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.

 Cephalobeard wrote:

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
It says you can't spend CP if you don't have any, so no negative totals.

It doesn't seem to say you ever HAVE to spend them, either.

Well, yeah, you can choose not to spend them, what's your point?

My point is there's nothing to indicate you can't go negative. Just because you don't have the points means you can't use them. You don't NEED to use CP, so you don't NEED to have the points, until we see otherwise.

To lose command points you must first have command points. There is nothingnthat indicates that having people run around in Command Point debt is the intention, or even an option.

The "there isn't a rule that says I can't" doesn't work in a permissive ruleset.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Dryaktylus wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:


Faction rules.

Hmm... I hope the individual rules (and benefits) are more restricted. I mean, 'All units must be from the same Faction' sounds rather pointless if the faction is 'Imperium'.

We saw on the Gravis Armour Captain that he shares his special rule only with models with the same chapter keyword.

I just hope it's enough to counter the massive amount of flexibility (you even get command points).

tneva82 wrote:

Requizen wrote:
I wonder what the tournament scene will look like. Unlimited number of detachments? 3 or something max? I'm betting we'll see a cap after a year or so if GW hasn't introduced one themselves.

Doubt gw starts to give any hardcoded x detachment per 1000 pts style rule

GW didn't cap the number of detachments in the rules, but there might be a cap for matched play.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
It says you can't spend CP if you don't have any, so no negative totals.

It doesn't seem to say you ever HAVE to spend them, either.

Well, yeah, you can choose not to spend them, what's your point?

My point is there's nothing to indicate you can't go negative. Just because you don't have the points means you can't use them. You don't NEED to use CP, so you don't NEED to have the points, until we see otherwise.

To lose command points you must first have command points. There is nothingnthat indicates that having people run around in Command Point debt is the intention, or even an option.

The "there isn't a rule that says I can't" doesn't work in a permissive ruleset.

I'm definitely not "that guy"ing you right now, but if the rules do not state you cannot go negative, then RAW, people will go negative and it will likely be allowed, because that's RAW. No currently shown rule has stated they need them.

Again, I -HOPE- it's as simple as was suggested previously, that you simply cannot go below 0.

Likely codexes will introduce benefits detachment gett only with say all blood angel units

 Dryaktylus wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Dryaktylus wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:


Faction rules.

Hmm... I hope the individual rules (and benefits) are more restricted. I mean, 'All units must be from the same Faction' sounds rather pointless if the faction is 'Imperium'.

We saw on the Gravis Armour Captain that he shares his special rule only with models with the same chapter keyword.

I just hope it's enough to counter the massive amount of flexibility (you even get command points).

It shuts down why most people were running multiple subfactions. I mean If the Barkstar is dead, that should be enough to kill most of the sharing abuse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cephalobeard wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
It says you can't spend CP if you don't have any, so no negative totals.

It doesn't seem to say you ever HAVE to spend them, either.

Well, yeah, you can choose not to spend them, what's your point?

My point is there's nothing to indicate you can't go negative. Just because you don't have the points means you can't use them. You don't NEED to use CP, so you don't NEED to have the points, until we see otherwise.

To lose command points you must first have command points. There is nothingnthat indicates that having people run around in Command Point debt is the intention, or even an option.

The "there isn't a rule that says I can't" doesn't work in a permissive ruleset.

I'm definitely not "that guy"ing you right now, but if the rules do not state you cannot go negative, then RAW, people will go negative and it will likely be allowed, because that's RAW. No currently shown rule has stated they need them.

Again, I -HOPE- it's as simple as was suggested previously, that you simply cannot go below 0.

A permissive ruleset requires you to have permission to do something. 40k is a permissive ruleset as rules dictate everything we can do. By claiming that something is allowed just because nothing says we can't is a horrible arguement that could be made about and insane nmber of things and breaks the game.

Anyone who wants to run a negative CP list is a git. Period.

 Dryaktylus wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:


Faction rules.

Hmm... I hope the individual rules (and benefits) are more restricted. I mean, 'All units must be from the same Faction' sounds rather pointless if the faction is 'Imperium'.

Again, the second live Q&A explained why you would want to qualify for the more restrictive Factions such as 'Blood Angels' instead os just 'Imperium'.

Yeah, most of the benefits will likely come from characters buffing specific factions so having a bunch of different factions is fine, you just dont get any of the boosts that come with more mono build factions.

 Cephalobeard wrote:

My point is there's nothing to indicate you can't go negative. Just because you don't have the points means you can't use them. You don't NEED to use CP, so you don't NEED to have the points, until we see otherwise.

It says that you can't spend a CP if you have 0 CP, so you can't go negative in the first place.

I highly doubt having negative amounts of CP's will matter.

I'm hoping that Matched Play has detachment restrictions and/or the allies rules are supper harsh for differing factions joining forces.

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:

My point is there's nothing to indicate you can't go negative. Just because you don't have the points means you can't use them. You don't NEED to use CP, so you don't NEED to have the points, until we see otherwise.

