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.

Ice_can wrote:

 DarkHound wrote:
Yes, it's unlikely you'll be able to soup multiple detachments of full Knights. However, my point is that Armigers already get the most benefit from custom house traits so you're extremely incentivized to use them to fill out detachments... If you're already planning on taking several Armigers, it's probably worth considering how to maximize custom traits to compliment your main force of a standard House.

Your commenting in a Knight thread about whats going to be good for Soup in 9th thats why I heavily disagree, My knights don't want to need to bolt on some Guard or Admech and shouldn't have to.

I'd advocating principally for the use of Armigers with custom traits, not adding other factions. And anyway, are you seriously mad because I like want to play with my toy soldiers in a way you don't like?

 DarkHound wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 DarkHound wrote:
Yes, it's unlikely you'll be able to soup multiple detachments of full Knights. However, my point is that Armigers already get the most benefit from custom house traits so you're extremely incentivized to use them to fill out detachments... If you're already planning on taking several Armigers, it's probably worth considering how to maximize custom traits to compliment your main force of a standard House.

Your commenting in a Knight thread about whats going to be good for Soup in 9th thats why I heavily disagree, My knights don't want to need to bolt on some Guard or Admech and shouldn't have to.

I'd advocating principally for the use of Armigers with custom traits, not adding other factions. And anyway, are you seriously mad because I like want to play with my toy soldiers in a way you don't like?

It was supposed to be sarcastic, I should have made that clearer.
It was more thats why we where thinking different things are better.

 DarkHound wrote:
I think the trick to custom traits, since they are so specific in utility, is to soup different detachments with units specifically designed to maximize the traits. This is doubly true when combining with other factions..

And you have whopping 1.5 months or so to do that. Then you will be paying CP for every detachment. And unless they do some day 1 errata you will pay CP for every det since only patrol, battalion and brigade gets CP refunded if warlord is there. So 2 super heavy dets=2 det's paid for.

tneva82 wrote:

 DarkHound wrote:
I think the trick to custom traits, since they are so specific in utility, is to soup different detachments with units specifically designed to maximize the traits. This is doubly true when combining with other factions..

And you have whopping 1.5 months or so to do that. Then you will be paying CP for every detachment. And unless they do some day 1 errata you will pay CP for every det since only patrol, battalion and brigade gets CP refunded if warlord is there. So 2 super heavy dets=2 det's paid for.

You're not wrong, but I'm certain we don't have the whole picture. Given that GW's stated goals with this system is to even the amount of CPs for formerly low CP factions, it's likely the Knight Lances rule will make Super-heavy Detachments a "core" detachment.

Ice_can wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
The Valiant Harpoon strat is probably going to get an FAQ nerf: as written the original target takes 2d3 MW, along with the normal damage: so 12-16 damage to any single model unit.

Not sure if the design team remembered that the damaged unit is within 3" of itself.

Actually D3 MW seems to be the going rate for 2CP.
Also how often do you see models with 3 inches of each other and within range of a 12 inche 1 shot weapon that has to hit and wound even coming up?

I think you missed the point, but I will also address what you said:

1: my point, was that the harpoon deals an inherent D3 MW to the unit damaged. The Strat seems to be intended to be used in the situations that there is a buffing unit nearby. The strat adds a second D3 MW to the originally targeted unit.

2: how often are units within 3" of each other? Fairly. Between many buff-bots having some limited ranges and lack of blast markers there is no real need not to. Also smaller screening units and disembarking units from transports.

3: and within 12" range of a 1-shot weapon that has to hit and deal damage? I think you mean within 22"-25"(questor Imperialis/landstrider for 23, or blessed arms for 24, or Imperialis and blessed arms for 25"), and again, fairly often. There are many ways to increase your to-hit, and the harppon is almost auto-wound with only invul saves allowed.

Basically, it will come up often enough to justify the strats existence; and will often be powerfull enough to justify cost for other units(often characters)

 DarkHound wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 DarkHound wrote:
I think the trick to custom traits, since they are so specific in utility, is to soup different detachments with units specifically designed to maximize the traits. This is doubly true when combining with other factions..

And you have whopping 1.5 months or so to do that. Then you will be paying CP for every detachment. And unless they do some day 1 errata you will pay CP for every det since only patrol, battalion and brigade gets CP refunded if warlord is there. So 2 super heavy dets=2 det's paid for.

