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.

stratigo wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

stratigo wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
Almost everything shown is good for Marines so far. Horde damage buff. Reduction in starting CP when they are one of the least reliant on it. Soup penalties while they have extra buffs for "choosing" to mono faction. Lesser points increase than their mirror.

Will take seeing what non Marine 9th books look like but the reigning champ is looking almost unscathed so far.

.. in what world are CULTISTS the mirror of intercessors. they're completely differant units with completely differant goals, yes they're both troops but that doesn't make them mirrors at all.

Mirror as in the armies Space Marines/Chaos Space Marines

Beautifully nitpicked though. I'll edit it to avoid my point being sidestepped so easily.

I'm pretty sure there are 0 CSM players who put Cultist in their armies to do the job that Intercessors do in a SM army. Other than both being Troops choices, they are still completely different units, as BrianDavion noted.

Okay, so, savvy, what DOES a unit of intercessors and cultists do in this, the current end of 8th meta, do?

For a certain build of marines, intercessors make up a tough to kill chaff wall. For some builds of chaos, cultists make a large chaff wall. They're pretty comparable here. Iron hands intercessors and abbandon backed cultists often have the same job.

How about kicking out a large plurality of anti infantry firepower? Intercessors in tac doctrine using vet intercessor trait verse cultists using VotlW and maybe even slaanesh double shooting. There's a good comparison there.


The main difference is simply, GW has made intercessors increasingly valuable, and cultists increasingly unvaluable. There was a point that a blob of 30 cultists could and did do anything you wanted 10 intercessors to do, but vastly better. Now it is the reverse.

There really isn't that many roles in the game, there's only a handful that any unit fits in to.

In 8th Cultists largely gained value from being easy to spam for large amounts of CP on the cheap. Everything after that was just a bonus.

In 9th they're still a cheap unit who can be easilly tossed onto objectives to perform actions without investing a large amount of points into them or losing much of your army's damage out put.

An Intercessor Squad not shooting or punching things is a much larger relative chunk of the army not killing things.

That's just an off the top of my head thought though, there may be more going on that we don't know. Like maybe hordes get AoS morale mechanics (+1Ld for every 10 models in a unit).

I'm sorry, but this isn't correct. Cultists when they were used competitively made up a core part of the offensive force of a chaos army. 30 cultists rapid firing with plus 1 to hit, plus 1 to wound, full to hit rerolls, was a very strong combination for much of 8th edition and featured in a few top 8 chaos lists. Cultists were then nerfed and no longer had the same efficiency for points and filtered out. They aren't notably better than other choices (like nurglings) for battalion filler. If you are spamming cultists, you are probably still trying to make the abaddon blob work, which is still fairly good, just not tope tables good. Or just making a bad list.

Intercessors were, at one point, completely unused for anything competitive. They were, flatly, bad at the start of 8th, and GW had to repeatedly buff them. All those buffs have now, of course, compounded to where intercessors are probably really too good for their points when they can stack all of them. But the issue is, they're not great without those stacked buffs, which is a bit of a quandry in how to balance then because not even all space marines take full buff advantage.

at the end of the day cultists represent cheap chaff infantry with a low BS/WSlittle to no armor, weak guns, 1 wound, and are taken in large units.
Intercessors meanwhile are elite infantry with a relativly high armor save, a good WS/BS. Strong weaponry (we're talking the basic infantry guns here) multiple wounds and are typically taken in small squad sizes. they're not mirrors, they are in fact closer to polar oppisites. yes they can be used for similer purposes but how they go about it is VERY VERY differant. A MIRROR would be CSMs vs Tactical Marines.

so we can't really say much beyond the fact that it's looking like 9th edition MAY favor "elite heavy infantry" over "cheap disposable chaff"

The subject of the entire post was the Space Marine faction. I even clarified that for you when you read mirror and mistakenly applied it to Intercessor/Cultist.

Well done posting all caps diatribes against a premise I already tried to help you realize I wasn't taking though.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Speaking of CA, the latest one has some really cool missions. Are they just... gone now?