It says that you can't spend a CP if you have 0 CP, so you can't go negative in the first place.

The negative consequences of list building aren't 'spending' CP though.

Easy fix for match play - negative CPs turn into positive CPs added to your opponents total.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Justyn wrote:
couldn't give us the rest of the page...

He,s pulling these from a closed FB group, not taking his own pictures. Cut him some slack.

actually it looks like spikeybitz.com cut the page in half for their article. but i posted the entire page a few pages back. and here's all of today's leaks i could find so far: http://imgur.com/a/kVg7o

I'm hoping that Matched Play has detachment restrictions and/or the allies rules are supper harsh for differing factions joining forces.

Why? Other than it was a problem in 7th Edition. It seems they fixed those problems by a) not letting characters join units and b)making special abilities only effect their own specific faction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
axisofentropy thank you very much for the Info.

 Cephalobeard wrote:

Easy fix for match play - negative CPs turn into positive CPs added to your opponents total.

I hope so... Cuz that'll be be even more fun. I'll take a whole army of Aux. Detachment's of the same faction just to feth with my opponent. "Hey... Here's another +10 CP's for ya cuz I'm mother fething Primaris Santa Claus."

Cause it would be pretty silly say bloodthirster and grey knights be best buddies?

Even with all the freedom of army building in AoS you can't mix people of different orders.
So you can't mix Stormcast with Chaos Daemons with Greenskins.
I'm sure something like that is gonna be in 40k Matched Play rules.
Poor Orks and Tau, I don't see with what they can ally... maybe Tau and Eldar.

Cause it would be pretty silly say bloodthirster and grey knights be best buddies?

That would be very silly. But why would it be sillier in matched play than in either of the other versions. Matched players are not known for their adherence to fluff. If they were things like Barkstar would never happen.

 Galas wrote:
Even with all the freedom of army building in AoS you can't mix people of different orders.
So you can't mix Stormcast with Chaos Daemons with Greenskins.
I'm sure something like that is gonna be in 40k Matched Play rules.
Poor Orks and Tau, I don't see with what they can ally... maybe Tau and Eldar.

Allie with themselves?

If ork clans/tau step rules reflective of legion and chapter rules come back into the game, opens up more for updates for these factions.

Negative command points? Oh man, some people.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Negative command points? Oh man, some people.

Shhh, don't let common sense interfere with how the sky is falling!

tneva82 wrote:
Cause it would be pretty silly say bloodthirster and grey knights be best buddies?

Sure.

Then again, I'd like to be able to freely ally xenos and imperials for some strange Rogue Trader with her alien mercenaries type of army or mix chaos and IG to represent traitor guard etc.

Justyn wrote:

Cause it would be pretty silly say bloodthirster and grey knights be best buddies?

That would be very silly. But why would it be sillier in matched play than in either of the other versions. Matched players are not known for their adherence to fluff. If they were things like Barkstar would never happen.

A" least before there was some penalty for it. Why get rid of it? Does game really be that simplifie?

We haven't seen anything about how Factions interact yet, no reason to assume there isn't some sort of ally chart.

tneva82 wrote:Cause it would be pretty silly say bloodthirster and grey knights be best buddies?

Galas wrote:Even with all the freedom of army building in AoS you can't mix people of different orders.
So you can't mix Stormcast with Chaos Daemons with Greenskins.
I'm sure something like that is gonna be in 40k Matched Play rules.
Poor Orks and Tau, I don't see with what they can ally... maybe Tau and Eldar.

This is almost certainly the case. They said they'd talk about Allies later on, so I'm assuming there are still restrictions for which armies can be friends with which other ones, even with the new Detachment system.

A" least before there was some penalty for it. Why get rid of it? Does game really be that simplifie?

There are two penalties for it. Less command points, and leader/character abilities not working with each other. Given a couple of the CP abilities already seen, and that they are the less potent ones available to everyone, I think this will work itself out.

 Galas wrote:
Even with all the freedom of army building in AoS you can't mix people of different orders.
So you can't mix Stormcast with Chaos Daemons with Greenskins.
I'm sure something like that is gonna be in 40k Matched Play rules.
Poor Orks and Tau, I don't see with what they can ally... maybe Tau and Eldar.

I really hope not. It already sucks in AOS that the ogres can no longer act as mercenaries in other armies or that Freeguild cannot be used to represent vampire's mortal followers or necromancers allies and countless other such combinations that would make sense but are needlessly forbidden.

This is almost certainly the case. They said they'd talk about Allies later on, so I'm assuming there are still restrictions for which armies can be friends with which other ones, even with the new Detachment system.

There probably is. Although it doesn't have to cover nearly as much given that they made Imperium a faction.

I believe this has not been posted yet?

 Crimson wrote:
I believe this has not been posted yet?

Spoiler:

Those are some funky points in that list...

I need to get to work tallying the points up that the units have.