You're not wrong, but I'm certain we don't have the whole picture. Given that GW's stated goals with this system is to even the amount of CPs for formerly low CP factions, it's likely the Knight Lances rule will make Super-heavy Detachments a "core" detachment.

But only if it includes your warlord, which can be true with all Armigers but the Command benifit only kicked in originally when you took 3 questorus or Dominus class Knights, I expect that to come back if this super heavy detachment in your army includes 3 dominus or Questorus class knights and your Warlord this detachment costs 0CP. being how Knights get to be CP Neutral as it would be similar to Drukari.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
The Valiant Harpoon strat is probably going to get an FAQ nerf: as written the original target takes 2d3 MW, along with the normal damage: so 12-16 damage to any single model unit.

Not sure if the design team remembered that the damaged unit is within 3" of itself.

Actually D3 MW seems to be the going rate for 2CP.
Also how often do you see models with 3 inches of each other and within range of a 12 inche 1 shot weapon that has to hit and wound even coming up?

I think you missed the point, but I will also address what you said:

1: my point, was that the harpoon deals an inherent D3 MW to the unit damaged. The Strat seems to be intended to be used in the situations that there is a buffing unit nearby. The strat adds a second D3 MW to the originally targeted unit.

2: how often are units within 3" of each other? Fairly. Between many buff-bots having some limited ranges and lack of blast markers there is no real need not to. Also smaller screening units and disembarking units from transports.

3: and within 12" range of a 1-shot weapon that has to hit and deal damage? I think you mean within 22"-25"(questor Imperialis/landstrider for 23, or blessed arms for 24, or Imperialis and blessed arms for 25"), and again, fairly often. There are many ways to increase your to-hit, and the harppon is almost auto-wound with only invul saves allowed.

Basically, it will come up often enough to justify the strats existence; and will often be powerfull enough to justify cost for other units(often characters)

Simply I don't understand why that would need nerfed especially given demons in the same book got a do a MW on a 2+ if you charge strategum thats 1CP.

Ice_can wrote:

 DarkHound wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 DarkHound wrote:
I think the trick to custom traits, since they are so specific in utility, is to soup different detachments with units specifically designed to maximize the traits. This is doubly true when combining with other factions..

And you have whopping 1.5 months or so to do that. Then you will be paying CP for every detachment. And unless they do some day 1 errata you will pay CP for every det since only patrol, battalion and brigade gets CP refunded if warlord is there. So 2 super heavy dets=2 det's paid for.

You're not wrong, but I'm certain we don't have the whole picture. Given that GW's stated goals with this system is to even the amount of CPs for formerly low CP factions, it's likely the Knight Lances rule will make Super-heavy Detachments a "core" detachment.

But only if it includes your warlord, which can be true with all Armigers but the Command benifit only kicked in originally when you took 3 questorus or Dominus class Knights, I expect that to come back if this super heavy detachment in your army includes 3 dominus or Questorus class knights and your Warlord this detachment costs 0CP. being how Knights get to be CP Neutral as it would be similar to Drukari.

Firstly, the command benefit works with 1 Knight and 2 Armigers. You get a double benefit from 3 Knights. But anyway, we finally arrived at my original point: they will probably have the Knight Lance rule refund your Warlord's detachment, but there may not be a reason to bring a Knight in a detachment of Armigers under the new system. Under that system, it would make sense to bring a trio of Armigers to maximize specific custom house traits, such as Hounds of War and Exacting Charge.

 DarkHound wrote:
Firstly, the command benefit works with 1 Knight and 2 Armigers. You get a double benefit from 3 Knights. But anyway, we finally arrived at my original point: they will probably have the Knight Lance rule refund your Warlord's detachment, but there may not be a reason to bring a Knight in a detachment of Armigers under the new system. Under that system, it would make sense to bring a trio of Armigers to maximize specific custom house traits, such as Hounds of War and Exacting Charge.

Thats the FAQ'd version which I expect to go aways as that would allow Knight allies to be CP Neutral and breaks the idea of only your Warlords detachment being free qhich they stated multiple timws during todays steam.
The codex version is as described and makes more sence for balancing the new mono vrs allies.
The Armiger detachment your describing as Allies yes but as a Main force probably not.

The 'Cut them down' strategy they previewed will really hurt Knights. Now trying to fall back from a group of Ork's or Gaunts will likely result in a few extra mortal wounds each time.

bmsattler wrote:
The 'Cut them down' strategy they previewed will really hurt Knights. Now trying to fall back from a group of Ork's or Gaunts will likely result in a few extra mortal wounds each time.