Once 9th drops, yes.

And that's why GW doesn't deserve money for their printed material

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
And that's why GW doesn't deserve money for their printed material

I cautiously bought the Datacards for Codex Marines and Ultramarines as I figured they'd be the least likely to be revised given how new they were.

In a perfect world the Stratagems for Marines/Marine supplements would remain the same, and any new ones would be released in a limited release "update" pack that just contains the new/updated Stratagems. Along side this would be a full pack containing all the current datacards. This would allow people who already own the (very, very new) datacards to just update their set rather than having to buy a whole new set.

But GW doesn't operate in a perfect world.

 Eldarain wrote:
The subject of the entire post was the Space Marine faction. I even clarified that for you when you read mirror and mistakenly applied it to Intercessor/Cultist.

except THATS ALL WE fething HAVE! an intercessor vs a Cultist. that is it. our SINGLE fething datapoint. there's no "mirror" here. we literally see a unit that is one of the most expendable chaff units in the game, and a unit that is, short of custodes one of the most elite generic troop choices in the game.


even the basic codices aren't exactly mirrors of one another. (GW's been moving away from that for some time) chill. if tactical marines are somehow cheaper then chaos Marines? THEN you have a right to complain. (I'll be right beside you doing so)

BrianDavion wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
The subject of the entire post was the Space Marine faction. I even clarified that for you when you read mirror and mistakenly applied it to Intercessor/Cultist.

except THATS ALL WE fething HAVE! an intercessor vs a Cultist. that is it. our SINGLE fething datapoint. there's no "mirror" here. we literally see a unit that is one of the most expendable chaff units in the game, and a unit that is, short of custodes one of the most elite generic troop choices in the game.


even the basic codices aren't exactly mirrors of one another. (GW's been moving away from that for some time) chill. if tactical marines are somehow cheaper then chaos Marines? THEN you have a right to complain. (I'll be right beside you doing so)

Yes we have the core unit in the most powerful faction. Which has been piled high with special rules not reflected in its cost. It's better than the lesser races elites.

On the other side a unit already nerfed multiple times one of which literally stripping it of any sliver of the unaccounted free buffs that exemplify the modern design. Heading into an edition where horde units will be taking more hits than non horde units and we've been told morale will be more impactful than 8th.

Which of these units should have gotten a higher points increase?

Which goes to my original point. The Marines are already Ascendant and nothing points to that changing. Quite the contrary everything we've been shown is to their advantage.

Or you know obsess about my use of the word mirror and keep ALL CAPS raging.

 Eldarain wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
The subject of the entire post was the Space Marine faction. I even clarified that for you when you read mirror and mistakenly applied it to Intercessor/Cultist.

except THATS ALL WE fething HAVE! an intercessor vs a Cultist. that is it. our SINGLE fething datapoint. there's no "mirror" here. we literally see a unit that is one of the most expendable chaff units in the game, and a unit that is, short of custodes one of the most elite generic troop choices in the game.


even the basic codices aren't exactly mirrors of one another. (GW's been moving away from that for some time) chill. if tactical marines are somehow cheaper then chaos Marines? THEN you have a right to complain. (I'll be right beside you doing so)

Yes we have the core unit in the most powerful faction. Which has been piled high with special rules not reflected in its cost. It's better than the lesser races elites.

On the other side a unit already nerfed multiple times one of which literally stripping it of any sliver of the unaccounted free buffs that exemplify the modern design. Heading into an edition where horde units will be taking more hits than non horde units and we've been told morale will be more impactful than 8th.

Which of these units should have gotten a higher points increase?

Which goes to my original point. The Marines are already Ascendant and nothing points to that changing. Quite the contrary everything we've been shown is to their advantage.

Or you know obsess about my use of the word mirror and keep ALL CAPS raging.

Based on 8th ed? The Intercessor. Full stop. Charge for the guns too. Based on 9th? No fething clue.

