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.

**ClockworkZion**

Tastyfish wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:

Thinking about the claims by Reece a bit more: If locking people in melee was against the designer's intentions highlighting the Wyches' ability to lock units in combat, much less stuff like the Word Bearer's Ashen Axe that came out of Psychic Awakening, seems a bit odd.

I have hope that we'll at least see some kind of change to fall back, but if not, then perhaps large melee units will still be useful as they can wrap and trap multiple targets more easilly to lock at least one unit into combat. Not sure, but if there is a way to move block people into combat it's certain the meta will gladly take it.

Locking people in combat with a skill or strat (the new flamer Pteryxi etc) is very different from tri-pointing. One is an odd game mechanic that comes about from rules interactions and the other is something the unit is supposed to be actively doing.
If tri-pointing was introduced as it's own rule and with an example (or even just a general - can't fall back if the enemy is behind you rule) that'd make sense. But I don't think you can read into anything otherwise.

I agree that it's different than tri-pointing, but I was refering to the "easier to leave combat" thing more than tri-pointing (which apparently still exists in some form according to Reece) since it has wider implications beyond that strat we saw.

I think there will be a lot of interesting things coming out with how the game works and how people work with it. Melee is lielly changing but I am willing to bet people work it out regardless of those changes.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
From Blood of Kittens, enjoy with salt:

Necron Model Rules:
Silent King Pillars each have a tesla sphere, and can cast 1 C’tan power each. Otherwise have their own stat-lines and can intercept shots at BS3, T6, 8w, 4++

Silent King Himself
M10, WS2, BS2, S7, T7, W16, A4, LD10 3+/4++
Has two profiles, for shooting and combat. Deals mortal wounds on 6s to wound
Auras:
– Grants re-roll 1s to hit and wound with ranged attacks for infantry
– fearless aura
– +1 to reanimation protocol aura, or you may re-roll 1s, chosen before RP are rolled
– heals d3 wounds each turn per pillar alive.
Also grants an additional command point at the beginning of the command phase.
340 points.

Skorpekh Destroyer
M WS BS S T W A Ld Sv
8″ 3+ 3+ 5 5 4 3 10 3+
RANGE TYPE S AP D ABILITIES
Hyperphase reap-blade Melee Melee +2 -4 3 Subtract 1 from hit rolls made with this weapon
Hyperphase reap-swords Melee Melee User -4 2 Each time the bearer fights, it can make one additional attack with this weapon.

Reanimation Protocols
Hardwired Hatred:You can re-roll unmodified hit rolls of 1 for this model.
Skittering Advance: This model may advance and still charge later in the same turn.
Canopteck Plasmacyte: if a Canopteck Plasmacyte is accompanying a unit of Skorpekh Destroyer, then that unit may re-roll unmodified Reanimation Protocols rolls of a 1. If an enemy unit is destroyed in the fight phase by an attack made by a model in this unit then you may re-roll all Reanimation Protocols rolls for the rest of the battle

Skorpekh Lord
M WS BS S T W A Ld Sv
10″ 2+ 3+ 6 6 8 5 10 3+

RANGE TYPE S AP D ABILITIES
Enmitic annihilator 18″ Assault 4 5 -2 1 For each unmodified wound roll of a 6, the target unit suffer 1 mortal wound in addition to any other damage.
Flensing claw Melee Melee User -2 2 Each time the bearer fights, it can make one additional attack with this weapon. You may re-roll wound rolls for this weapon.
Hyperphase reap-cleaver Melee Melee User -4 3 –

Living Metal.
Hardwired Hatred:You can re-roll unmodified hit rolls of 1 for this model.
United in Hatred:(Aura ability) You can re-roll unmodified wound rolls of 1 for this model and models from friendly<DYNASTY> DESTROYER CULT units within 6″.
Phase Shifter: This model has a 4+invulnerable save.
Skittering Advance: This model may advance and still charge later in the same turn.

Necron Warriors
M WS BS S T W A Ld Sv
5″ 3+ 3+ 4 4 1 1 10 4+

RANGE TYPE S AP D ABILITIES
Gauss flayer 24″ Rapid fire 1 4 -1 1 –
Gauss reaper 18″ Assault 2 5 -1 1 –

Reanimation Protocols.