True but from whatnow conflicting infor GW has shared "shouldn't" have to fall back just go absolutely ham and Avenger, flamer stormspear and battlecannon them in the face. Thrn stubber their Mek to death because stubbers.

We don't know what the 'vehicle's shoot in combat' thing will look like. They could easily impose a -1 to hit penalty, or require that you shoot only at the group you're in combat with, or require that you can shoot anyone -but- the group you're in combat with, or...

I'd rather not count on that just yet, let alone give up on striking first or buffs like the Krast re-rolls.

Ice_can wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
The Valiant Harpoon strat is probably going to get an FAQ nerf: as written the original target takes 2d3 MW, along with the normal damage: so 12-16 damage to any single model unit.

Not sure if the design team remembered that the damaged unit is within 3" of itself.

Actually D3 MW seems to be the going rate for 2CP.
Also how often do you see models with 3 inches of each other and within range of a 12 inche 1 shot weapon that has to hit and wound even coming up?

I think you missed the point, but I will also address what you said:

1: my point, was that the harpoon deals an inherent D3 MW to the unit damaged. The Strat seems to be intended to be used in the situations that there is a buffing unit nearby. The strat adds a second D3 MW to the originally targeted unit.

2: how often are units within 3" of each other? Fairly. Between many buff-bots having some limited ranges and lack of blast markers there is no real need not to. Also smaller screening units and disembarking units from transports.

3: and within 12" range of a 1-shot weapon that has to hit and deal damage? I think you mean within 22"-25"(questor Imperialis/landstrider for 23, or blessed arms for 24, or Imperialis and blessed arms for 25"), and again, fairly often. There are many ways to increase your to-hit, and the harppon is almost auto-wound with only invul saves allowed.

Basically, it will come up often enough to justify the strats existence; and will often be powerfull enough to justify cost for other units(often characters)

Simply I don't understand why that would need nerfed especially given demons in the same book got a do a MW on a 2+ if you charge strategum thats 1CP.

Because Bloodcrushers do not already do that?

Can you even read my posts?

The Harpoon automatically causes d3 MW to the unit damaged by the Harpoon; the strat seems to intend on only dealing d3 MWs to units within 3" of the unit damaged; not adding a second d3 MWs on the same unit. 2CP to potentially 1-shot anything Land raider/repulsor or smaller (with a guaranteed 1-shot on almost every other tank), or 3-7 dead 1W models from the harpoon alone, doesn't seem to be what was intended.

It’s an aura. You can do it on the same target until told otherwise

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

Spoiler:

Ice_can wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
The Valiant Harpoon strat is probably going to get an FAQ nerf: as written the original target takes 2d3 MW, along with the normal damage: so 12-16 damage to any single model unit.

Not sure if the design team remembered that the damaged unit is within 3" of itself.

Actually D3 MW seems to be the going rate for 2CP.
Also how often do you see models with 3 inches of each other and within range of a 12 inche 1 shot weapon that has to hit and wound even coming up?

I think you missed the point, but I will also address what you said:

1: my point, was that the harpoon deals an inherent D3 MW to the unit damaged. The Strat seems to be intended to be used in the situations that there is a buffing unit nearby. The strat adds a second D3 MW to the originally targeted unit.

2: how often are units within 3" of each other? Fairly. Between many buff-bots having some limited ranges and lack of blast markers there is no real need not to. Also smaller screening units and disembarking units from transports.

3: and within 12" range of a 1-shot weapon that has to hit and deal damage? I think you mean within 22"-25"(questor Imperialis/landstrider for 23, or blessed arms for 24, or Imperialis and blessed arms for 25"), and again, fairly often. There are many ways to increase your to-hit, and the harppon is almost auto-wound with only invul saves allowed.

Basically, it will come up often enough to justify the strats existence; and will often be powerfull enough to justify cost for other units(often characters)

Simply I don't understand why that would need nerfed especially given demons in the same book got a do a MW on a 2+ if you charge strategum thats 1CP.

Because Bloodcrushers do not already do that?

Can you even read my posts?

The Harpoon automatically causes d3 MW to the unit damaged by the Harpoon; the strat seems to intend on only dealing d3 MWs to units within 3" of the unit damaged; not adding a second d3 MWs on the same unit. 2CP to potentially 1-shot anything Land raider/repulsor or smaller (with a guaranteed 1-shot on almost every other tank), or 3-7 dead 1W models from the harpoon alone, doesn't seem to be what was intended.