Fair. But we can only go on what we've been given. I admit I'm starting at a negative mindset but I also haven't been given reason for optimism yet.

BrianDavion wrote:

Spoiler:

stratigo wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

stratigo wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
Almost everything shown is good for Marines so far. Horde damage buff. Reduction in starting CP when they are one of the least reliant on it. Soup penalties while they have extra buffs for "choosing" to mono faction. Lesser points increase than their mirror.

Will take seeing what non Marine 9th books look like but the reigning champ is looking almost unscathed so far.

.. in what world are CULTISTS the mirror of intercessors. they're completely differant units with completely differant goals, yes they're both troops but that doesn't make them mirrors at all.

Mirror as in the armies Space Marines/Chaos Space Marines

Beautifully nitpicked though. I'll edit it to avoid my point being sidestepped so easily.

I'm pretty sure there are 0 CSM players who put Cultist in their armies to do the job that Intercessors do in a SM army. Other than both being Troops choices, they are still completely different units, as BrianDavion noted.

Okay, so, savvy, what DOES a unit of intercessors and cultists do in this, the current end of 8th meta, do?

For a certain build of marines, intercessors make up a tough to kill chaff wall. For some builds of chaos, cultists make a large chaff wall. They're pretty comparable here. Iron hands intercessors and abbandon backed cultists often have the same job.

How about kicking out a large plurality of anti infantry firepower? Intercessors in tac doctrine using vet intercessor trait verse cultists using VotlW and maybe even slaanesh double shooting. There's a good comparison there.


The main difference is simply, GW has made intercessors increasingly valuable, and cultists increasingly unvaluable. There was a point that a blob of 30 cultists could and did do anything you wanted 10 intercessors to do, but vastly better. Now it is the reverse.

There really isn't that many roles in the game, there's only a handful that any unit fits in to.

In 8th Cultists largely gained value from being easy to spam for large amounts of CP on the cheap. Everything after that was just a bonus.

In 9th they're still a cheap unit who can be easilly tossed onto objectives to perform actions without investing a large amount of points into them or losing much of your army's damage out put.

An Intercessor Squad not shooting or punching things is a much larger relative chunk of the army not killing things.

That's just an off the top of my head thought though, there may be more going on that we don't know. Like maybe hordes get AoS morale mechanics (+1Ld for every 10 models in a unit).

I'm sorry, but this isn't correct. Cultists when they were used competitively made up a core part of the offensive force of a chaos army. 30 cultists rapid firing with plus 1 to hit, plus 1 to wound, full to hit rerolls, was a very strong combination for much of 8th edition and featured in a few top 8 chaos lists. Cultists were then nerfed and no longer had the same efficiency for points and filtered out. They aren't notably better than other choices (like nurglings) for battalion filler. If you are spamming cultists, you are probably still trying to make the abaddon blob work, which is still fairly good, just not tope tables good. Or just making a bad list.

Intercessors were, at one point, completely unused for anything competitive. They were, flatly, bad at the start of 8th, and GW had to repeatedly buff them. All those buffs have now, of course, compounded to where intercessors are probably really too good for their points when they can stack all of them. But the issue is, they're not great without those stacked buffs, which is a bit of a quandry in how to balance then because not even all space marines take full buff advantage.

at the end of the day cultists represent cheap chaff infantry with a low BS/WSlittle to no armor, weak guns, 1 wound, and are taken in large units.
Intercessors meanwhile are elite infantry with a relativly high armor save, a good WS/BS. Strong weaponry (we're talking the basic infantry guns here) multiple wounds and are typically taken in small squad sizes. they're not mirrors, they are in fact closer to polar oppisites. yes they can be used for similer purposes but how they go about it is VERY VERY differant. A MIRROR would be CSMs vs Tactical Marines.

so we can't really say much beyond the fact that it's looking like 9th edition MAY favor "elite heavy infantry" over "cheap disposable chaff"

They did say that we would see more super soldiers, problem is, all super soldiers aren't currently playing on a level playing field. That, however, will most likely have to wait for a new codex to be addressed. Whenever that may happen.