Canoptek Stalker

M WS BS S T W A Ld Sv
7″ 4+ 4+ 5 5 5 2 10 3+

RANGE TYPE S AP D ABILITIES
Bladed limb Melee Melee User -1 1 –

Phase Generator: friendly<DYNASTY> units within 6″ of a model with this rule gain a 5+ invulnerable save
Canoptek Node: (Aura ability) If this model is within 6″ of one or more friendly<DYNASTY> units with Aura abilities, this model gain those Aura abilities whilst it remains within 6″ of that unit.

M WS BS S T W A Ld Sv
Immortal Overseer 5″ 3+ 3+ 4 4 4 3 10 3+

RANGE TYPE S AP D ABILITIES
Gauss blaster 24″ Rapid fire 1 5 -2 1 –

Eternal Overseer: (Aura ability) Whenever a model from a <DYNASTY>Immortal or <DYNASTY> Warrior unit with 6″ of a model with this rule would flee roll a dice. On a 4+ that model does not flee.

**Darsath**

I very much doubt those "leaks". For one thing, the range of the new Gauss Reaper weapon is different from what has already been previewed. Also the Stalker's stats would fall over to a stiff breeze. These rules are similar to the ones that were quickly debunked a little while back, so it's probably a similar story here.

**Sasori**

Those leaks are several weeks old and have already been debunked.

**Slayer-Fan123**

To be fair they probably meant 12 wounds instead of 2, but yeah the leak is automatically fake because they got the Reaper profile wrong.

**Blastaar**

yukishiro1 wrote:
Reece again so make of it what you want, but on the podcast today he said that tri-pointing itself was very different in 9th than it is in 8th - not just the way you get out of it, but the way you tri-point to begin with. He also said again that melee is the biggest change in 9th and that there is other stuff still coming that changes things fundamentally, and Frankie said it's "harder to stay engaged" in melee than before. They both then said that in 9th whatever you charge with pretty much dies the next turn no matter what, so they think people are going to be taking smaller combat units since they'll just die on the next turn, and that this was a deliberate choice by the developers because they didn't like stuff being trapped in combat.

So another clear sign that falling back is even easier than it was in 8th, and that melee units will be shot off the table after charging even more easily in 9th than in 8th.

Make melee suicidal ?

Locked-in-combat is dumb; it creates boring gameplay. But if GW truly dislikes the mechanic, they should just move to AA ,and toss locked-in-combat.

*sigh* They always have to implement things the wrong way, don't they?

**Red Corsair**

yukishiro1 wrote:
It's a decent buff, but it does mean you can't take 3 of anything (except troops), so I'm not sure how much play it's really going to get for competitive lists.

You could take 3 wych cult patrols etc. That would give you 6 of anything besides troops (unless rule of 3 sticks around).

**ClockworkZion**

Blastaar wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
Reece again so make of it what you want, but on the podcast today he said that tri-pointing itself was very different in 9th than it is in 8th - not just the way you get out of it, but the way you tri-point to begin with. He also said again that melee is the biggest change in 9th and that there is other stuff still coming that changes things fundamentally, and Frankie said it's "harder to stay engaged" in melee than before. They both then said that in 9th whatever you charge with pretty much dies the next turn no matter what, so they think people are going to be taking smaller combat units since they'll just die on the next turn, and that this was a deliberate choice by the developers because they didn't like stuff being trapped in combat.

So another clear sign that falling back is even easier than it was in 8th, and that melee units will be shot off the table after charging even more easily in 9th than in 8th.

Make melee suicidal ? Locked-in-combat is dumb; it creates boring gameplay. But if GW truly dislikes the mechanic, they should just move to AA ,and toss locked-in-combat.

*sigh* They always have to implement things the wrong way, don't they?

Let's not forget that Reece has a messy track record when it comes to meta predictions, and the way he feels is strongest to play something doesn't always end up being true.

I mean during that podcast he also mentioned there is one more big change they haven't revealed yet, so who knows what that'll do.

**Virules**

Uh I hope those rumors are false because silent king sounds like a daemon primarch except vastly better and 100+ less points. That would make absolutely no sense unless Magnus and Morty are finally getting a big points cut.

**BrianDavion**

ClockworkZion wrote:
Blastaar wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
Reece again so make of it what you want, but on the podcast today he said that tri-pointing itself was very different in 9th than it is in 8th - not just the way you get out of it, but the way you tri-point to begin with. He also said again that melee is the biggest change in 9th and that there is other stuff still coming that changes things fundamentally, and Frankie said it's "harder to stay engaged" in melee than before. They both then said that in 9th whatever you charge with pretty much dies the next turn no matter what, so they think people are going to be taking smaller combat units since they'll just die on the next turn, and that this was a deliberate choice by the developers because they didn't like stuff being trapped in combat.