I can read I just don't understand why you think the intention is to for it to not apply to the target unit, it has to hit and wound first with a 1 shot weapon, okay it can do 10+D3MW but thats usually 12 spend 2CP to do D3 for an avarage of 2 so 14 wounds over all, just enough to kill and invictus warsuit but still less than the 16 needed for a landraider.

The splash damage is a bonus, but it's spending 2 CP for d3 MW dude that's not a great strategums unless someone is castling and you can get within 12 of a target for the harpoon, and if they can screen (as much as I detest that it's become so standard) you shouldn't be getting that close.
When was the last time someone tried to make a valient work, it suffers because its Relic flame weapon is in the Imperial side, but Mechnicus houses are generally better.

It having a 2CP startegums that allows it to splash around D3 MW onto static castles seems fair enough and my other army is Tau one of the armies most likely to be on the receiving end of said strategum.

So onto ... interesting options:

Custom Household, warlord trait, mechanicus allegiance, plus some relics:

Mechanics Household tradition: Survivors of strife; every Armiger +1W regenerating 1 Wound/turn, the rest are +2 wounds regretting 1 Wound/turn.

Take the oft laughed at Paragon of the Omnisiah as a Warlord trait for +2 more wounds(non-armiger now has +4, Armiger +3).

Mark Of the Omnisiah on any knight from this and they are regerating 2-4 wounds almost every turn.

Going to have to try a few games with survivors of strife versus house tarranis to see which is actually better.
What I mean here is that Statistically Traditions are the same, with a slight edge to Tarranis in perfect conditions, but with the WL trait on either I thing Survivors might be slightly better.

 DarkHound wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 DarkHound wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 DarkHound wrote:
I think the trick to custom traits, since they are so specific in utility, is to soup different detachments with units specifically designed to maximize the traits. This is doubly true when combining with other factions..

And you have whopping 1.5 months or so to do that. Then you will be paying CP for every detachment. And unless they do some day 1 errata you will pay CP for every det since only patrol, battalion and brigade gets CP refunded if warlord is there. So 2 super heavy dets=2 det's paid for.

You're not wrong, but I'm certain we don't have the whole picture. Given that GW's stated goals with this system is to even the amount of CPs for formerly low CP factions, it's likely the Knight Lances rule will make Super-heavy Detachments a "core" detachment.

But only if it includes your warlord, which can be true with all Armigers but the Command benifit only kicked in originally when you took 3 questorus or Dominus class Knights, I expect that to come back if this super heavy detachment in your army includes 3 dominus or Questorus class knights and your Warlord this detachment costs 0CP. being how Knights get to be CP Neutral as it would be similar to Drukari.

Firstly, the command benefit works with 1 Knight and 2 Armigers. You get a double benefit from 3 Knights. But anyway, we finally arrived at my original point: they will probably have the Knight Lance rule refund your Warlord's detachment, but there may not be a reason to bring a Knight in a detachment of Armigers under the new system. Under that system, it would make sense to bring a trio of Armigers to maximize specific custom house traits, such as Hounds of War and Exacting Charge.

So you would have 1 free det. Then whatever you ally, second knight det, ig det, whatever will cost cp. Don't expect every knight det to be free. Just the one that has warlord. And that means no ig/marine/whatever warlord

tneva82 wrote:

 DarkHound wrote:
But anyway, we finally arrived at my original point: they will probably have the Knight Lance rule refund your Warlord's detachment, but there may not be a reason to bring a Knight in a detachment of Armigers under the new system. Under that system, it would make sense to bring a trio of Armigers to maximize specific custom house traits, such as Hounds of War and Exacting Charge.

So you would have 1 free det. Then whatever you ally, second knight det, ig det, whatever will cost cp. Don't expect every knight det to be free. Just the one that has warlord. And that means no ig/marine/whatever warlord

My expectation is that every army is just going to eat the cost CP of extra detachments as payment for better/specialist detachment traits like you would for another Warlord trait or Relic. Just guestimating based on the revealed Battalion cost of 3 compared to 8th Battalions generating 5, I expect additional Vanguard/Spearhead/Super-heavy/whatever to cost 1 CP. A Patrol might cost 1 or 0. Would you pay 1 CP to make your melee Knights Krast and your shooting Knights Raven? Yeah, that's probably fair.

