmish game were model interaction is important and tactics matter, alternating activation is the better choice, Bolt Action, Deadzone, Warpath, ASoIaF

for 40k they would need to decide what they want design the game around it
adding dice rules for the illusion of player interaction instead of getting proper rules is no solution

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

2. What's the best "grass is greener" point you have then?

this is more about that no matter what GW uses, Alternating Player Turn, Alternating Phases , or Alternating Unit Activation, they are going to screw it up anyway

They probably would screw it up, but the least they could do is try so the game is actually interactive.

**ERJAK**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
DarknessEternal wrote:
UGO/IGO means skip this edition.

Maybe 10th will have alternate activations that actually make for a playable game.

Not likely. AA means changing the core of the game from the ground up and means another core rules reset and stsrting from near scratch.

Additionally AA comes with it's own issues and isn't automatically better than the current ruleset. I feel a lot of the AA arguements are a "grass is greener" mindset that figures the different thing is the better thing automatically.

1. The game needs a rehaul from the ground up anyway
2. What's the best "grass is greener" point you have then?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Leetown wrote:
DarknessEternal wrote:
UGO/IGO means skip this edition.

Maybe 10th will have alternate activations that actually make for a playable game.

Normally I am just a lurker, but I registered for the sole purpose to say: this comment, along with your signature, is the neckbeard-iest thing I have ever seen.

You complain in your sig about players that whine about RAW, yet here you are, whining about RAW to the extent that you refuse to play. My gaming group has been happy to experiment with house rules outside of the 8th ed dogma, maybe find some likeminded players and actually enjoy the game again?

You can find a like minded group of people to experiment with Snakes and Ladders but chances are most people won't defend the core rules of it

Alternating activations can take way longer, alternating activations heavily emphasize extraordinarily impactful single units while making things like small troop units actively detrimental, while the overall level of first turn advantage is reduced, it's certainly still there, there's less room for 'tech' style units due to economy of activation. Etc.

**Slayer-Fan123**

ERJAK wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
DarknessEternal wrote:
UGO/IGO means skip this edition.

Maybe 10th will have alternate activations that actually make for a playable game.

Not likely. AA means changing the core of the game from the ground up and means another core rules reset and stsrting from near scratch.

Additionally AA comes with it's own issues and isn't automatically better than the current ruleset. I feel a lot of the AA arguements are a "grass is greener" mindset that figures the different thing is the better thing automatically.

1. The game needs a rehaul from the ground up anyway
2. What's the best "grass is greener" point you have then?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Leetown wrote:
DarknessEternal wrote:
UGO/IGO means skip this edition.

Maybe 10th will have alternate activations that actually make for a playable game.

Normally I am just a lurker, but I registered for the sole purpose to say: this comment, along with your signature, is the neckbeard-iest thing I have ever seen.

You complain in your sig about players that whine about RAW, yet here you are, whining about RAW to the extent that you refuse to play. My gaming group has been happy to experiment with house rules outside of the 8th ed dogma, maybe find some likeminded players and actually enjoy the game again?

You can find a like minded group of people to experiment with Snakes and Ladders but chances are most people won't defend the core rules of it

Alternating activations can take way longer, alternating activations heavily emphasize extraordinarily impactful single units while making things like small troop units actively detrimental, while the overall level of first turn advantage is reduced, it's certainly still there, there's less room for 'tech' style units due to economy of activation. Etc.

1. The game is already long. If you want a short game, play a smaller point level
2. IGOUGO already did that especially with the invention of Strats to throw on those units!
3. You say "less incentive to run MSU" like that's a bad thing somehow.
4. Tech style units die on the first or second turn. Good job taking them and not going first!

Honestly your only real point is #1 about game length, and if an additional half hour is that bad for you in order to actually do something instead of WAITING said half an hour to actually do something, why wouldn't you consider that a win?

**Smaug**

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Lord Damocles wrote:
Soulless wrote:
So...what if a leg is blown off?

What, are you suggesting that being quadrupedal would make more sense? Four legs?! Preposterous!

Quadrupeds can't move so well with 3 legs either, so that critique doesn't really hold water.
You know they shoot horses when they break a leg in order to put them out of their misery, as they can't live on 3 legs and the pain is excruciating, right?
There are some coping mechanisms in place for most other animals, but said poor animal has to first get out of danger, and even then they are going to have a hard time.

If you really want to critique the combat effectiveness of a 3 legged warmachine, you should be advocating for treads or grav systems, not legs.
Walkers, whilst they look cool, are terrible warmachines and are fairly unreliable if you were to actually examine them.
As design sins go, a tripod design isn't bad. Its better than putting a big gaping hole that's screaming "please shoot me in my weak spot" like they did on some of the 5th ed vehicles.

I can see something with three legged and a large blade as a line holder like Viking housecarls with a danish axes. Three legs would provide a strong support against being rushed and being knocked to the ground, but unless they very unique form of movement l don’t think they will be faster. The Droidekas in Star Wars don’t move around that much after they are on their feet. I wonder if the number of legs is going to be a way of showing rank, warriors have two, skorpekh destroyers three, and some Crypteks four (Illuminor Szeras). If so will the Silent King have an infinite number, a la our number is legion?

**Crimson**

We known it is not gonna be AA, it is pointless to argue about it and Slayer hopefully can finally give up and find a game they like better and take their endless whining elsewhere.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Smaug wrote:
CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Lord Damocles wrote:
Soulless wrote:
So...what if a leg is blown off?