So another clear sign that falling back is even easier than it was in 8th, and that melee units will be shot off the table after charging even more easily in 9th than in 8th.

Make melee suicidal ? Locked-in-combat is dumb; it creates boring gameplay. But if GW truly dislikes the mechanic, they should just move to AA ,and toss locked-in-combat.

*sigh* They always have to implement things the wrong way, don't they?

Let's not forget that Reece has a messy track record when it comes to meta predictions, and the way he feels is strongest to play something doesn't always end up being true.

I mean during that podcast he also mentioned there is one more big change they haven't revealed yet, so who knows what that'll do.

remember his Stompa predictions? Reece is never going to live that one down.

**ClockworkZion**

Virules wrote:
Uh I hope those rumors are false because silent king sounds like a daemon primarch except vastly better and 100+ less points. That would make absolutely no sense unless Magnus and Morty are finally getting a big points cut.

Others have pointed out that thanks to the wrong stats for the Gauss Flayer that has been debunked.

At best those were playtest rules, but more realistically they were gak made up by the internet.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
Blastaar wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
Reece again so make of it what you want, but on the podcast today he said that tri-pointing itself was very different in 9th than it is in 8th - not just the way you get out of it, but the way you tri-point to begin with. He also said again that melee is the biggest change in 9th and that there is other stuff still coming that changes things fundamentally, and Frankie said it's "harder to stay engaged" in melee than before. They both then said that in 9th whatever you charge with pretty much dies the next turn no matter what, so they think people are going to be taking smaller combat units since they'll just die on the next turn, and that this was a deliberate choice by the developers because they didn't like stuff being trapped in combat.

So another clear sign that falling back is even easier than it was in 8th, and that melee units will be shot off the table after charging even more easily in 9th than in 8th.

Make melee suicidal ? Locked-in-combat is dumb; it creates boring gameplay. But if GW truly dislikes the mechanic, they should just move to AA ,and toss locked-in-combat.

*sigh* They always have to implement things the wrong way, don't they?

Let's not forget that Reece has a messy track record when it comes to meta predictions, and the way he feels is strongest to play something doesn't always end up being true.

I mean during that podcast he also mentioned there is one more big change they haven't revealed yet, so who knows what that'll do.

remember his Stompa predictions? Reece is never going to live that one down.

I sure haven't forgotten! Which is why I've referenced it everytime people use Reece's claim about what the meta will look like when the game launches.

Heck, even I've seen a -possible- reason why MSU melee isn't the go to: it's easier to hit multiple units so even if one breaks out, you're still locked in combat.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I won't claim to be a tactical genius or anything, but if I can spot it without looking very hard it tells me that there is either more to Reece's claim or he's stuck on the idea that MSU is the only way to play the game.

**H.B.M.C.**

BaconCatBug wrote:
So, taking 3 Patrols grants you a whopping 0CP bonus.

It's almost as if the rule was written for a different edition of the game when detachments didn't cost CP.

One could even say that the rule was written to allow DE players to take their heavily separated army types and include parts of all 3 without needing to bring more battalions and bring 6 HQ and 9 Troops to the table before they could actually build a list!

Wakshaani wrote:
Well, the requirement of only 1 HQ is a good start, plus only 1 troop. For newer players, this lets you grab a Start Collecting box and be close to a playable force out of the gate. A decent game store should keep some kind of "New player" section up and running, with small missions printed out and maybe some "House armies" that can be rented and tried out.

All of this can be done with the regular 40K rules. They didn't need a extra "game type" to achieve this.

**ClockworkZion**

It's not an extra game type, just missions more balanced towards the smaller game size. It's not like it hurts us for there to be a few missions for 500pt games after all.

Heck, 500pt games look like a good tutorial level. Not too many CP, not too many units, simply missions rules, basically a good starting point that is more manageable than before. Glad they codifies it with missions that match the smaller scale.

**ImAGeek**

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Wakshaani wrote:
Well, the requirement of only 1 HQ is a good start, plus only 1 troop. For newer players, this lets you grab a Start Collecting box and be close to a playable force out of the gate. A decent game store should keep some kind of "New player" section up and running, with small missions printed out and maybe some "House armies" that can be rented and tried out.
All of this can be done with the regular 40K rules. They didn't need a extra "game type" to achieve this.