I think that breaks down if the cost is 2CP or more. It's probably worth 2 CP to merge two factions, but not to specialize house traits. I also think, with regards to merging factions, Knights will never be the Warlord's detachment. Most other factions need at least a Battalion's worth of Force Org slots, and you'd rather get that 3 CP refunded. But of course, it'll also depend on what they do with the Knight Lances rule.

All that being said, I think everybody is sleeping on Hounds of War. It might as well read: friendly units can fire into close combat and the Warglaives always fight first. I think that is enough to give Warglaives a serious role as counter-assault in either Knight or mixed armies. Since Imperial Knights are/are-allied-to predominantly shooting armies, Hounds of War gives those armies the opportunity to support the Warglaives while they continue to fight. Three Warglaives can screen a lot more of the board than a single Knight at the same cost. Hounds of War is also a huge movement/tactical benefit, since you don't have to re-charge the same unit. You can move 14", charge ~7", then fall back 14" further into enemy lines and charge another 7".

Except those gave least cp in 8th. As they have less tax and more good slots they are unlikely be cheap. Brigade is the likely 1 cp one. Vanquard etc i expect 4 minimum

Ah, I see what you mean. In that case, 3 or 4 CP for another detachment is going to be awful for army diversity. Everybody's going to be mono-faction with one Brigade, hoarding those CPs.

If there's no rule that the Warlord has to come from the largest detachment, I could still see souping, it'd just be inverted. You take your Warlord in your special detachment, and use a cheap Brigade (IG or AdMech) to fill bodies.

In any case, Knights are going to interact strangely with the new rules.

 DarkHound wrote:
Ah, I see what you mean. In that case, 3 or 4 CP for another detachment is going to be awful for army diversity. Everybody's going to be mono-faction with one Brigade, hoarding those CPs.

If there's no rule that the Warlord has to come from the largest detachment, I could still see souping, it'd just be inverted. You take your Warlord in your special detachment, and use a cheap Brigade (IG or AdMech) to fill bodies.

In any case, Knights are going to interact strangely with the new rules.

Except vanquard, spearhead etc don't refund. It's only patrol/bat/brigade. How dark eldar/knights work is still unclear.

And the cost has to be high enough it's actually genuine choice rather than automatic to get better unit rules. Mono faction(even within codex) should get some compensation for having inferior units. Why anybody would take battalion with lots of tax for 3CP if vanquard with less tax would be 1 or 2 CP?

edit: BTW one oddity if brigade is less than 3 CP you are better off warlord in battalion and non-refunded brigade.

Nonsense making the cost so high doesnt make it a choice it makes it a huge penalty. Sure you can take 3 detatchments but then you'll have half the CP of everyone else and need more

Its a mechanism designed to force mono play as much as possible without actualy forceing mono play - of course it only works at 2000pts once you go bigger and have more CP to play with you get a choice again.

So far from the mention of raiding party and lance rules being carried over to 9th (though unconfirmed if they will change or not) as I suspect it would be the codex lance rule not the later FAQ'd varions that would carry over.
As raiding party is +4CP for 3 patrols it's likely 2CP per patrol, 3 battalion and I would guess 4or 5 for brigade.

How many CP a Superheavy Aux (Guessing at 1 as adding A KNIGHT apparently vosts 1or2 cp, assuming 1 SupAux and 1 Codex) is doesn't make much odds as Aux don't get house hould traits never have.

I just hope the lance rule requires your warlord to refund CP so we have less soup shenanigans.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

U02dah4 wrote:
Nonsense making the cost so high doesnt make it a choice it makes it a huge penalty. Sure you can take 3 detatchments but then you'll have half the CP of everyone else and need more

Its a mechanism designed to force mono play as much as possible without actualy forceing mono play - of course it only works at 2000pts once you go bigger and have more CP to play with you get a choice again.

The issue is currently out side of codex PrimOPness soup and minmaxing is 100% upsides and anyone trying to play mono faction mono subfaction in a single detqchmeng gets the underpowered end of the stick twice.
The way the detachment system worked in 8th was not the way GW intended it to at all they already said that. You now get rewarded for fillinf your detachments beyond the bare minimum.

Ice_can wrote:
So far from the mention of raiding party and lance rules being carried over to 9th (though unconfirmed if they will change or not) as I suspect it would be the codex lance rule not the later FAQ'd varions that would carry over.
As raiding party is +4CP for 3 patrols it's likely 2CP per patrol, 3 battalion and I would guess 4or 5 for brigade.

