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.

 Argive wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
After watching the Reveal and QnA there is one thing that struck me. Nowhere do they mention detachments explicitly except once, and even then he backtracked so I am leaning towards agreeing with my friend that there will be nothing like detachments.

In fact, I am kinda leaning towards it will be a similar system to what AoS already has. You can take X amount of heroes depending on army size and there will be Y limitations to larger units depending on army size.

We of course won't know until we see some leaks, but the guys in the stream were very explicit that you are going to be able to make the army you want and there won't be artificial limitations like x amount of troops.

They did say that people will still be taking troops for the same reasons they have to now...
Not sure what hes on about because I take 3-6 troops because I have for CP tax..

One thing that remains is the RO3.. So even the troops requirement goes away from a generating CP perspective the RO3 should in theory prevent spamming just unit x without repercussions.
Also spamming heavy support might not be a good idea, depending on terrain rules and so on. So this might not be as bleak as the -1 modifier cap sounds

Waay to many veriables. You can just see it falling flat on its face straight away.. Its GW after all.. They have "amazing ideas every 60 seconds"...... Which is not great for a game this big.
I wish they just released a beta set of rules so we can all play test it and pick it apart.. Why they don't beta test things with their player base for freee before putting out a tight paid for version is absolutely beyond me..

Come on you know the reason. That would involve them giving us things for " free " like a vampire faced with the sun they recoil in fear and disgust from such a thing. Better idea for them is charge full price for another beta ruleset, change it over the years so the rules are fundamentally changed and that full priced product sucks by the end. Then do it again next edition. Profit. The GW way.

AngryAngel80 wrote:
...Come on you know the reason. That would involve them giving us things for " free " like a vampire faced with the sun they recoil in fear and disgust from such a thing. Better idea for them is charge full price for another beta ruleset, change it over the years so the rules are fundamentally changed and that full priced product sucks by the end. Then do it again next edition. Profit. The GW way.

Pathfinder v2 charged you for a printed hardback of the playtest rules while also giving you free digital playtest rules and some people bought it.

Not Online!!! wrote:
It, as stated before, entierly depends on the army in question and the ammount of CP granted baseline.
10 CP f.e. whilest a lot for knights mono would literally be not worth playing for CSM at 1000+ pts level.

Also the baseline, what detachments can be free is also important.if only patrols, brigades and battalions can be then ok, troops still serve a purpose.
If all can be free or cost, why should i bother with troops in many armies?

You raise an interesting point.

Since CP is fixed what armies are going to see problems? At what CP level do Knights "function"? Since Knights don't require CP batteries will they still opt to spend CP for allies?

It also seems like CP regen will become more valuable again.

So many questions. As usual the rules can't come fast enough.

As Not Online!!! points out, it depends on the army. Csm start to hurt below about 10cp in a 2000 point game. I've blown 9cp in a single turn before with my Night Lords. The problem is that many units depend on strategems just to function properly. Compare warp talons in a Night Lords or Emperors Children list to any other legion. They're an auto include for Night Lords just for the strategems you can play on them. In an Iron Warriors army they're a waste of points.

Wow, after three pages, I have so many different posts I want to respond to, and I still can't multi-quote myself out of a wet paper bag.

Here goes:

I think detachments will continue to exist. I do not think they will give CP in addition to the CP given for army size.

As such, detachments have no specific purpose, other than to allow a player to set the numbers of various types of units available. Now IF the keep the detachment limit recommendation, or codify it into an actual rule, you'll still end up taking big detachments, because you wouldn't be allowed to take LOTS of small ones. This limits your ability to take large ratios of HQ.

Detachments DO start to matter when you have different subfactions in an army, or when you have different factions in the army.

Some armies need subfactions; I'm not familiar with all armies enough to say this, but DE definitely must be allowed to take different subfactions without CP, because Kabals, Cults and Covens MUST be separate detachments. Other armies may not need it because of rules, but because their own range is so limited; SoS and Inquisition come to mind. Other armies just have built in sub faction or multifaction flavour. This is your GSC; their codex literally was built with allied guard in mind, because brood brothers unlock them; you can never have more allied guard units than you do BB units (or maybe detachment). Tau and Alien Auxiliaries come to mind, though I don't have the Tau dex, so I'm not sure if Tau and Kroot share detachments.

