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.

 Mr Morden wrote:
They might change who/what is a Lord of War to stop some of the centre piece models being less fielded?

I wondered if they have kept the brigade underwraps very tightly because it comes with 1 LoW slot in it. Would make the most sence as it allows 1 LoW to be added to an army but basically limits most factions to mono detachment at that point so no minmax etc.

tneva82 wrote:
Seems 25.7 is streetday for 9th. Unless it goes to august. Next week preorders aos and bb

yep, it does look like it will be the 25th July, works for me.

Looking forward to another 4 weeks of trickle previews

Ice_can wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
They might change who/what is a Lord of War to stop some of the centre piece models being less fielded?

I wondered if they have kept the brigade underwraps very tightly because it comes with 1 LoW slot in it. Would make the most sence as it allows 1 LoW to be added to an army but basically limits most factions to mono detachment at that point so no minmax etc.

Would be extremely hard for most factions to meet brigade requirements with the points increases and including a LoW. You'd basically be stuck taking really cheap stuff in almost every other slot just to meet the requirements.

So 40k app this week, and a bat rep using the box set that reveals the rules for everything in the Indomitus are the big highlights for next week.

And something about stuff coming out "alongside" the Indomitus box.

Ice_can wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
You'd rather peoples entire armiea and codex's were rendered unplayable trash would you?

If they are Knights, then yes. They should be banished to Apoc.

Same for Primarchs and other LoW/Superheavies.

Then you might want to go play Killteam it sounds like it's more the game you want 40k to be.

No, I want 40k to be about Platoon level forces skirmishing like it was in 4th edition, not 3 Giant Robots roflstomping a bunch of infantry who can't hurt it.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
You'd rather peoples entire armiea and codex's were rendered unplayable trash would you?

If they are Knights, then yes. They should be banished to Apoc.

Same for Primarchs and other LoW/Superheavies.

Then you might want to go play Killteam it sounds like it's more the game you want 40k to be.

No, I want 40k to be about Platoon level forces skirmishing like it was in 4th edition, not 3 Giant Robots roflstomping a bunch of infantry who can't hurt it.

Have you considered finding a gaming group that was willing to play to those restrictions?

Dudeface wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

However, if your Warlord is in a Super-heavy Detachment and is a Titanic Knight, you’ll get those 6 Command points back, so you should still have 12 points to work with. Even if your Warlord is a War Dog (or Armiger, if you’re going loyal), you’ll get 3 Command points – enough to pay fully for a Super-heavy Detachment with no Titanic units. So, if you’re looking to assemble a deadly hunting pack of War Dogs, we’ve got you covered too.

Chaos Knights Faction Focus

Assuming that it's the same for Loyalist Knights.

This discourages soup how? If there isn't a cost for bringing multiple codexes that they haven't showed us yet it costs the same CP to bring three knights and a battalion as it does to bring a battalion and one super heavy and a single super heavy from the same faction. That sucks for those of us who want to play a super heavy but remain mono faction but don't play a faction that gets a mono faction bonus.

Because you pay 3cp for that battalion and it can't have your warlord on. Paying 3cp is dissuading you from taking allies. But not getting a mono faction bonus is, has and will be worse compared to having one. Not sure what your point is really?

Oh, right, guard and csm won't want to soup with knights because they'll lose their mono faction bonus. What are those mono faction bonuses they get again?

Makes complete sense that Eldar pay 3CP for a single wraithknight while those factions pay 3CP for three knights as well, as much as I hate taking up for Eldar.

They don't have a mono faction bonus? They don't however get a knight for free, it costs them 3cp.

Also the eldar pay 3cp for a wraithknight.

The knights army pays 3cp for a battalion of guard.

The knight must have the warlord in, that means no guard warlord which is another pay off.

You're also grossly over valuing wanting 3 18+ targets that people can see from literally anywhere on the board.

The knights are paying 3CP to soup in another codex. The Eldar are paying 3CP to field a unit from their own codex. You shouldn't be penalized for staying within your own codex.

And I am well aware of the detriments imposed on super heavys by the new terrain rules. That, along with the cost they now bring in CP means that they had better fare well in the new points costs errata.

ClockworkZion wrote:So 40k app this week, and a bat rep using the box set that reveals the rules for everything in the Indomitus are the big highlights for next week.