What, are you suggesting that being quadrupedal would make more sense? Four legs?! Preposterous!

Quadrupeds can't move so well with 3 legs either, so that critique doesn't really hold water.
You know they shoot horses when they break a leg in order to put them out of their misery, as they can't live on 3 legs and the pain is excruciating, right?
There are some coping mechanisms in place for most other animals, but said poor animal has to first get out of danger, and even then they are going to have a hard time.

If you really want to critique the combat effectiveness of a 3 legged warmachine, you should be advocating for treads or grav systems, not legs.
Walkers, whilst they look cool, are terrible warmachines and are fairly unreliable if you were to actually examine them.
As design sins go, a tripod design isn't bad. Its better than putting a big gaping hole that's screaming "please shoot me in my weak spot" like they did on some of the 5th ed vehicles.

I can see something with three legged and a large blade as a line holder like Viking housecarls with a danish axes. Three legs would provide a strong support against being rushed and being knocked to the ground, but unless they very unique form of movement l don’t think they will be faster. The Droidekas in Star Wars don’t move around that much after they are on their feet. I wonder if the number of legs is going to be a way of showing rank, warriors have two, skorpekh destroyers three, and some Crypteks four (Illuminor Szeras). If so will the Silent King have an infinite number, a la our number is legion?

That wouldn't make sense since the CTan took their soles right?

**CthuluIsSpy**

Smaug wrote:
CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Lord Damocles wrote:
Soulless wrote:
So...what if a leg is blown off?

What, are you suggesting that being quadrupedal would make more sense? Four legs?! Preposterous!

Quadrupeds can't move so well with 3 legs either, so that critique doesn't really hold water.
You know they shoot horses when they break a leg in order to put them out of their misery, as they can't live on 3 legs and the pain is excruciating, right?
There are some coping mechanisms in place for most other animals, but said poor animal has to first get out of danger, and even then they are going to have a hard time.

If you really want to critique the combat effectiveness of a 3 legged warmachine, you should be advocating for treads or grav systems, not legs.
Walkers, whilst they look cool, are terrible warmachines and are fairly unreliable if you were to actually examine them.
As design sins go, a tripod design isn't bad. Its better than putting a big gaping hole that's screaming "please shoot me in my weak spot" like they did on some of the 5th ed vehicles.

I can see something with three legged and a large blade as a line holder like Viking housecarls with a danish axes. Three legs would provide a strong support against being rushed and being knocked to the ground, but unless they very unique form of movement l don’t think they will be faster. The Droidekas in Star Wars don’t move around that much after they are on their feet. I wonder if the number of legs is going to be a way of showing rank, warriors have two, skorpekh destroyers three, and some Crypteks four (Illuminor Szeras). If so will the Silent King have an infinite number, a la our number is legion?

Except in the trailer you see them being able to move really fast.
Which is certainly weird, but I think that's the point; the three legged design is supposed to evoke War of the Worlds and something alien, something unnatural. Which is what Necrons are supposed to be, not a bunch of senile old robots floating around in their flimsy barges, as was portrayed in 5th ed.

Destroyers have no legs, Overlords (who are supposed to be near the top of the Necron Hierachy) are bipeds, and Canoptek Units, such as wraiths and Stalkers, tend to have at least 6 legs. So I think its safe to say that the number of legs have nothing to do with rank.

**leopard**

nick the activation system from Chain of Command - your HQs now actually do something - you use them to activate other units when they are activated.

in your "turn" you probably won't activate your entire army

**Dudeface**

tneva82 wrote:
Nah Man Pichu wrote:
Noted that it specifies "Battle-Forged" forces will be the ones generating CP in the Command Phase. Could mitigate a lot of the concerns about Troops being invalidated if we've still got a motivation to take a Battalion.

Like battalion generates CP? Eh that would just mean they have been flat out lying from the get go about getting away from loyal 32's etc CP batteries. They would still be there.

Rather it's likely to refer to abilities we already have to generate more CP

You don't need troops to be battleforged, that's a term used in 8th ed already to mean your army simply complies with matched play rules and the detachment structure.

Hell you get 3 cp bonus in 8th specifically for being battleforged, regardless what detachments you use.

**tneva82**

leopard wrote:
nick the activation system from Chain of Command - your HQs now actually do something - you use them to activate other units when they are activated.

in your "turn" you probably won't activate your entire army

How many? If 1 per hq some armies with expensive ineffective hp's would get shafted

Plus is deathstar playstyle that fun? 7th and 8th already are

**Eldarsif**

Can we, like, not argue about Alternate Activation and IGO/UGO? The latter is in the game in 9th and that's not going to change anytime soon. It's a moot point to argue about it in the News and Rumors section about 9th.

**tneva82**

Dudeface wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
Nah Man Pichu wrote:
Noted that it specifies "Battle-Forged" forces will be the ones generating CP in the Command Phase. Could mitigate a lot of the concerns about Troops being invalidated if we've still got a motivation to take a Battalion.

Like battalion generates CP? Eh that would just mean they have been flat out lying from the get go about getting away from loyal 32's etc CP batteries. They would still be there.

Rather it's likely to refer to abilities we already have to generate more CP

You don't need troops to be battleforged, that's a term used in 8th ed already to mean your army simply complies with matched play rules and the detachment structure.

Hell you get 3 cp bonus in 8th specifically for being battleforged, regardless what detachments you use.

Note the part i quoted. See "if we've got still motivation to take battalion"? What you think he was refering if not taking bat's help gaining cp?