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.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Right, but it seems like it would be in their own financial interest to give out this info, because it's so basic. Who is going to buy models right now when they don't even know if they're going to be able to use them in a 9th list in any realistic way? I guess monofaction players with limited collections might expand them in the meantime, but that's about it.

Raises hand.
I'm 100% certain that I'm going to be able to use the new AdMech stuff. So as soon as my order comes in at my local shop....

Look at the next sentence.

I can see why people would buy more models in a faction they already have a significant army in without knowing details of 9th, that makes sense.

ccs wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Right, but it seems like it would be in their own financial interest to give out this info, because it's so basic. Who is going to buy models right now when they don't even know if they're going to be able to use them in a 9th list in any realistic way? I guess monofaction players with limited collections might expand them in the meantime, but that's about it.

Raises hand.
I'm 100% certain that I'm going to be able to use the new AdMech stuff. So as soon as my order comes in at my local shop....

Likewise I picked a few things up, but I'm building Black Templars and, at least among the Primaris, there aren't too many potholes to worry about.

 bullyboy wrote:
I'm curious to see what the pace will be for codexes this time around.

As much as I like people getting there stuff ASAP, I think I’d like to see things slow right down this time, and give some time to actually test out and balance the game with itself. The last codexes were so inconsistent and felt really rushed.

 alextroy wrote:
Yeah. The most recent codex, the one codex released after Space Marines. I guess they are way behind the curve.

This is not a valid argument. The Space Marine codex went up for pre-order Aug 10. Faith and Fury, which included a ton of new rules for Space Marines, went up for pre-order on 16 Nov, just over 3 months later.

There is a 5 month gap between the wide release of Sisters codex and this book that should have had an update in it for them.

There's no excuse for the failure to produce an update for everybody. Harlequins and Deathwatch should have had a part to play in a book. Necrons and Sisters as well. If they could add new rules to a 3 month old book, then nothing was stopping them from doing it for Sisters.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Look at the next sentence.

I can see why people would buy more models in a faction they already have a significant army in without knowing details of 9th, that makes sense.

I don't have a significant army of AdMech. I've got a HQ tech guy, 2 min. sized Ranger units, 1 squad of Electro-priests, & 6 Kastelans (+2 tech guys for them).
Come July though....

In terms of models, the old GW rule is still in effect... what sucked in the last edition will be good. What was good in the last edition will be awful.

This motivates people to buy replacemets for the previous "good stuff".

As for Detatchments? 1 Patrol 5 Brigade seems a given.

The bigger question is for different factions. Will those form the same Codex, but a different faction, have an increased cost and, if so, by how much? Further, will those NOT from the same Codex have the same increased cost or a different one?

For instance, if my Ultramarines want to bring a patrol along, does the cost look like this

Ultramarines (1)
Dark Angles (1)
Eldar (2)

Or

Ultramarines (1)
Dark Angles (2)
Eldar (3)

I'm not sure yet. I think +0 for Codex but faction (so, bringing some Bad moons with your Goffs doesn't have an increased cost) while a different Codex will cost 1 more, but …not sure yet.

I think the whole "soup tax" was probably just a misunderstanding and what they were talking about were detachment costs, regardless of whether it's the same codex or different. But we'll see.

The bottom line for my list-building is if it takes more than 2CP to take an aeldari faction patrol or spearhead that isn't the same as my warlord's faction, it will seriously impact my list. If it's 2CP or less, I will go ahead and pay the 4CP tax for the 3-codex list because I would really like to try running it.

yukishiro1 wrote:
I think the whole "soup tax" was probably just a misunderstanding and what they were talking about were detachment costs, regardless of whether it's the same codex or different. But we'll see.

The bottom line for my list-building is if it takes more than 2CP to take an aeldari faction patrol or spearhead that isn't the same as my warlord's faction, it will seriously impact my list. If it's 2CP or less, I will go ahead and pay the 4CP tax for the 3-codex list because I would really like to try running it.

I think the intent is to make it just expensive enough that people have to either really commit to a theme, or get something really good out of the mix to want to do it, but not make it so expensive that people are at a massive disadvantage playing with their mixed faction lists.

Obviously there is some points value for having extra rules and a mix of units, so some cost was definitely assigned, but I don't think GW went nuts with costing things out since a big part of the faction system is encouraging people to branch off into new army projects.

Arbitrator wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Apparently the world is full of people less wise then dakkanauts, since selling models doesn't appear to be a problem for GW right now. Remember, this is the company that see sales going so well they plan on repaying furlough funds to the government despite having no obligation to do so.

Actually they aren't allowed to give themselves bonuses and dividends to shareholders if they don't.

I won't drag down this thread correcting this misconception. I'll just direct you to this thread for better understanding: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/789248.page

JNAProductions wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Battalions cost 3. I imagine Brigades will be 5 and Patrols 1.
The others I'm less sure about. Maybe 3 since they operate like battalions that trade troops out for other slots?

Why on earth would Brigades be 5 and Patrols be 1? Those numbers should be reversed.

Because if Brigades were cheaper than Patrols and Battalions, it would be prohibitively expensive to add a second detachment in a 1000 point game. Remember you only get 6 CP for 501-1000 points with a 2 Detachment maximum. I'm not even sure it is possible to add a Brigade as a second detachment at that size. A patrol on the other hand is a small investment in points at the minimum level.

I hope that is correct. 2CP would be a reasonable price. Once you start getting beyond 2CP to take another detachment, it goes beyond a reasonable cost to just being punitive for the sake of being punitive.

yukishiro1 wrote:
I hope that is correct. 2CP would be a reasonable price. Once you start getting beyond 2CP to take another detachment, it goes beyond a reasonable cost to just being punitive for the sake of being punitive.

I can see it being 2 cp for some of the more specialist detacjmebts like vanguard etc. But I'd also like to see them being slightly more expensive based on numbers of subfaction.

Made up example:
Patrol 1, codex1 = 1
Patrol 2, codex 2 = 2
Patrol 3, codex 3 = 3

No one will ever use more than two detachments, many players will just use one detachment. The CPs will be used to fuel stratagems, to make the game even more lethal.

By the inverse logic of substracting from a fixed amount, specialised detachments like Vanguard or Spearhead need to cost more than a Battalion.

By the logic of 8th, you get CP per detachment, and a single-battalion army has more CP than a single-Spearhead army.

If they invert that for 9th, a (free detachment plus a) single Battalion army gets 12 - 3 = 9 CP. For a (free detachment plus a) single-Spearhead army to end up with less CP than the Batallion-equivalent, it needs to cost more than 3 CP, i.e. 12 - X = <9CP.

But there's no reason to think they have inverted that. That's where I think people are going wrong. If you are going based on the logic that you're paying CP to get access to units in a different detachment, why would you pay more to get access to fewer units than to get access to more? Why should a double bat start with more CP than a bat + a patrol or spearhead in the logic of that new system? Doesn't make sense.

The point of the changes was to stop people feeling like they had to take double bat to maximize CP. It would be pretty silly if they ended up with a system where people still took double bat to maximize CP.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
By the inverse logic of substracting from a fixed amount, specialised detachments like Vanguard or Spearhead need to cost more than a Battalion.

By the logic of 8th, you get CP per detachment, and a single-battalion army has more CP than a single-Spearhead army.

If they invert that for 9th, a (free detachment plus a) single Battalion army gets 12 - 3 = 9 CP. For a (free detachment plus a) single-Spearhead army to end up with less CP than the Batallion-equivalent, it needs to cost more than 3 CP, i.e. 12 - X = <9CP.

Arguably they do cost more already because they can't be discounted like core detachments.

Because they said that a pure Terminator army or a pure Custodes Jetbike army would still have less CP than a rounded-out Guard Battalion with a bit of everything.

Now, the difference also will not be as huge, as you get your Warlord-detachment for free, and squeezing stuff into a single Battalion or single Spearhead will net you more CP than using double-Battalion or double-Spearhead.