And something about stuff coming out "alongside" the Indomitus box.

New Forge World books? Finally?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
You'd rather peoples entire armiea and codex's were rendered unplayable trash would you?

If they are Knights, then yes. They should be banished to Apoc.

Same for Primarchs and other LoW/Superheavies.

Then you might want to go play Killteam it sounds like it's more the game you want 40k to be.

No, I want 40k to be about Platoon level forces skirmishing like it was in 4th edition, not 3 Giant Robots roflstomping a bunch of infantry who can't hurt it.

Yes you've made that quite clear and it's all very sweet. I want football to go back to the days before multimillion pound transfer fees and corporate sponsorships but the world moves on.

Fact of the matter is generally super heavies in 40k are already a liability so I'm not sure they deserve a further penalty.

For someone who normally takes such great pleasure in finding the flaws in GWs rules writing, it's interesting that you are happy to role with a rule change that has such a detrimental effect on army composition that sticks to the codex. My lord of skulls was subpar before, now it'll cost me 3CP for the pleasure. I'm not comfortable running Mortarion in my Death Guard army and not making him warlord.

These are things I can probably discuss with my gaming group but to be honest I'd rather not be put in that position.

Personally I really like the look of FellBlades and Castellans.

I mean, even with it costing 3CP aren’t you going to have more CP than you did before typically? Even without having to get two battalions. Magnus and Morty are miles ahead now just from the fact they can reserve again. Used to easily spend 2 CP on that before it was errataed.

Also we don’t know what the restrictions will be for battalion composition, might be able to soup within the same detachment like you do now, just give up some rules. Want to keep all your rules? Pay the CP for it.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
You'd rather peoples entire armiea and codex's were rendered unplayable trash would you?

If they are Knights, then yes. They should be banished to Apoc.

Same for Primarchs and other LoW/Superheavies.

Then you might want to go play Killteam it sounds like it's more the game you want 40k to be.

No, I want 40k to be about Platoon level forces skirmishing like it was in 4th edition, not 3 Giant Robots roflstomping a bunch of infantry who can't hurt it.

Do you need to make every thread about your preferences? Just don’t play vs Knights then?

Funny thing is, 9th caters for platoon-level games and several other game modes besides so your complaint has no merit. 8th catered for it too. So you should be super happy. Others who don’t want to play that way can play to their preference. It’s not worth trying to derail a general thread complaining about something that isn’t even a problem if you and your opponent don’t want it to be. Because you’re several years late to be moaning about Knights.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

However, if your Warlord is in a Super-heavy Detachment and is a Titanic Knight, you’ll get those 6 Command points back, so you should still have 12 points to work with. Even if your Warlord is a War Dog (or Armiger, if you’re going loyal), you’ll get 3 Command points – enough to pay fully for a Super-heavy Detachment with no Titanic units. So, if you’re looking to assemble a deadly hunting pack of War Dogs, we’ve got you covered too.

Chaos Knights Faction Focus

Assuming that it's the same for Loyalist Knights.

This discourages soup how? If there isn't a cost for bringing multiple codexes that they haven't showed us yet it costs the same CP to bring three knights and a battalion as it does to bring a battalion and one super heavy and a single super heavy from the same faction. That sucks for those of us who want to play a super heavy but remain mono faction but don't play a faction that gets a mono faction bonus.

Because you pay 3cp for that battalion and it can't have your warlord on. Paying 3cp is dissuading you from taking allies. But not getting a mono faction bonus is, has and will be worse compared to having one. Not sure what your point is really?

Oh, right, guard and csm won't want to soup with knights because they'll lose their mono faction bonus. What are those mono faction bonuses they get again?

Makes complete sense that Eldar pay 3CP for a single wraithknight while those factions pay 3CP for three knights as well, as much as I hate taking up for Eldar.

They don't have a mono faction bonus? They don't however get a knight for free, it costs them 3cp.

Also the eldar pay 3cp for a wraithknight.

The knights army pays 3cp for a battalion of guard.

The knight must have the warlord in, that means no guard warlord which is another pay off.

You're also grossly over valuing wanting 3 18+ targets that people can see from literally anywhere on the board.