Eh those don't really make sense when detachments COST CP. In 8th ed brigade gave you most because it had most tax. In same logic it can't now be most or nobody takes it except for free warlord if it costs most CP. You lose most CP AND have to take most tax? Assuming GW is even remotely interested in balance that doesn't work...

More tax, less CP cost.

For drukhari if they had to pay 2 CP per patrol...yeah right. Not happening. I expect either it to be set price(smaller than 3 patrol) for 3 or have all 3 patrol refund if warlord is from one.

tneva82 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
So far from the mention of raiding party and lance rules being carried over to 9th (though unconfirmed if they will change or not) as I suspect it would be the codex lance rule not the later FAQ'd varions that would carry over.
As raiding party is +4CP for 3 patrols it's likely 2CP per patrol, 3 battalion and I would guess 4or 5 for brigade.

Eh those don't really make sense when detachments COST CP. In 8th ed brigade gave you most because it had most tax. In same logic it can't now be most or nobody takes it except for free warlord if it costs most CP. You lose most CP AND have to take most tax? Assuming GW is even remotely interested in balance that doesn't work...

More tax, less CP cost.

For drukhari if they had to pay 2 CP per patrol...yeah right. Not happening. I expect either it to be set price(smaller than 3 patrol) for 3 or have all 3 patrol refund if warlord is from one.

Well 3 patrols cost 4CP at 2CP per patrol as the warlords is free, raiding party is +4CP for 3 patrols 3 patrols = 0CP cost.

You coming at this as units are a Tax GW doesn't believe thats really a thing outside of troops. Additionally a Brigade gives you a lot more slots to fill in 1 detachment and GW has stated you will want to put your warlord in the biggest detachment. Hence I suspect it's going to be 2, 3, 4 for the only detachments that refund CP. Battalion is supposed to be a rare level of ally a brigade is supposed to be the main force. Making it cost less CP would lead to wierd situations where a brigade of guard bring along a battalion of Marines/SoB and the battalion contains the warlod.

Oh true GW being GW wouldn't be surprise if they ignore balance and makes silly excuses like that.

I'm talking about POV of balance and give GW benefit of doubt that they care about it enough they do at least kindergarden level of balance to the game.

Ice_can wrote:
So far from the mention of raiding party and lance rules being carried over to 9th (though unconfirmed if they will change or not) as I suspect it would be the codex lance rule not the later FAQ'd varions that would carry over.
As raiding party is +4CP for 3 patrols it's likely 2CP per patrol, 3 battalion and I would guess 4or 5 for brigade.

How many CP a Superheavy Aux (Guessing at 1 as adding A KNIGHT apparently vosts 1or2 cp, assuming 1 SupAux and 1 Codex) is doesn't make much odds as Aux don't get house hould traits never have.

I just hope the lance rule requires your warlord to refund CP so we have less soup shenanigans.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

U02dah4 wrote:
Nonsense making the cost so high doesnt make it a choice it makes it a huge penalty. Sure you can take 3 detatchments but then you'll have half the CP of everyone else and need more

Its a mechanism designed to force mono play as much as possible without actualy forceing mono play - of course it only works at 2000pts once you go bigger and have more CP to play with you get a choice again.

The issue is currently out side of codex PrimOPness soup and minmaxing is 100% upsides and anyone trying to play mono faction mono subfaction in a single detqchmeng gets the underpowered end of the stick twice.
The way the detachment system worked in 8th was not the way GW intended it to at all they already said that. You now get rewarded for fillinf your detachments beyond the bare minimum.

currently there are 4 downsides to soup

1) Tax units more factions means more detachments which requires a lot of mandatory units how many admech units really needed 3 enginseers and a dominous compared to the number that took them.
2) CP Requirement. Most factions excepting guard tended to have CP requirements to make function eg. Knights want warlord traits and relics Ba wants the same only with DS buffs etc etc. This meant that in practice most soup lists needed more CP to function which meant more tax units
3) Some factions have big penalties for even small souping SM doctrines and SoB sacred rites
4) a loss of synergy. Which is a big one. Admech are particularly vulnerable to this as one of the more common multi dogma factions. But lots of auras are coded to specific dogma/chapters and if you take multiples you cant buff/repair all units in your army. now yes auras are limited range anyway so yes you cant get all your army under the one aura and you can build/play round this. But it is still a significant downside.

So to say there are no downsides to souping is just BS.

It might be more advantageous net than not souping thus representing a choice but it certainly wasn't mandatory to compete evidenced by all those SM lists utilising doctrines. Ironically knights were probably the one list where it was mandatory, But it still is in ninth for the same reason you need some models to sit on objectives. The only difference in ninth is that the guard brigade is probably the only choice as it doesn't have the CP demands other allies.

Yes under the previous system you were often (but not always) disadvantaged if you brought a mono dogma/chapter in a mono detatchment for no strategic reason just as most armies are disadvantaged if all they take is flamers as special/heavy weapons. Your deliberately handicapping yourself and that's a choice that you don't have to make and even if you did you could still have the CP to functionaly run the list. I certainly had good performances with some mono brigade lists by choice. So both soup and mono could function.

The difference is ninth is looking like its not really a choice because on top of the 4 negatives to souping your now getting a huge CP reduction and one of the big negatives of soup armies is they need more CP to be efficient.

tneva82 wrote:
Oh true GW being GW wouldn't be surprise if they ignore balance and makes silly excuses like that.

I'm talking about POV of balance and give GW benefit of doubt that they care about it enough they do at least kindergarden level of balance to the game.

Except I don't really see the above being super imbalanced anyway,
My mono Knights in 1 Superheavy single house hold get the full 12 CP and are happy

If you take the 32 you loose 3 CP or whatever the Super heavy detachment is in CP hopefully sufficiently enough that it's not a no brainer to do so 3CP if you put your warlord in either you still start 4CP if its 1CP per codex worse off which balances out the advantage of the increased unit choice and flexibility adding in CP cost for additional warlord trait and relic and you can claw it back to 0 CP but that's because regen trailts and relics are just super good when its minimum 70% chance of gain that CP per turn.

TLD playing mono Knights over the 32 will gain you less than a 1CP advantage that to me says it's not as the sky is falling as people make out if anything GW failed to move the neddle far enough to make sure allies have a cost of inclusion.

Mono knights + Guard brigade is fine 9 CP +1 per turn is sufficient

Mono Knights + a Non Guard Ally Is a different case because BA/SM/SoB/Admech (post enginewar) all want about 6CP pregame which is then in conflict with the CP your knights need
These then become substantially weaker choices than not souping

Tripple faction just compounds this to such an extent that its as poor a choice as taking a full brigade of choices but sticking it in a battalion in 7th - you just wont see it.

So is the sky falling in no - but is list building a lot more restrictive causeing a lot less variety in options absolutely

U02dah4 wrote:

Spoiler:

Ice_can wrote:
So far from the mention of raiding party and lance rules being carried over to 9th (though unconfirmed if they will change or not) as I suspect it would be the codex lance rule not the later FAQ'd varions that would carry over.
As raiding party is +4CP for 3 patrols it's likely 2CP per patrol, 3 battalion and I would guess 4or 5 for brigade.

How many CP a Superheavy Aux (Guessing at 1 as adding A KNIGHT apparently vosts 1or2 cp, assuming 1 SupAux and 1 Codex) is doesn't make much odds as Aux don't get house hould traits never have.

I just hope the lance rule requires your warlord to refund CP so we have less soup shenanigans.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

U02dah4 wrote:
Nonsense making the cost so high doesnt make it a choice it makes it a huge penalty. Sure you can take 3 detatchments but then you'll have half the CP of everyone else and need more

Its a mechanism designed to force mono play as much as possible without actualy forceing mono play - of course it only works at 2000pts once you go bigger and have more CP to play with you get a choice again.

The issue is currently out side of codex PrimOPness soup and minmaxing is 100% upsides and anyone trying to play mono faction mono subfaction in a single detqchmeng gets the underpowered end of the stick twice.
The way the detachment system worked in 8th was not the way GW intended it to at all they already said that. You now get rewarded for fillinf your detachments beyond the bare minimum.

currently there are 4 downsides to soup

1) Tax units more factions means more detachments which requires a lot of mandatory units how many admech units really needed 3 enginseers and a dominous compared to the number that took them.
2) CP Requirement. Most factions excepting guard tended to have CP requirements to make function eg. Knights want warlord traits and relics Ba wants the same only with DS buffs etc etc. This meant that in practice most soup lists needed more CP to function which meant more tax units
3) Some factions have big penalties for even small souping SM doctrines and SoB sacred rites
4) a loss of synergy. Which is a big one. Admech are particularly vulnerable to this as one of the more common multi dogma factions. But lots of auras are coded to specific dogma/chapters and if you take multiples you cant buff/repair all units in your army. now yes auras are limited range anyway so yes you cant get all your army under the one aura and you can build/play round this. But it is still a significant downside.

So to say there are no downsides to souping is just BS.

It might be more advantageous net than not souping thus representing a choice but it certainly wasn't mandatory to compete evidenced by all those SM lists utilising doctrines. Ironically knights were probably the one list where it was mandatory, But it still is in ninth for the same reason you need some models to sit on objectives. The only difference in ninth is that the guard brigade is probably the only choice as it doesn't have the CP demands other allies.

Yes under the previous system you were often (but not always) disadvantaged if you brought a mono dogma/chapter in a mono detatchment for no strategic reason just as most armies are disadvantaged if all they take is flamers as special/heavy weapons. Your deliberately handicapping yourself and that's a choice that you don't have to make and even if you did you could still have the CP to functionaly run the list. I certainly had good performances with some mono brigade lists by choice. So both soup and mono could function.

The difference is ninth is looking like its not really a choice because on top of the 4 negatives to souping your now getting a huge CP reduction and one of the big negatives of soup armies is they need more CP to be efficient.

Yeah disaggree 100% on the Tax units especially in relation to Guard and Admech their troops are the very units you wanted.
Guard HQ's make the troops better so not a tax and admech HQ's could heal knights in theory, so still very minimal tax

2) No your saying spending more CP to supercharge more units ment you needed more CP, thats just pilling imbalance upon imbalance and making Soup even more oppresively must be used to have a functional army

3) oh yeah the last two codex's dropping less than a year out from 9th had bonuses for being mono codex really helped stop Add the 32 being the default answer to what is the best way to run Knights.

4) lack of synergy is wholey upon the player you could claim the same for taking flyers and it being hard to buff them with aura's yet.

So playing the game from one codex and being disadvantaged by the design of the detachment system means what? Just suck it up and by another army? Seriously you may aswell be arguing for their to be 5 factions of imperium, choas, Eldar, Nids , and haha not even real factions for necrons, Tau and Orks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

U02dah4 wrote:
Mono knights + Guard brigade is fine 9 CP +1 per turn is sufficient

Mono Knights + a Non Guard Ally Is a different case because BA/SM/SoB/Admech (post enginewar) all want about 6CP pregame which is then in conflict with the CP your knights need
These then become substantially weaker choices than not souping

Tripple faction just compounds this to such an extent that its as poor a choice as taking a full brigade of choices but sticking it in a battalion in 7th - you just wont see it.

So is the sky falling in no - but is list building a lot more restrictive causeing a lot less variety in options absolutely

It's not restricted at all you can still bring your guard Admech etc you just can No longer have your cake and eat it, list building isnt more restrictive its more open you can minmax your units from multiple codex's or play with more restrictions on units but ofset by CP.

Look across the game as a whole in ninth and im betting that you see a lot less HQ and Troop choices. I'm not saying you want none but certainly players were taking more than they needed as taxes.

I certainly knew players taking 9-12 troop choices for CP im betting those players don't take 9 in 9th.

If your building your armies efficiently you supercharge them when there's an option to do so especially given GW propensity to take ability of datasheets and into strategems. (Admech were terrible for it). If i take my knights with relic and warlord traits and you play me with your knights but don't take them my knights are better. Sure you don't have to relic and warlord trait them but doing so your handicapping yourself vs players that do. and that process won't change in ninth.

I rarely ran my guard with my knights admech was my preferred fluffy option - more synergy now its not a viable option so add 32 is the only sensible option.

4) its not on the player. There is either synergy or there it isn't if my dominus can give rr1's to my whole army or my dominus can give rr1's to only a 3rd of my army it has less synergy. The first gives you a lot more flexibility and will result in situations where suboptimal units get a buff because they happen to be in a good location boardstate wise in comparison to the latter where my guardsmen might be in range of my dominus but get no buff. As I said you can deploy around it but it is definitely a negative.

Its not having your cake and eat it its functioning on an equal basis to other armies. now you have all the negatives of before plus an even bigger negative and your one plus is halved because as you say you can't turbo charge. Thats not a choice when you are competeing vs factions such as Tau and necrons that don't have that problem and in the case of necrons got massively buffed Sure you can techniquely take your knights and not relic or wl trait them or your admech and not utilise them properly but your gonna autolose. So most players just won't its an illusion of choice