But the "troop-tax" armies from Battalions and Brigades will still have more CP than the "tanks only" or "elite-infantry only" armies, even if the difference is allegedly smaller than in 8th.


Sure, the "precise" logic isn't known. But by and large it sounded to me like a double-battalion army will have more CP in 9th than a double-Spearhead army (if, once again, with a smaller difference than in 8th).

At the very least, it seems extremely improbable to assume a double-Spearhead army would end up having more CP than a double-Battalion army (which would be the case, if Spearhead-style detachments cost 2 CP vs. the Battalions 3 CP).






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Arguably they do cost more already because they can't be discounted like core detachments.

The way I understood it, the detachment that includes your warlord is free (no matter what it is). I could be wrong though.

You are mistaken. Only Patrol, Battalion or Brigades who contain your Warlord are free.

it doesn't suprise me they've not given us the detachment rules fully previewed, if 8E is anything to go by detachment rules will be something you need to buy the actual rulebook for (as opposed to the free rules PDF) so previewing evrything would hurt rule book sales

Voss wrote:


That's making a lot of assumptions about GW consistency with power curves (which historically is wildly inconsistent), and they stated already that updated codexes will simply copy a chunk of the stuff published in PA books. The 'extras' gained from having both is going to be very small, potentially incompatible and likely to be a detriment just as often as it turns out to be a benefit.

And that assumes that most factions actually got a notable power curve bump from PA. But I'm sure lots of folks will want to argue about that.

Yes CHUNK. But not all. They have flat out said so. And since you don't pay anything(apart from cash) to have those options it's always better to have them than not.

If you disagree I'm sure you won't mind playing right now without PA books


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:
But there's no reason to think they have inverted that. That's where I think people are going wrong. If you are going based on the logic that you're paying CP to get access to units in a different detachment, why would you pay more to get access to fewer units than to get access to more? Why should a double bat start with more CP than a bat + a patrol or spearhead in the logic of that new system? Doesn't make sense.

The point of the changes was to stop people feeling like they had to take double bat to maximize CP. It would be pretty silly if they ended up with a system where people still took double bat to maximize CP.

Less tax, more better units. If spearhead etc cost less than 3 there's no point taking 2nd battalion anyway. Just take better detachment.

And brigade would be even more ridiculous as on that logic it would then cost more than 3...More CP cost, more tax...

Reason to your "why" is "balance". Interested in that?

Can't prove it yet but from joining the dots on some of the things stu has said on stream and trying to make it make sence

Additional codex 1CP
Super Heavy Aux 1CP
Patrol 2CP
Battalion 3CP
Brigade 4 or 5CP (Double brigade was basically called a relic of 8th by someone)
Specialist detachments?
Super Heavy detachments I think 3CP (6CP would be unplayable)

Drukari Raiding parties would still start on 12CP with tripple patrol

GW doesnt belive in tax units outside of troops as they think the points values assigned to unist are what they are "balanced"/worth.
Brigade is more CP than Battalion though fairly sure Stu has confirmed it.

Wild rumour, to be taken with a lethal amount of salt.
Apparently a play tester has said there are roughly 30 new Space Marine units, that old Marines are going up to two wounds, and Orks are getting a Warboss on Cybersquig.
I’m hearing this fourth hand, so I stress, take a mountain of salt. But 30 new Space Marines units doesn’t sound impossible, especially if all the Codex’s get new characters or units (Primaris Sanguinary Guard please) and we already know nine new units are in Indomitus (eight if you don’t include the Chaplain) with the ATV, Turret and Landspeeder so we’d already be nearly halfway there.
I stress, salt, salt salt.

 Tiberius501 wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
I'm curious to see what the pace will be for codexes this time around.

As much as I like people getting there stuff ASAP, I think I’d like to see things slow right down this time, and give some time to actually test out and balance the game with itself. The last codexes were so inconsistent and felt really rushed.

That's the problem, a lot of factions are still using those rushed codexes. Csm need a new codex. I'm sick of being team wombo combo.

diepotato47 wrote:
Wild rumour, to be taken with a lethal amount of salt.
Apparently a play tester has said there are roughly 30 new Space Marine units, that old Marines are going up to two wounds, and Orks are getting a Warboss on Cybersquig.
I’m hearing this fourth hand, so I stress, take a mountain of salt. But 30 new Space Marines units doesn’t sound impossible, especially if all the Codex’s get new characters or units (Primaris Sanguinary Guard please) and we already know nine new units are in Indomitus (eight if you don’t include the Chaplain) with the ATV, Turret and Landspeeder so we’d already be nearly halfway there.
I stress, salt, salt salt.

Unless they pull the "all marines are just marines now" card I can't see it at all, the only bit likely is 30 units and a cybersquig would be awesome.

diepotato47 wrote:
Wild rumour, to be taken with a lethal amount of salt.
Apparently a play tester has said there are roughly 30 new Space Marine units, that old Marines are going up to two wounds, and Orks are getting a Warboss on Cybersquig.
I’m hearing this fourth hand, so I stress, take a mountain of salt. But 30 new Space Marines units doesn’t sound impossible, especially if all the Codex’s get new characters or units (Primaris Sanguinary Guard please) and we already know nine new units are in Indomitus (eight if you don’t include the Chaplain) with the ATV, Turret and Landspeeder so we’d already be nearly halfway there.
I stress, salt, salt salt.

That would be controversial as it really inflates the D2, even D4 flat weapons are needed against Iron hands.

 bullyboy wrote:
I'm curious to see what the pace will be for codexes this time around.

I imagine they'll be slower, butt faster than prior to 8th and more likely to only have 1-2 new models than big lump releases at once (except for loyalist Marines obviously).

I wouldnt really be that surprised, if they slowly start to find a way to homogenize the "older" marine units with the Primaris ones. I kind of feel, and maybe it's just me (it's not), that the Primaris update was always going to be the slow replacement to phase out all old marine models into the new new. It's kind of a color-by-numbers process they're following, not wholly unseen in other industries. It won't be too long before they have a Primaris version of everything 'old marines' had, so why would it be unbelievable to think they'd make the retirement of older marines easier by making their stats the same so they can eventually say "oh your older marines are just now the primaris version proxies".

 Gremore wrote:
I wouldnt really be that surprised, if they slowly start to find a way to homogenize the "older" marine units with the Primaris ones. I kind of feel, and maybe it's just me (it's not), that the Primaris update was always going to be the slow replacement to phase out all old marine models into the new new. It's kind of a color-by-numbers process they're following, not wholly unseen in other industries. It won't be too long before they have a Primaris version of everything 'old marines' had, so why would it be unbelievable to think they'd make the retirement of older marines easier by making their stats the same so they can eventually say "oh your older marines are just now the primaris version proxies".

Firstly because that would net them less profit than if people bought their entire army as Primaris, so they'd want to disincentivise what you're suggesting there. Secondly it would look a bit crap, if they're all supposed to be Primaris but half the army are stumpy marines.

JWBS wrote:

 Gremore wrote:
I wouldnt really be that surprised, if they slowly start to find a way to homogenize the "older" marine units with the Primaris ones. I kind of feel, and maybe it's just me (it's not), that the Primaris update was always going to be the slow replacement to phase out all old marine models into the new new. It's kind of a color-by-numbers process they're following, not wholly unseen in other industries. It won't be too long before they have a Primaris version of everything 'old marines' had, so why would it be unbelievable to think they'd make the retirement of older marines easier by making their stats the same so they can eventually say "oh your older marines are just now the primaris version proxies".

Firstly because that would net them less profit than if people bought their entire army as Primaris, so they'd want to disincentivise what you're suggesting there. Secondly it would look a bit crap, if they're all supposed to be Primaris but half the army are stumpy marines.

It might look odd with the difference in size between old marines and primaris, but it’s no different really from the difference between RT era marines and more recent ones, or the size differences between old and new terminators, and many other models from other factions too.

I'd speculate sales is the driving factor to not make Marines equivalent to Primaris. I would expect another round of Marines to become Legends when the next Marine codex is released.