The knights are paying 3CP to soup in another codex. The Eldar are paying 3CP to field a unit from their own codex. You shouldn't be penalized for staying within your own codex.

And I am well aware of the detriments imposed on super heavys by the new terrain rules. That, along with the cost they now bring in CP means that they had better fare well in the new points costs errata.

ClockworkZion wrote:So 40k app this week, and a bat rep using the box set that reveals the rules for everything in the Indomitus are the big highlights for next week.

And something about stuff coming out "alongside" the Indomitus box.

New Forge World books? Finally?

So you're thinking eldar shouldn't have to pay CP to get a wraithknight because it's mono faction. What about sisters for example who don't get access to any lords of war, why should eldar get free access to one when sisters don't?

A lord of skulls has synergy with my red corsairs, a chaos knight does not, but the chaos knight being from a different codex, costs more under your thinking despite not being able to be buffed etc.

Maybe a detachment from another codex will cost a premium, we dont know yet, it might be that the battalion of guard for a knights army costs double cp.

So you argument is that it is unfair that taking from multiple books costs CP? Even if it’s as a result of multiple detachments?

Or is it that same book costs more and that is unfair? Detachments are detachments, I am failing to see the issue.

 Leth wrote:
So you argument is that it is unfair that taking from multiple books costs CP? Even if it’s as a result of multiple detachments?

Or is it that same book costs more and that is unfair? Detachments are detachments, I am failing to see the issue.

The issue is (I think) twofold, 3 knights can ally guard in for 3cp. But guard ally in 3 knights for 6cp.

Secondly that because some armies don't innately have access to a super heavy, them paying the same to gain access for no loss other than cp is 'less fair' than having to pay cp when the super heavy is the same faction.

Abaddon303 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
You'd rather peoples entire armiea and codex's were rendered unplayable trash would you?

If they are Knights, then yes. They should be banished to Apoc.

Same for Primarchs and other LoW/Superheavies.

Then you might want to go play Killteam it sounds like it's more the game you want 40k to be.

No, I want 40k to be about Platoon level forces skirmishing like it was in 4th edition, not 3 Giant Robots roflstomping a bunch of infantry who can't hurt it.

Yes you've made that quite clear and it's all very sweet. I want football to go back to the days before multimillion pound transfer fees and corporate sponsorships but the world moves on.

Fact of the matter is generally super heavies in 40k are already a liability so I'm not sure they deserve a further penalty.

For someone who normally takes such great pleasure in finding the flaws in GWs rules writing, it's interesting that you are happy to role with a rule change that has such a detrimental effect on army composition that sticks to the codex. My lord of skulls was subpar before, now it'll cost me 3CP for the pleasure. I'm not comfortable running Mortarion in my Death Guard army and not making him warlord.

These are things I can probably discuss with my gaming group but to be honest I'd rather not be put in that position.

I would put you in that position.
Named characters, LoW, superheavies, ... none of that belongs on a 40k table without prior arrangement.

But, the purpose of the game is different.

"Running Mortarian"? "Subpar"? I don't talk like this. The words show the purpose of the game.

Is the purpose the game, or is the game the purpose - I suppose this is the question to ask.

40k - especially on a smaller table - is better with fewer points/units, and restrictions on those per BCB's observation, above.
It is simply an objectively better game.

Some objective determinations:
More room to affect outcomes through foresight and some good fortune.
More 'balance'.
Sure, a bolter isn't a shuriken catapult, and it should not be, but the guardian is wounded more easily and can run away/fail/lose.
You should have to blow marines up to get them to go away, but their gunz are blessed because they are 10000 years old and the empire is failing.

Maybe that is the most realistic thing about reality - it is subpar, most of the time. Mostly nothing will do everything. And it shouldn't.
This is one reason why I will never own a flying restartes hover tank.
You want to use them - great.
You want to use two or 3 ... let me see what I have painted up to try to match it. I might do that once.

And maybe it is one thing that is charming about GW's rules. They are the face of the warp in the modern era, Stranger Things coming from the other side.
It made my nose bleed to fathom some of the serious idiocy in 8th ed.

The best games for me were when we had finished painting some things, and rules changed, and there were things to sort out.
That was fun, and the realism was a common touchstone that allowed us to discuss the game.