 Eldarain wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
The subject of the entire post was the Space Marine faction. I even clarified that for you when you read mirror and mistakenly applied it to Intercessor/Cultist.

except THATS ALL WE fething HAVE! an intercessor vs a Cultist. that is it. our SINGLE fething datapoint. there's no "mirror" here. we literally see a unit that is one of the most expendable chaff units in the game, and a unit that is, short of custodes one of the most elite generic troop choices in the game.


even the basic codices aren't exactly mirrors of one another. (GW's been moving away from that for some time) chill. if tactical marines are somehow cheaper then chaos Marines? THEN you have a right to complain. (I'll be right beside you doing so)

Yes we have the core unit in the most powerful faction. Which has been piled high with special rules not reflected in its cost. It's better than the lesser races elites.

On the other side a unit already nerfed multiple times one of which literally stripping it of any sliver of the unaccounted free buffs that exemplify the modern design. Heading into an edition where horde units will be taking more hits than non horde units and we've been told morale will be more impactful than 8th.

Which of these units should have gotten a higher points increase?

Which goes to my original point. The Marines are already Ascendant and nothing points to that changing. Quite the contrary everything we've been shown is to their advantage.

Or you know obsess about my use of the word mirror and keep ALL CAPS raging.

I'd almost be willing to put money on space marines being preeminent only until eldar get a new codex

9th edition sounds like an "elites" edition. Normal cheap troops will not contribute to cp, so why bother bringing them? Also, GW will want to continue to push primaris, which are obviously the elite amongst the troop choices.

They want you to be able to field an all primaris army with zero downsides. Because all the new models they want to sell to Marine players are primaris.

If horde style lists gets the short end of the stick at first, they are probably fine with that. They will let chapter approved address that balance issue.

So my prediction is that 9th ed will launch with "elite" type units firmly in the forefront, and this includes all manner of primaris.

I find it funny after all the times people have said "4 point Guardsmen are too cheap" and "we should increase the points cost to allow more space for points granularity", people complain because they increased the points cost of units (including the Chaos Guardsmen counterpart) to allow more granularity. Love you, Dakka

I feel like people are overlooking the numbers game hordes play.

First off, the more expensive a model is the less valuable secondaries that require actions are to that model's army. Which has a higher opportunity cost to no shoot or fight: 16 cultists or 5 Intercessors?

Intercessors hands down. 100 pts of Marine is at a greater disadvantage not engaging enemy units than 96pts of Cultists.

Horde units can cap more points with cheap troops units and quickly max secondaries in a game meaning it can be a lot harder for an Elite player to catch up, especially if the horde can deny easy secondaries for Marines by keeping their scoring units away from the Los and charge range of the Marines early game.

40k is also a game that favors weight of dice. Forcing elite units to take more saves than they can kill models wins games.

Lower points investment on units to score with also leaves more room for killer units. Pure elite armies will have to trade off more of their army's utility pieces to try to keep from falling too far behind on scoring, something that will increase horde durability.

And based on the tournament formats 9th is taking from being tabled won't lose you the game meaning that an Elite army player who just tries to table will lose more often than a horde army that focuses on scoring over killing.

Also most of those units taking actions can't be within a set distance of an opposing unit to score in the secondaries GW showed. This means hordes can more easily prevent elite armies from scoring objectives based on holding.

I am willing to bet some, if not most of the killing secondaries will be capped to ensure elite armies can't runaway with the game against hordes too. ITC has caps for that reason for example.

That's just some of the stuff based on the strength of hordes in ITC style scoring games, which 9th clearly is taking a lot of notes from.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I feel like people are overlooking the numbers game hordes play.

First off, the more expensive a model is the less valuable secondaries that require actions are to that model's army. Which has a higher opportunity cost to no shoot or fight: 16 cultists or 5 Intercessors?

Intercessors hands down. 100 pts of Marine is at a greater disadvantage not engaging enemy units than 96pts of Cultists.