Now they can invent exceptions for these guys; most of them already have a special rule which could survive with little or even no modification. But it's far easier to just make it free to subfaction soup for everyone. If EVERYONE can do it, it's not unfair. Of course it will benefit some armies more than others just because combos are what they are, but it won't be SYSTEMICALLY better for some than others.

If they do assign a cost for subfaction soup by detachment, the cost should not be as much as FACTION soup by detachment.

It is worth pointing out that they haven't said there's a cost for subfaction soup, but they did say explicitly that there was one for Faction soup. They have not said whether costs would be paid by detachment; it could be paid by additional subfaction (if indeed there's a cost for this at all) or by additional faction. They also haven't said whether there are any other limitations or restrictions dealing specifically with ratios of main to ally, whether by unit or detachment.

Now from the thread of my post here, you may have started to think "Hey, there's all these additional CP costs which might be paid per detachment, but there's also this weird arbitrary limit of 3 detachments at 2k points, which makes said costs minimal given the limited number of detachments available."

And that is why I predict that not only will they not make the detachment limit a rule; I think they will explicitly blow it up to make this little new mechanic of theirs a bit more relevant.

And finally, no, using CP for detachments does NOT mean strats are changing or going away. Which means there are lots of different ways to spend CP now. Some of them have been there for a while, but you don't think of them much, unless you're like me and you like them.I almost always pay for extra relics, and almost always the additional "virtual warlords" as well; and by the way, both of those strats spice up soup lists of both the subfaction and faction varieties far, far more than they do mono builds.

And it's funny, because there's bunch of people who think those strats are a waste and hate them. Similarly, there are people who like soup of both varieties, some who like one or the other, and some who do but only with certain armies. Given all that variety, I do not support the opinion that this will see everyone building their armies and spending their command points all the same way. I think providing the capacity for more variety will lead to more variety.

I hope they get the number of fixed points right, but of course there's no way they can, because some people vehemently believe that allies and strats and CP shouldn't exist at all, while others believe their army is "useless" if they don't make it to 15 or even 20 CP. And when there's that much variety of opinion, and everyone is absolutely convinced that they are right and all of that is happening here in the relatively small subset of players who use Dakka... Well given that, there's no decision that GW can make that won't cause some of us to holler, cry, rage post or rage quit.

And I think any armchair games designer who assumes that they are better at design than one of the longest lived and most widely played table top miniature gaming gaming companies in the world despite having produced NOTHING themselves is probably oversimplifying things a great deal, due to a somewhat limited perspective on just how broad the player base is.

(Sorry that last bit sounded snarky- it's not a personal dig at any individual and more of a general observation about the nature of posts about rules, and I myself am OFTEN guilty of oversimplifying.)

I still think it likely we'll end up paying for each detachment after the first and I wouldn't be surprised if the first detachment was only free if it was either a Battalion or Brigade. That would still fit with what GW said about not needing Troops, but would provide an incentive to take them, albeit probably smaller than now as I don't think the opportunity cost for taking non-Battalion/Brigade detachments will be as high as it is now.

I can see them having a flat cost-per-detachment with an additional cost for using a different Codex, which would mean it doesn't cost anything extra to add in a new subfaction when using a single Codex (beyond any basic cost for the detachment) but soup has a small penalty associated with it.

The beta test comments ITT are interesting to me. They have done beta tests before, most recently for the SoB Codex but they've previously done it for both 40k and WHFB and I Think in every single case the Codex/Army Book they released after the beta test was a vast improvement over the beta test and usually contained far fewer stupid flat-out stupid decisions. From a marketing POV I can see why they wouldn't want to release a beta test of a whole new edition but I do think it would massively help clean up the rules before release.

I agree. The impression I got is that we will pay for each detachment after the first, and if they are from another codex it will cost more.

I would expect the more specialized the detachment the higher the cost.

I'm quite curious how they will do it. I have to admit I'm a bit concerned about the whole "everyone starts with the same CP" thing as it is my impression that stratagems for armies that usually struggle to have lots of CP (Knights, Custodes etc.) have a lot more impact/CP than those for armies that tend to have buckets of them (IG for example). Especially keeping in mind that the units benefiting from let's say +1 to hit are much more expensive and well armed in the first group.

Nontheless regarding the initial question one small Change it will likely bring for me: I have a very infantry heavy IG army in the making (I'm aiming for double brigade Tallarn/Death Korps), not for any strategic reasons, but because I like building and painting infantry. As I therefore have a lot of CP in the current rules I considered taking a Deathstrike (or even two), put them into a Tallarn ambush (3CP), reserve another CP to reroll the chance to fire and then use Vortex Missile (another 3 CP). At 7CP this little stunt is grossly expensive, but with 27 CP in the current rules set I might have given it a try. If that changes to be more in the ballpark around 10 CP, I will leave it be.
Another thing might be that I considered to include a small Auxilliary/Patrol/Vanguard of Skitarii Rangers or SoB Zephyrim just because I think those models are quite pretty. But if I have to pay 2 CP for that, I will leave it be or just call them Guardsmen.

 Eldarain wrote:
I would expect the more specialized the detachment the higher the cost.

We will see. I'd understand this for something like super heavy detachments, but for something like a ravenwing biker army there shouldn't be any loss of CP as those armies aren't really winning anything right now.

I still think it’s likely that all detachments after the first will cost CPs, possibly with an additional CP for taking something from a different codex.

That being said, fixed CP based on the size of battle is confirmed, as is “balancing” for different sizes of battle, with specific missions for each size. It seems they’ve announced 4 sizes of battle for this: combat patrol, onslaught etc. I think it’s a reasonable assumption that the 4 sizes will be at 500pt increments. Fairly linear and straightforward. 500, 1000, 1500 and 2000pts.

What I’m wondering is how many CPs will each size get? My initial thought is 1CP per 100pts, so 5, 10, 15 and 20. I assume that there will be a linear increase, but that’s by no means certain.

What do you all think? Does that seem likely? Too much? Too few?

I think a big factor will be how expensive it is to buy detachments/allies. I don’t think GW are trying to eliminate allies altogether, but rather to make them a considered decision with appropriate trade offs.

 Eldarain wrote:
I would expect the more specialized the detachment the higher the cost.

That'd be the sane option, but so long situations as those exists:

As Not Online!!! points out, it depends on the army. Csm start to hurt below about 10cp in a 2000 point game. I've blown 9cp in a single turn before with my Night Lords. The problem is that many units depend on strategems just to function properly. Compare warp talons in a Night Lords or Emperors Children list to any other legion. They're an auto include for Night Lords just for the strategems you can play on them. In an Iron Warriors army they're a waste of points.

Regardless what happens factions that have this for some (or the majority if unlucky) of their units become an extreme mess to balance propperly, AND we know that PA and other supplements stay in the game.

Pyroalchi wrote:
I'm quite curious how they will do it. I have to admit I'm a bit concerned about the whole "everyone starts with the same CP" thing as it is my impression that stratagems for armies that usually struggle to have lots of CP (Knights, Custodes etc.) have a lot more impact/CP than those for armies that tend to have buckets of them (IG for example). Especially keeping in mind that the units benefiting from let's say +1 to hit are much more expensive and well armed in the first group.

Nontheless regarding the initial question one small Change it will likely bring for me: I have a very infantry heavy IG army in the making (I'm aiming for double brigade Tallarn/Death Korps), not for any strategic reasons, but because I like building and painting infantry. As I therefore have a lot of CP in the current rules I considered taking a Deathstrike (or even two), put them into a Tallarn ambush (3CP), reserve another CP to reroll the chance to fire and then use Vortex Missile (another 3 CP). At 7CP this little stunt is grossly expensive, but with 27 CP in the current rules set I might have given it a try. If that changes to be more in the ballpark around 10 CP, I will leave it be.
Another thing might be that I considered to include a small Auxilliary/Patrol/Vanguard of Skitarii Rangers or SoB Zephyrim just because I think those models are quite pretty. But if I have to pay 2 CP for that, I will leave it be or just call them Guardsmen.

The issue is Knights and Custodes strategums were already being rebalanced for allies having more CP than those armies could generate Mono faction.

A Custodes battalion for 5CP is 700 points and they can't afford to take slot filler choices. They are fighting uphill mono.

Mono Knight's at 1750 max out at 6CP plus 3, add allies and that goes to 6 +5 +3, plus regen of say 4 CP as both players are probably going to be out of CP turn 4. Adding 180 points of guard just doubled the CP for that codex in a game, same at 2k Knights can hit 12 CP Guard can push that the 19 plus regen so probably 23CP

Their is no way to ballance that currently, hence we have Strategums that for mono player's fell overcosted and actual hard trade off choices yet for allied soup its like monopoly money and they play the expensive strategums turn after turn. Leveling the CP quantities allows strategums across armies to be a bit more balanced as everyone starts with the same CP so 1 CP of Guard is worth the same as 1CP of custodes or Knights or atleast a lot closer than they currently are. Where 1 armies strategums have to be 3 times stronger due to the other armies being able to have 3 times the CP.

I think that games will become a lot more fun. I am looking forward to not having to add a detachment of gretchin and weirdboys to my army just to make other units more effective. Now I will be free to spend those points on better units which fit my theme, without feeling that my army is made worse for taking more deff dreads instead of 3 units of 10 gretchin and 2 weirdboys!

I've not played against soup overmuch - I guess people are still old fashioned around here - but I will be glad to not run the risk of facing hugely unfluffy armies built around winning - now, players can bring what they want to use in the game, rather than what is needed for more CP!

@ Ice_can

[...] Leveling the CP quantities allows strategums across armies to be a bit more balanced as everyone starts with the same CP so 1 CP of Guard is worth the same as 1CP of custodes or Knights or atleast a lot closer than they currently are. Where 1 armies strategums have to be 3 times stronger due to the other armies being able to have 3 times the CP

I'm just not conviced with the "1 CP of Guard is worth the same as 1 CP for Custodes or Knights" part without serious rewriting of the stratagems. Take the Imperial Knights "Heirlooms of the Household" for 1 CP and compare it the the corresponding IG Stratagem. The Knight one additionally makes the Knight a Character (I'm unsure if this is beneficial, as while it gives them the option for heroical interventions it simulataniously makes them succeptible for some special rules targeting characters) and allows to take another Knight relic which are (in my opinion) much more powerful than any relic the guard can take.
Or take "rotate ion shield" which (assuming being hit by weapons with AP2+) effectivly reduces hits taken from 4/6 to 3/6 (-25%).
Even if we assume they are balanced with Guard having 3-4 times the CP the Knight Heirlooms still feel good at 3-4 times the CP. If suddenly the Knights have about the same CP as a Guard army, I have problems in seeing their stratagems being balanced. One reason why I would prefer things like paying for stratagems with CP generated by that Codex's units instead.

But then again: all that is more a gut feeling and I might just be wrong with it

Pyroalchi wrote:
@ Ice_can

[...] Leveling the CP quantities allows strategums across armies to be a bit more balanced as everyone starts with the same CP so 1 CP of Guard is worth the same as 1CP of custodes or Knights or atleast a lot closer than they currently are. Where 1 armies strategums have to be 3 times stronger due to the other armies being able to have 3 times the CP

I'm just not conviced with the "1 CP of Guard is worth the same as 1 CP for Custodes or Knights" part without serious rewriting of the stratagems. Take the Imperial Knights "Heirlooms of the Household" for 1 CP and compare it the the corresponding IG Stratagem. The Knight one additionally makes the Knight a Character (I'm unsure if this is beneficial, as while it gives them the option for heroical interventions it simulataniously makes them succeptible for some special rules targeting characters) and allows to take another Knight relic which are (in my opinion) much more powerful than any relic the guard can take.
Or take "rotate ion shield" which (assuming being hit by weapons with AP2+) effectivly reduces hits taken from 4/6 to 3/6 (-25%).
Even if we assume they are balanced with Guard having 3-4 times the CP the Knight Heirlooms still feel good at 3-4 times the CP. If suddenly the Knights have about the same CP as a Guard army, I have problems in seeing their stratagems being balanced. One reason why I would prefer things like paying for stratagems with CP generated by that Codex's units instead.

But then again: all that is more a gut feeling and I might just be wrong with it

The strategums are not currently balanced that way as they can't be. I expect the CP cost of strategums will probably change as the edition changes. The reason it makes the knight a charictor is not for the strategum is because GW wrote that relics can only be given to charictors so if the knight isn't a charictor it can't have a relic, thats why it does that.

Also it's not 25% it's only 16.7% as you are only shifting the pass fail criteria 1 value.

Before rotate ion shield 4 out of 6 (66.6%) successful AP2+ wounds get through the ion shield, afterwards 3 out of 6 (50%). While that is -16.7% in absolute numbers, it is 25% (66.6% * 25% = 16.7%) in relative numbers. In other words were the Knight was hit 4 times before he is now hit 3 times, so 25% less.

It's slightly more complex if one considers low AP shooting, but you get my intention

Pyroalchi wrote:
@ Ice_can

[...] Leveling the CP quantities allows strategums across armies to be a bit more balanced as everyone starts with the same CP so 1 CP of Guard is worth the same as 1CP of custodes or Knights or atleast a lot closer than they currently are. Where 1 armies strategums have to be 3 times stronger due to the other armies being able to have 3 times the CP

I'm just not conviced with the "1 CP of Guard is worth the same as 1 CP for Custodes or Knights" part without serious rewriting of the stratagems. Take the Imperial Knights "Heirlooms of the Household" for 1 CP and compare it the the corresponding IG Stratagem. The Knight one additionally makes the Knight a Character (I'm unsure if this is beneficial, as while it gives them the option for heroical interventions it simulataniously makes them succeptible for some special rules targeting characters) and allows to take another Knight relic which are (in my opinion) much more powerful than any relic the guard can take.
Or take "rotate ion shield" which (assuming being hit by weapons with AP2+) effectivly reduces hits taken from 4/6 to 3/6 (-25%).
Even if we assume they are balanced with Guard having 3-4 times the CP the Knight Heirlooms still feel good at 3-4 times the CP. If suddenly the Knights have about the same CP as a Guard army, I have problems in seeing their stratagems being balanced. One reason why I would prefer things like paying for stratagems with CP generated by that Codex's units instead.

But then again: all that is more a gut feeling and I might just be wrong with it

To be fair most of the stratagem in 8th are written without anything in mind as you have armies that can effectively blow wads of stratagems throughout the game while others can't. Interestingly enough the armies that couldn't use much of any stratagems throughout the games were armies that usually were left to rot in the bottom tier for the most part.

Basically you can't really balance stratagems and CP in 8th because CP batteries are a thing and their accessibility isn't universal. I mean, how do you balance a Knight army? Do you balance it as a codex that can be on its own or do you balance it with the loyal 32 in mind? With the new system this becomes easier as you have a set number of CP and you can assign a point value to each and every unit without having to worry about potential CP batteries and such.

Keep in mind that GW has declared they will release point adjustments along with 9th.

Ice_can wrote:

The strategums are not currently balanced that way as they can't be. I expect the CP cost of strategums will probably change as the edition changes..

I'd argue they failed at balancing them cost wise even before the current change. So new edition will likely mean a long update to the cost of stratagems.

The potential gain here is that you won't need to choose army comp to max CP; whether this is good or bad depends on how much they were currently constraining "best unit" spam via composition requirements.

I guess we can just wait and see.

Regarding CP batteries: as mentioned: as soon as you can only use CP generated by a codex for stratagems of said codex you can balance along the lines of monodex armies. Knight stratagems can be incredible powerful if you have to pay them with "IK CP" and the CP of your loyal 32 can only be used for guard stratagems

Pyroalchi wrote:
Regarding CP batteries: as mentioned: as soon as you can only use CP generated by a codex for stratagems of said codex you can balance along the lines of monodex armies. Knight stratagems can be incredible powerful if you have to pay them with "IK CP" and the CP of your loyal 32 can only be used for guard stratagems

We know what fix we are getting in 9th A number of people proposed a similar solutions but it has a host of issues on who can use the battle forged CP? what happens to regenerated CP?

It also falls appart quickly when you have standard strategums across multiple factions, which we know is happening in 9th.

GW system for 9th as odd as this may sound is the better option for balancing the system.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
I would expect the more specialized the detachment the higher the cost.

That'd be the sane option, but so long situations as those exists:

As Not Online!!! points out, it depends on the army. Csm start to hurt below about 10cp in a 2000 point game. I've blown 9cp in a single turn before with my Night Lords. The problem is that many units depend on strategems just to function properly. Compare warp talons in a Night Lords or Emperors Children list to any other legion. They're an auto include for Night Lords just for the strategems you can play on them. In an Iron Warriors army they're a waste of points.

Regardless what happens factions that have this for some (or the majority if unlucky) of their units become an extreme mess to balance propperly, AND we know that PA and other supplements stay in the game.

True, if a unit has different usefulness for different subfactions in the same codex how can they justifiably have the same cost? This is why gw has written themselves into a corner by fixing units with strategems and special subfaction rules instead of with rules inherent to the units themselves, but having them cost the same for all the subfactions in the codex.

And don't even get me started on units shared by different codexes . *Cough* loyalist vehicles vs csm vehicles *cough*.

Aash wrote:I still think it’s likely that all detachments after the first will cost CPs, possibly with an additional CP for taking something from a different codex.

That being said, fixed CP based on the size of battle is confirmed, as is “balancing” for different sizes of battle, with specific missions for each size. It seems they’ve announced 4 sizes of battle for this: combat patrol, onslaught etc. I think it’s a reasonable assumption that the 4 sizes will be at 500pt increments. Fairly linear and straightforward. 500, 1000, 1500 and 2000pts.

What I’m wondering is how many CPs will each size get? My initial thought is 1CP per 100pts, so 5, 10, 15 and 20. I assume that there will be a linear increase, but that’s by no means certain.

What do you all think? Does that seem likely? Too much? Too few?

I think a big factor will be how expensive it is to buy detachments/allies. I don’t think GW are trying to eliminate allies altogether, but rather to make them a considered decision with appropriate trade offs.

I would be surprised if additional detachments didn't have a cost just because they are inside a codex. Paying of the extra strength of additional sub-factions seems fair. The only armies that need some sort of pass are Drukari and Chaos Daemons. Those can be handled via codex errata giving some sort of CP rebait for a "properly" constructed army. For example, Drukari Raiding Party could be changed to give back some/all the CP cost of a new detachment if the resulting detachments are of a different type (Cult, Coven, or Kabal).

I expect the number of points to be a little less linear. More like 4 CP + 1 CP per 250 points, giving values like 6, 8, 12, 16. Really it depends on what they want the floor and ceiling to be. While you don't want CP dominating a Combat Patrol, you still want enough to use both general and army stratagems.

Ice_can wrote:

Pyroalchi wrote:
@ Ice_can

[...] Leveling the CP quantities allows strategums across armies to be a bit more balanced as everyone starts with the same CP so 1 CP of Guard is worth the same as 1CP of custodes or Knights or atleast a lot closer than they currently are. Where 1 armies strategums have to be 3 times stronger due to the other armies being able to have 3 times the CP

I'm just not conviced with the "1 CP of Guard is worth the same as 1 CP for Custodes or Knights" part without serious rewriting of the stratagems. Take the Imperial Knights "Heirlooms of the Household" for 1 CP and compare it the the corresponding IG Stratagem. The Knight one additionally makes the Knight a Character (I'm unsure if this is beneficial, as while it gives them the option for heroical interventions it simulataniously makes them succeptible for some special rules targeting characters) and allows to take another Knight relic which are (in my opinion) much more powerful than any relic the guard can take.
Or take "rotate ion shield" which (assuming being hit by weapons with AP2+) effectivly reduces hits taken from 4/6 to 3/6 (-25%).
Even if we assume they are balanced with Guard having 3-4 times the CP the Knight Heirlooms still feel good at 3-4 times the CP. If suddenly the Knights have about the same CP as a Guard army, I have problems in seeing their stratagems being balanced. One reason why I would prefer things like paying for stratagems with CP generated by that Codex's units instead.

But then again: all that is more a gut feeling and I might just be wrong with it

The strategums are not currently balanced that way as they can't be. I expect the CP cost of strategums will probably change as the edition changes. The reason it makes the knight a charictor is not for the strategum is because GW wrote that relics can only be given to charictors so if the knight isn't a charictor it can't have a relic, thats why it does that.

Also it's not 25% it's only 16.7% as you are only shifting the pass fail criteria 1 value.

One nice thing about new codexes will be the ability to balance the stratagem cost over a fixed number of CP. It will also give them a chance to revise relics to the proper strength, although that is complicated by legacy products like Vigilus and Psychic Awakening.

I guess a good way to see if this is true is to look at the strength of Space Marine and Adepta Sororitas stratagems and relics compared to those of older codexes. With fixed CP in mind, do they seem to be at a more even strength with each other compared to those of the older codexes?

On the subject of units needing strategems to function, 13 out of 14 of the new Admech strategems in Engine War are unit specific. If this is the direction 9th is headed then no wonder gw wants to expand everyone's access to cp.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
On the subject of units needing strategems to function, 13 out of 14 of the new Admech strategems in Engine War are unit specific. If this is the direction 9th is headed then no wonder gw wants to expand everyone's access to cp.

And I hate that idea.... So much.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
On the subject of units needing strategems to function, 13 out of 14 of the new Admech strategems in Engine War are unit specific. If this is the direction 9th is headed then no wonder gw wants to expand everyone's access to cp.

And I hate that idea.... So much.

Yeah its bad.

Stratagems are rapidly becoming this weird hydra, which serve as an answer looking for a question.
I think as a system it probably works, but its kind of dull, and just further encourages 3 turn 40k.

There are things you could do to change that in 9th - but I don't see them going down that road, because various armies fall apart when you mess with their stratagems, because of this weird design choice.

Could it be a ham fisted method of encouraging less spam? If a unit is relying on it's bespoke strat to perform at full power the once per phase limit is going to escalate diminishing returns.

Some armies already feel the pinch of that (cacophony/vets being one such crutch that discourages overloading your second turn with deepstriking shooting)

Working under the assumption that we get a single battalion with all it's current requirements and restrictions at 2k points it looks like I'll end up losing a Talonmaster and a trio of minimum cost scout units and gaining something new. Possibly a pair of fliers or a Deredeo plus some support units.

That's assuming points stay close to what they are now and none of the new units seem like more fun than the stuff currently in my list.

It would probably be good for the game to double/triple all the points at some point. They could really use more space to accurately value things (Ie. Gretchin, Cultists, Guardsmen. The various PA units etc)

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Working under the assumption that we get a single battalion with all it's current requirements and restrictions at 2k points it looks like I'll end up losing a Talonmaster and a trio of minimum cost scout units and gaining something new. Possibly a pair of fliers or a Deredeo plus some support units.

That's assuming points stay close to what they are now and none of the new units seem like more fun than the stuff currently in my list.

I don't think its a good assumption that we need to have a Battalion with its current restrictions. The Q&A certainly left me with the impression that you can go all Deathwing if you want and get the CPs. They kept making the point that they don't want you to bring Troops just to unlock CPs. I think we'll have more freedom to work within our Codex, but will pay to have a "food court" approach to army building.