Those were endearing moments in my life, and beneficial I think.
So, I am a fan of wargames and hobbies like this one, generally.

Best for some,worse for others

*Sigh* One of the advantages of soup is that it allows a faction to make up for its inherent disadvantages by taking allies who make up for those disadvantages. Guard allies provide knights with screening units that are also good at scoring objectives, two things that knights lack. A faction that lacks super heavys makes up for that disadvantage by adding knights. This is one of the things that makes soup hard to balance. That's why soup should have an additional cost, which it may have but hasn't been revealed yet. Until such information is available we must assume that detachment costs are the price of soup.

Super heavys in factions whose codexes are already written with them being available in mind should be balanced with points, as they already are considering they are already expensive units. If gw insists on using cp to balance them then their points should be lower to compensate. Perhaps they've done this, as the new terrain rules are also a detriment to them. We don't know that either.

This slow drip of information is aggravating.

 jeff white wrote:

Abaddon303 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
You'd rather peoples entire armiea and codex's were rendered unplayable trash would you?

If they are Knights, then yes. They should be banished to Apoc.

Same for Primarchs and other LoW/Superheavies.

Then you might want to go play Killteam it sounds like it's more the game you want 40k to be.

No, I want 40k to be about Platoon level forces skirmishing like it was in 4th edition, not 3 Giant Robots roflstomping a bunch of infantry who can't hurt it.

Yes you've made that quite clear and it's all very sweet. I want football to go back to the days before multimillion pound transfer fees and corporate sponsorships but the world moves on.

Fact of the matter is generally super heavies in 40k are already a liability so I'm not sure they deserve a further penalty.

For someone who normally takes such great pleasure in finding the flaws in GWs rules writing, it's interesting that you are happy to role with a rule change that has such a detrimental effect on army composition that sticks to the codex. My lord of skulls was subpar before, now it'll cost me 3CP for the pleasure. I'm not comfortable running Mortarion in my Death Guard army and not making him warlord.

These are things I can probably discuss with my gaming group but to be honest I'd rather not be put in that position.

I would put you in that position.
Named characters, LoW, superheavies, ... none of that belongs on a 40k table without prior arrangement.

But, the purpose of the game is different.

"Running Mortarian"? "Subpar"? I don't talk like this. The words show the purpose of the game.

Is the purpose the game, or is the game the purpose - I suppose this is the question to ask.

40k - especially on a smaller table - is better with fewer points/units, and restrictions on those per BCB's observation, above.
It is simply an objectively better game.

Some objective determinations:
More room to affect outcomes through foresight and some good fortune.
More 'balance'.
Sure, a bolter isn't a shuriken catapult, and it should not be, but the guardian is wounded more easily and can run away/fail/lose.
You should have to blow marines up to get them to go away, but their gunz are blessed because they are 10000 years old and the empire is failing.

Maybe that is the most realistic thing about reality - it is subpar, most of the time. Mostly nothing will do everything. And it shouldn't.
This is one reason why I will never own a flying restartes hover tank.
You want to use them - great.
You want to use two or 3 ... let me see what I have painted up to try to match it. I might do that once.

And maybe it is one thing that is charming about GW's rules. They are the face of the warp in the modern era, Stranger Things coming from the other side.
It made my nose bleed to fathom some of the serious idiocy in 8th ed.

The best games for me were when we had finished painting some things, and rules changed, and there were things to sort out.
That was fun, and the realism was a common touchstone that allowed us to discuss the game.

Those were endearing moments in my life, and beneficial I think.
So, I am a fan of wargames and hobbies like this one, generally.

That's lovely, really poetic. Not really sure what the overall point of your post is is but I will counter one of your points. Don't mistake my language as me being a competitive player. I am far from it. I probably play about 20 games a year, I have an inquisition army.

But when I do play I want to play on a reasonably level playing field. I also don't want to have to discuss with my opponent how to make the game balanced and fudge rules to make it work.

It just feels in an entirely new edition it's a disappointing oversight to make same codex super heavies a casualty of anti soup rules. I'm actually still hopeful there are some erratas coming.

And yes, I may still end up with more CP than I would have this edition, but that 3CP cost isn't relative against this edition, it's relative against my opponents army.