Horde units can cap more points with cheap troops units and quickly max secondaries in a game meaning it can be a lot harder for an Elite player to catch up, especially if the horde can deny easy secondaries for Marines by keeping their scoring units away from the Los and charge range of the Marines early game.

40k is also a game that favors weight of dice. Forcing elite units to take more saves than they can kill models wins games.

Lower points investment on units to score with also leaves more room for killer units. Pure elite armies will have to trade off more of their army's utility pieces to try to keep from falling too far behind on scoring, something that will increase horde durability.

And based on the tournament formats 9th is taking from being tabled won't lose you the game meaning that an Elite army player who just tries to table will lose more often than a horde army that focuses on scoring over killing.

Also most of those units taking actions can't be within a set distance of an opposing unit to score in the secondaries GW showed. This means hordes can more easily prevent elite armies from scoring objectives based on holding.

I am willing to bet some, if not most of the killing secondaries will be capped to ensure elite armies can't runaway with the game against hordes too. ITC has caps for that reason for example.

That's just some of the stuff based on the strength of hordes in ITC style scoring games, which 9th clearly is taking a lot of notes from.

and if they make elite troops too pricy, because of that people won't take them. at all.

I for one am not really eager to see Marine players forced to return to the "scout meta"

 alextroy wrote:
I find it funny after all the times people have said "4 point Guardsmen are too cheap" and "we should increase the points cost to allow more space for points granularity", people complain because they increased the points cost of units (including the Chaos Guardsmen counterpart) to allow more granularity. Love you, Dakka

You make the fatal mistake that people always make with the cheap "Love you Dakka!" posts: You assume that the people saying the first thing and the people saying the second thing are the same people.

BrianDavion wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I feel like people are overlooking the numbers game hordes play.

First off, the more expensive a model is the less valuable secondaries that require actions are to that model's army. Which has a higher opportunity cost to no shoot or fight: 16 cultists or 5 Intercessors?

Intercessors hands down. 100 pts of Marine is at a greater disadvantage not engaging enemy units than 96pts of Cultists.

Horde units can cap more points with cheap troops units and quickly max secondaries in a game meaning it can be a lot harder for an Elite player to catch up, especially if the horde can deny easy secondaries for Marines by keeping their scoring units away from the Los and charge range of the Marines early game.

40k is also a game that favors weight of dice. Forcing elite units to take more saves than they can kill models wins games.

Lower points investment on units to score with also leaves more room for killer units. Pure elite armies will have to trade off more of their army's utility pieces to try to keep from falling too far behind on scoring, something that will increase horde durability.

And based on the tournament formats 9th is taking from being tabled won't lose you the game meaning that an Elite army player who just tries to table will lose more often than a horde army that focuses on scoring over killing.

Also most of those units taking actions can't be within a set distance of an opposing unit to score in the secondaries GW showed. This means hordes can more easily prevent elite armies from scoring objectives based on holding.

I am willing to bet some, if not most of the killing secondaries will be capped to ensure elite armies can't runaway with the game against hordes too. ITC has caps for that reason for example.

That's just some of the stuff based on the strength of hordes in ITC style scoring games, which 9th clearly is taking a lot of notes from.

and if they make elite troops too pricy, because of that people won't take them. at all.

I for one am not really eager to see Marine players forced to return to the "scout meta"

Something else worth noting is that Primaris have very few (if any) weapons that would be "blast" weapons. All their wargear is more about filling the air with bullets over blowing stuff up.

Eldenfirefly wrote:
9th edition sounds like an "elites" edition. Normal cheap troops will not contribute to cp, so why bother bringing them? Also, GW will want to continue to push primaris, which are obviously the elite amongst the troop choices.

They want you to be able to field an all primaris army with zero downsides. Because all the new models they want to sell to Marine players are primaris.

If horde style lists gets the short end of the stick at first, they are probably fine with that. They will let chapter approved address that balance issue.