I’m not really sure what the difference is between having these rules as part of the regular 40k rules, and having them as part of the regular 40k rules under the Combat Patrol subheading, to be honest.

**BrianDavion**

ImAGeek wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:

Wakshaani wrote:
Well, the requirement of only 1 HQ is a good start, plus only 1 troop. For newer players, this lets you grab a Start Collecting box and be close to a playable force out of the gate. A decent game store should keep some kind of "New player" section up and running, with small missions printed out and maybe some "House armies" that can be rented and tried out.
All of this can be done with the regular 40K rules. They didn't need a extra "game type" to achieve this.

I’m not really sure what the difference is between having these rules as part of the regular 40k rules, and having them as part of the regular 40k rules under the Combat Patrol subheading, to be honest.

combat patrol is a level of gameplay.

look at it this way, GW is publishing a set of missions and saying "at this level of points, we reccomend these missions"

**BlaxicanX**

ImAGeek wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:

Wakshaani wrote:
Well, the requirement of only 1 HQ is a good start, plus only 1 troop. For newer players, this lets you grab a Start Collecting box and be close to a playable force out of the gate. A decent game store should keep some kind of "New player" section up and running, with small missions printed out and maybe some "House armies" that can be rented and tried out.
All of this can be done with the regular 40K rules. They didn't need a extra "game type" to achieve this.

I’m not really sure what the difference is between having these rules as part of the regular 40k rules, and having them as part of the regular 40k rules under the Combat Patrol subheading, to be honest.

The point is marketing speak. Yeah, anyone who wants to play 40K but at an entry level can just choose to play at 500-1000 points and call it a day. But creating "special modes" is more encouraging to new players and casuals who don't understand the ruleset well enough yet to confidently fiddle with the main system.

**Dudeface**

BrianDavion wrote:
ImAGeek wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:

Wakshaani wrote:
Well, the requirement of only 1 HQ is a good start, plus only 1 troop. For newer players, this lets you grab a Start Collecting box and be close to a playable force out of the gate. A decent game store should keep some kind of "New player" section up and running, with small missions printed out and maybe some "House armies" that can be rented and tried out.
All of this can be done with the regular 40K rules. They didn't need a extra "game type" to achieve this.

I’m not really sure what the difference is between having these rules as part of the regular 40k rules, and having them as part of the regular 40k rules under the Combat Patrol subheading, to be honest.

combat patrol is a level of gameplay.

look at it this way, GW is publishing a set of missions and saying "at this level of points, we reccomend these missions"

Much agreement!

Having missions that are, in theory, optimised to permit play at that level makes it nice and easy to do. Rather than spending time working out how big your play area needs to be, how to limit broken detachments, how to write your own missions that function ok at 500 points - they've done all that for you and given it a name.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

It’s also useful shorthand for players.

**Jidmah**

I kind of agree with H.B.M.C. here. The combat patrol isn't actually a game mode, it is just a bunch of missions that have been optimized for having less models on a smaller table.

Is it great to have those? Yes! Some of the CA 2019 missions simply don't work well on low point levels because they have high amounts of requirements towards an army that are difficult for many codices to fulfill. Some armies like custodes or grey knights might even auto-lose at many of those missions at 500 points.

Calling it a "new way to play 40k" is just BS though. Might as well call Prophecy of the Wolf "a new way to play 40k" because it has three missions inside its booklet.

edit: fixed H.B.M.C.'s name

**H.B.M.C.**

Jidmah wrote:
I kind of agree with H.M.B.C. here.

Once again my mirrorverse doppelganger has stolen my thunder...

But yeah, the idea that it's a "new way to play 40K" is patently ridiculous.

**vipoid**

So on the one hand, it's nice that Dark Eldar might actually get some mileage out of their Raiding Force rule.

On the other hand, has there been any suggestion that Dark Eldar might stop being a dull-as-dishwater army?

I ask because the stuff I've seen with regard to Necrons actually gave me a small amount of hope. Obviously whether it will pay off is another matter altogether, but the rethinking of the RP rule, the focus on horror elements, the desire to make them a more infantry-based army etc. all seemed like very reasonable ideas. And that's without mentioning the swathes of new models they're getting.