It is entirely possible we'll be seeing a shift in the way armies work that justifies the CP, or refunds the CP for certain thematic builds.

GW has pulled this a few times on us, showing the worst part of the rule only to back off and show us that it's not as bad as we think.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
So 40k app this week, and a bat rep using the box set that reveals the rules for everything in the Indomitus are the big highlights for next week.

And something about stuff coming out "alongside" the Indomitus box.

The app, really? That's cool. I wonder if the army builder will be available.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
So 40k app this week, and a bat rep using the box set that reveals the rules for everything in the Indomitus are the big highlights for next week.

And something about stuff coming out "alongside" the Indomitus box.

The app, really? That's cool. I wonder if the army builder will be available.

Says we'll find out more about the app this week, nothing about it being released (starting at the 0:40 mark).

Ah, ok. Thanks.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
So 40k app this week, and a bat rep using the box set that reveals the rules for everything in the Indomitus are the big highlights for next week.

And something about stuff coming out "alongside" the Indomitus box.

ohh god my poor wallet!

BrianDavion wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
So 40k app this week, and a bat rep using the box set that reveals the rules for everything in the Indomitus are the big highlights for next week.

And something about stuff coming out "alongside" the Indomitus box.

ohh god my poor wallet!

Some of it will be really mundane, kill team boards need to come back into stock sometime so id hazard a new range of card boards will be announced.

Dudeface wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
So 40k app this week, and a bat rep using the box set that reveals the rules for everything in the Indomitus are the big highlights for next week.

And something about stuff coming out "alongside" the Indomitus box.

ohh god my poor wallet!

Some of it will be really mundane, kill team boards need to come back into stock sometime so id hazard a new range of card boards will be announced.

true my inital assumption was the other previewed marine stuff

BrianDavion wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
So 40k app this week, and a bat rep using the box set that reveals the rules for everything in the Indomitus are the big highlights for next week.

And something about stuff coming out "alongside" the Indomitus box.

ohh god my poor wallet!

Some of it will be really mundane, kill team boards need to come back into stock sometime so id hazard a new range of card boards will be announced.

true my inital assumption was the other previewed marine stuff

Maybe that little Primaris tank from the blurry pic of the BA Primaris bikes, that'd be nice.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
It is entirely possible we'll be seeing a shift in the way armies work that justifies the CP, or refunds the CP for certain thematic builds.

GW has pulled this a few times on us, showing the worst part of the rule only to back off and show us that it's not as bad as we think.

Yes, GW has often built up intricate systems of restrictions for the sake of balance, then made them meaningless with a bunch of loopholes for the sake of sales and whiny players being unable to cope with not having all their toys on the table at once. No dubt there will be dumb ways to unlock dumbgak combos without making any meaningful sacrifice this time too and so skewed netlists will continue to curbstomp fluffy and balanced lists.

Dudeface wrote:

 Leth wrote:
So you argument is that it is unfair that taking from multiple books costs CP? Even if it’s as a result of multiple detachments?

Or is it that same book costs more and that is unfair? Detachments are detachments, I am failing to see the issue.

The issue is (I think) twofold, 3 knights can ally guard in for 3cp. But guard ally in 3 knights for 6cp.

Secondly that because some armies don't innately have access to a super heavy, them paying the same to gain access for no loss other than cp is 'less fair' than having to pay cp when the super heavy is the same faction.

But when it is the same faction aren’t they getting the benefit of keeping their traits when adding a super heavy? Honestly when you are adding 3 knights it’s a little beyond “allies” since they are over half your army. It’s like claiming that because I do something stupid and put my warlord in my patrol instead of my battalion it costs me CP.

It just seems like detachments are detachments and the rules are standardized to make taking diverse detachments to cover your weakness come at a cost versus just being an all in benefit. I think it is good and while not perfect? Is pretty so,I’d way to do that while not saying “you can’t use this anymore”

Dudeface wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
So 40k app this week, and a bat rep using the box set that reveals the rules for everything in the Indomitus are the big highlights for next week.

And something about stuff coming out "alongside" the Indomitus box.

ohh god my poor wallet!

Some of it will be really mundane, kill team boards need to come back into stock sometime so id hazard a new range of card boards will be announced.

Yep. New dice and card sets etc.