So my prediction is that 9th ed will launch with "elite" type units firmly in the forefront, and this includes all manner of primaris.

Whether it turns out to be an elite edition or not is still up for grabs, but this 'everything they do is for primaris' stuff needs to calm the hell down. So far in the entire history of Space marine competitive play 2 primaris units have been considered majorly competitive, Repulsors when IH could make them indestructible and Intercessors because they were a point efficient troop choice. Everything else is good but unspectacular or a worse version of something mini-marines have. Not even mentioning the whole 'they were freaking terrible on release' thing.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
.... or maybe they didnt expect Stratagems to become 90% of list building?

I've always felt like stratagems, these dynamic cinematic, tide turning, pivotal gaming "action scenes" were better suited for Narrative play.

I like this limited CP thing. Kinda shows me they never intended 20+ cp builds, but gamers gonna game the system.

I agree. I'm sick of people building lists to feed command points into a couple units. It's the epitome of "power gamer".

It seems like this new cp format is going to be better. It should help reduce crippling alpha strikes due to cp dumps early on in the game.

Two things left for me to see before I'll be solid on this one.

One: Detatchments, or army building in general. I need to know what direction they're going with, now that we have the four battle sizes and the CP worked out.

Two: Terrain. We know the official rules were awful and they've changed them, probably aligned with the ITC but hopefully more than that. But we need to know more.

After that? Things like specific point costs or the pages of new strats are *nice*, but they aren't *essential*.

But we need to know more on army building and terrain and the sooner the better.

C'mon G-dubs. Help a brother out.

I for one am liking what I see, but I am not going to go all out on them until I see what shakes out in the secondary market when you see the ubiquitous sunshine johnny's run out there and eat that elephant in two bites, only to put it on Fee Bay for a song and a dance.

Those names though... Damn.... SMH.

That new Starter set is pretty cherry though. 130 for that lot is a pretty good deal to start the game with. Add in a couple of squads, and you really don't need much more.

Has anyone seen he new book yet? What are those guns on the bikes, Twin linked Storm bolters? Why did they pick Motorcycles, instead of Grav Bikes? Other then that, They fit for the asthetic, and an army on the table is going to be YUUUUUGE!

You want to know who I want? a YUUUUDICATOR! He is so cool, that I will use him in all of my armies. HE is my new Waifu.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

DanielFM wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
. An exception do with would be troops, which can still shoot and fight.
.

That would make sense in the crunch but be nonsense in the fluff.
Why would a less trained, basic infantry unit be more capable of performing actions while remaining battle operative than better trained and equipped elite units?
I hope they don't pull something like that. Total immersion breaker.

More immersion breaking than a tank or a unit of terminators being unable to control an objective, because a grot is next to them?
Because that's basically what objective secured is.

And I would argue on that inconsistency, saying different units should have values per model when it comes to claiming an objective.

The last thing we need is bloat because "fluff" reasons

The judicars is gak especially compared to the real world
Inspiration of the sword.

Not Online!!! wrote:
The judicars is gak especially compared to the real world
Inspiration of the sword.

I think he looks pretty cool.

punisher357 wrote:

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
.... or maybe they didnt expect Stratagems to become 90% of list building?

I've always felt like stratagems, these dynamic cinematic, tide turning, pivotal gaming "action scenes" were better suited for Narrative play.

I like this limited CP thing. Kinda shows me they never intended 20+ cp builds, but gamers gonna game the system.

I agree. I'm sick of people building lists to feed command points into a couple units. It's the epitome of "power gamer".

It seems like this new cp format is going to be better. It should help reduce crippling alpha strikes due to cp dumps early on in the game.

Then armies that were Made to just barely Function with them did not exist? Harlequins , csm and even gk?

Incidentaly one of said armies also get's what seems to be a further nerf relatively speaking whilest relatively speaking the best troop choice in the game seems to get a buff?
That doesn't Make you question the decision?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
The judicars is gak especially compared to the real world
Inspiration of the sword.

I think he looks pretty cool.