Unfortunately, I've yet to see anything comparable for Dark Eldar. hence, I'm forced to believe that 'boring and missing most of their units and wargear' is what the designers consider to be a 'good place' for them.

Sigh.

**Mr Morden**

vipoid wrote:
So on the one hand, it's nice that Dark Eldar might actually get some mileage out of their Raiding Force rule.

On the other hand, has there been any suggestion that Dark Eldar might stop being a dull-as-dishwater army?

I ask because the stuff I've seen with regard to Necrons actually gave me a small amount of hope. Obviously whether it will pay off is another matter altogether, but the rethinking of the RP rule, the focus on horror elements, the desire to make them a more infantry-based army etc. all seemed like very reasonable ideas. And that's without mentioning the swathes of new models they're getting.

Unfortunately, I've yet to see anything comparable for Dark Eldar. hence, I'm forced to believe that 'boring and missing most of their units and wargear' is what the designers consider to be a 'good place' for them.

Sigh.

Dark Eldar are not getting an immediate Codex like Necrons so its sadly unlikely till that happens

Pretty sure it will be Marines and Necrons shortly after release
Chaos Marines, Space Wolves and Angels (hopefully supplements)
Maybe Sisters

The rest will get something when it fits in...

The 3 in one Dark Eldar Codex is an interesting idea with some bad implemtation - if they had been Marines each would have its own Codex

**ERJAK**

Blastaar wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
Reece again so make of it what you want, but on the podcast today he said that tri-pointing itself was very different in 9th than it is in 8th - not just the way you get out of it, but the way you tri-point to begin with. He also said again that melee is the biggest change in 9th and that there is other stuff still coming that changes things fundamentally, and Frankie said it's "harder to stay engaged" in melee than before. They both then said that in 9th whatever you charge with pretty much dies the next turn no matter what, so they think people are going to be taking smaller combat units since they'll just die on the next turn, and that this was a deliberate choice by the developers because they didn't like stuff being trapped in combat.

So another clear sign that falling back is even easier than it was in 8th, and that melee units will be shot off the table after charging even more easily in 9th than in 8th.

Make melee suicidal ? Locked-in-combat is dumb; it creates boring gameplay. But if GW truly dislikes the mechanic, they should just move to AA ,and toss locked-in-combat.

*sigh* They always have to implement things the wrong way, don't they?

They already have Alternating Activations in the combat phase and they apparently ARE tossing locked-in-combat so...WTF are you talking about?

**changemod**

ERJAK wrote:
Blastaar wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
Reece again so make of it what you want, but on the podcast today he said that tri-pointing itself was very different in 9th than it is in 8th - not just the way you get out of it, but the way you tri-point to begin with. He also said again that melee is the biggest change in 9th and that there is other stuff still coming that changes things fundamentally, and Frankie said it's "harder to stay engaged" in melee than before. They both then said that in 9th whatever you charge with pretty much dies the next turn no matter what, so they think people are going to be taking smaller combat units since they'll just die on the next turn, and that this was a deliberate choice by the developers because they didn't like stuff being trapped in combat.

So another clear sign that falling back is even easier than it was in 8th, and that melee units will be shot off the table after charging even more easily in 9th than in 8th.

Make melee suicidal ? Locked-in-combat is dumb; it creates boring gameplay. But if GW truly dislikes the mechanic, they should just move to AA ,and toss locked-in-combat.

*sigh* They always have to implement things the wrong way, don't they?

They already have Alternating Activations in the combat phase and they apparently ARE tossing locked-in-combat so...WTF are you talking about?

There’s a lot of people who want to move to single units taking their entire turn one at a time, for some reason.

I’d be fine with trying out alternating phases adding more dynamic interplay to a turn, but having units take their entire turn one at a time would kill the feel of 40k more than any other change so far.

**Crablezworth**

Alternating activation only works with limited units. I love adeptus titanicus but alternating activation get really daunting the higher points you go. It also demands far more attentiveness on the part of both players, you can't go grab a drink or hit the washroom as easily as when players take turns doing their whole movement/shooting ect.

**Lemondish**

Crablezworth wrote:
Alternating activation only works with limited units. I love adeptus titanicus but alternating activation get really daunting the higher points you go. It also demands far more attentiveness on the part of both players, you can't go grab a drink or hit the washroom as easily as when players take turns doing their whole movement/shooting ect.

It also encourages ultra-elite armies that can activate a majority of their power to maximize the effect of a single activation. Oh look, it's a Knight list that can activate 1500 points by the time the poor Ork player activated 500.

And it would 100% encourage double activations on a single strong devastating unit. Keep something super powerful out of line of sight until your final activation for that turn, then expose it and shoot. In the following turn your opponent now has, at best, a single activation to counter before you activate it again. Not fun. Nobody likes to think about the implication of AA in a 2000 point game. They've just been convinced it is some medical panacea for 40k's woes, both real and imagined.

**Red Corsair**

Mr Morden wrote:
vipoid wrote:
So on the one hand, it's nice that Dark Eldar might actually get some mileage out of their Raiding Force rule.

On the other hand, has there been any suggestion that Dark Eldar might stop being a dull-as-dishwater army?

I ask because the stuff I've seen with regard to Necrons actually gave me a small amount of hope. Obviously whether it will pay off is another matter altogether, but the rethinking of the RP rule, the focus on horror elements, the desire to make them a more infantry-based army etc. all seemed like very reasonable ideas. And that's without mentioning the swathes of new models they're getting.

Unfortunately, I've yet to see anything comparable for Dark Eldar. hence, I'm forced to believe that 'boring and missing most of their units and wargear' is what the designers consider to be a 'good place' for them.

Sigh.

Dark Eldar are not getting an immediate Codex like Necrons so its sadly unlikely till that happens

Pretty sure it will be Marines and Necrons shortly after release
Chaos Marines, Space Wolves and Angels (hopefully supplements)
Maybe Sisters

The rest will get something when it fits in...

The 3 in one Dark Eldar Codex is an interesting idea with some bad implemtation - if they had been Marines each would have its own Codex

Not really. It's much more akin to the Dark Angels and how they have Greenwing, Deathwing and Ravenwing. Basically all three should be field-able as a single army without penalty but also have the ability to be taken En mass as their individual branch. What screws the Dark Eldar over currently is being penalized if I want to take a single detachment and play with all the units in my book, heck even with just 2/3 of the book. I think the idea would have been more sound had the army been more fleshed out, but having only a single HQ and troop slot or missing FA/Elite/Heavy in some combo for each just makes it odd. Space marines would actually have been the perfect codex to try something like that with their 75-100 entries or what ever absurdity it has ballooned to. Not that I advocate that.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Crablezworth wrote:
Alternating activation only works with limited units. I love adeptus titanicus but alternating activation get really daunting the higher points you go. It also demands far more attentiveness on the part of both players, you can't go grab a drink or hit the washroom as easily as when players take turns doing their whole movement/shooting ect.

The idea I had for AA in 40k was to make your army into different battle groups. So for example 500-750 point sections. So in a 2000 pt game you would have 3-4 battle groups in your army, same as your opponent and you could alternate activating those groups.

It would help mitigate the alpha a bit and it would make you think before committing, so you don't abandon one part of your army head hunting part of theirs and leave your self open.

You could leave individual AA for combat patrol or kill team, but use battle groups for AA in larger.

**nokranok**

Super heavy detachments CP cost revealed

Super Heavy detachment is 6cp or 3cp if all of the units are not Titanic

Super Heavy Aux is 3cp

Knights will (likely) get a detachment refunded with their warlord (full reveal tomorrow).

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

**ClockworkZion**

Surprised no one was talking about this yet: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/06/27/faction-focus-imperial-knights/

Jason: There are two ways in which you can field Lords of War units such as Imperial Knights – either as a Super-heavy Detachment of 3-5 Knights, or singly as part of a Super-heavy Auxiliary Detachment (usually as an allied Detachment). Even though it may at first seem expensive (as Titanic units, it will cost 6 Command points to include a Super-heavy Detachment of Imperial Knights), it’s possible to get those CPs refunded, like the ‘core’ Patrol, Battalion and Brigade Detachments

They didn't specify how that works, but said they'll cover it when they do Chaos Knights tomorrow.

EDIT: And someone posted it. Oh well.

**Mothman**

With these costs I can see alot of 2001 point tournaments to start at 18cp being popular. an imperium soup army bringing knight, 2 relics, chapter master, 2nd warlord trait is going to run dry of CP very fast.Or people will have to just adjust to very little CP once they hit the battlefield compared to how much they have been used to.

**Kanluwen**

That 'Titanic' restriction hurts a bit for Guard superheavy tanks.