He can't even wear a cloak propperly...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
The judicars is gak especially compared to the real world
Inspiration of the sword.

I think he looks pretty cool.

Agreed. I want one even if his rules are crap just to put on the table now and then for fun games.

Bdrone wrote:
Ahh. so less command points than expected at 2k, but hey, 3k is the 4th supported playing size now, with a point increase to match.

well, thats amusing, and makes preparing for 9th even harder to predict than before. i wonder what this did for my prospective knight and IG lists. can't even exactly call it a nerf, because the points changes could be all over the place, except for people who played for max command points. pretty sure they get less no matter what now unless that command phase thing is involved with some kind of generation as theorized.

12 CP + what generated in turn. Reece said average you have more than before but less than maximum. Maybe 1CP per turn then for 18 CP in game. 2 CP would be 24CP for game.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
The judicars is gak especially compared to the real world
Inspiration of the sword.

I think he looks pretty cool.

He can't even wear a cloak propperly...

It's a coat, and it's a visual reference to samurai movies IIRC (digging a bit it seems the first movie to do it was Yojimbo, where the idea was that a Samurai that lost their master would keep their sword arm out of their sleeve to symbolize the loss, that or it's a Final Fantasy X reference (which was a Yojimbo reference in its own right) it just looks badass).

Not Online!!! wrote:

punisher357 wrote:

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
.... or maybe they didnt expect Stratagems to become 90% of list building?

I've always felt like stratagems, these dynamic cinematic, tide turning, pivotal gaming "action scenes" were better suited for Narrative play.

I like this limited CP thing. Kinda shows me they never intended 20+ cp builds, but gamers gonna game the system.

I agree. I'm sick of people building lists to feed command points into a couple units. It's the epitome of "power gamer".

It seems like this new cp format is going to be better. It should help reduce crippling alpha strikes due to cp dumps early on in the game.

Then armies that were Made to just barely Function with them did not exist? Harlequins , csm and even gk?

Incidentaly one of said armies also get's what seems to be a further nerf relatively speaking whilest relatively speaking the best troop choice in the game seems to get a buff?
That doesn't Make you question the decision?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
The judicars is gak especially compared to the real world
Inspiration of the sword.

I think he looks pretty cool.

He can't even wear a cloak propperly...

But he can wear a coat/duster... which is what he is wearing.

Wakshaani wrote:
Two things left for me to see before I'll be solid on this one.

One: Detatchments, or army building in general. I need to know what direction they're going with, now that we have the four battle sizes and the CP worked out.

Two: Terrain. We know the official rules were awful and they've changed them, probably aligned with the ITC but hopefully more than that. But we need to know more.

After that? Things like specific point costs or the pages of new strats are *nice*, but they aren't *essential*.

But we need to know more on army building and terrain and the sooner the better.

C'mon G-dubs. Help a brother out.

I'm happy with the reveals so far, more details would be nice, but the whole point is to tease and generate buzz, so I'm fine with it only being small reveals so far.

I agree that army building/detachments info would be nice,but what I really want to see is some reveals for terrain: how it works, how much terrain will be recommended, but I think what I'm most interested in seeing now is the nrew morale attrition mechanic. If Leadership really does become meaningful, this could be a game changer.

tneva82 wrote:

Bdrone wrote:
Ahh. so less command points than expected at 2k, but hey, 3k is the 4th supported playing size now, with a point increase to match.

well, thats amusing, and makes preparing for 9th even harder to predict than before. i wonder what this did for my prospective knight and IG lists. can't even exactly call it a nerf, because the points changes could be all over the place, except for people who played for max command points. pretty sure they get less no matter what now unless that command phase thing is involved with some kind of generation as theorized.

12 CP + what generated in turn. Reece said average you have more than before but less than maximum. Maybe 1CP per turn then for 18 CP in game. 2 CP would be 24CP for game.

Both players generate CP each player turn, so it'd be 24 CP a game for 1CP a turn, and 36/game for 2CP a turn: