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.

All the FAQ technically cleared is you cant take a bigchoppa + kombi, as theyre in the 2nd list.
To this day i get flak for running doublechoppa nobz.

tneva82 wrote:

Spammikg intercessorst won't be going away. Horde blast rule doesn't matter nor does any other change so far.

By all accounts it seems better than before -- Horde unit got a 50% point increase, Intercessor got a 15% increase (we don't know guns of course).

We need full context but from what we know now it's gonna be used. The fact that squads can split at 10 might even see play for those special actions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Command Phase gives you CP as expected, but it depends on the mission. So sometimes it won't.

Detachments always have a cost, but you get a refund if the warlord is in that detachment.

Sounds like in the future, plan for maybe mixing 2 clans at most. Thankfully, Orks can easily make do with 2 clans to cover most of our units.

I am really wondering if grots are going to become even more important in future editions for us. If they only go up 1 PPM to 4 points, they are going to be cheap as chips still. Plus they can perform special actions OR grot shields for a tougher unit to finish off a special action. Losing the shooting of that 5-10 MANz unit is largely irrelevant, and if they aren't in range to assault, who cares if they stand still for a turn.

They really seem to be emphasizing elite armies are going to be king. Stu Black mentioned the Ork army he was playing was a Dread spam (KK, Deff Dreads).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wow. Never mind lol.

A battalion costs 3 CP... if vanguards and the like are similar that’s brutal.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/06/04/taking-command-of-your-pointsgw-homepage-post-1/

Sort of? You arent mandated to take CP generating detachments anymore, unless they spring something new up you can more easily run pure heavy/elite/FA than before since you dont NEED brig/bats for cp generation.

 Vineheart01 wrote:
Sort of? You arent mandated to take CP generating detachments anymore, unless they spring something new up you can more easily run pure heavy/elite/FA than before since you dont NEED brig/bats for cp generation.

If that is to my last answer (That's brutal), taking a more clans is still probably optimal *if* feasible.

We'll have to see if Outrider / Vanguard costs 3 CP, if so, I don't know if going down to 9 CP in a 2000 point game just to take that second clan is worth it. Maybe 2 CP to get that second clan will be worth it.

They did talk about you having more command points if the army was from the same faction though (to discourage soup, as we already know). But in today's stream they reiterated that statement although also talked about sub-factions the same way (meaning they'd cost extra points as well).

Maybe they misspoke but I'd wager that whatever detachment you take other than what matches your warlods' specific subfaction will cost extra CP. That'll become an issue pretty quick for Orks.

This is exactly what I was worried about. The only klans that are reasonably competitive pure would be DS and FB.

A huge benefit to marines, who already get bonuses for staying mono.

PiñaColada wrote:
They did talk about you having more command points if the army was from the same faction though (to discourage soup, as we already know). But in today's stream they reiterated that statement although also talked about sub-factions the same way (meaning they'd cost extra points as well).

Maybe they misspoke but I'd wager that whatever detachment you take other than what matches your warlods' specific subfaction will cost extra CP. That'll become an issue pretty quick for Orks.

Patrol/bat/brigade refunds if warlord there. All dets cost so if warlord is in say vanquard you pay for all det's. Bat is 3cp. Wonder how much vanquard etc cost. In 8th gave least. In 9th do they thus take most? Second bat will cost 3cp. So multi klan will cost cp. Thats now sure


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dendarien wrote:
This is exactly what I was worried about. The only klans that are reasonably competitive pure would be DS and FB.

A huge benefit to marines, who already get bonuses for staying mono.

Multi klan etc should cost cp. Mono should for sake of balance have something to compensate.

Issue is marines who get 3 bonuses staying mono. More cp, doctrines, super doctrines. In 8th ed codes should have mono bonus(though not marine level. Sister is much better. Maybe bit too light). In 9th ed they shouldn't. Marine codex 1 was 9th ed suitable. Mk2 was 8th

Sadly, the more we're seeing of 9th, the less convincing it is looking. Either this piecemeal reveal approach isn't working well and is creating a negative impression the overall rules won't, or the rules really are a bit of a mess. Either way, they ought to reconsider how they're revealing this stuff. It isn't inspiring confidence and getting people hyped.

tneva82 wrote:

PiñaColada wrote:
They did talk about you having more command points if the army was from the same faction though (to discourage soup, as we already know). But in today's stream they reiterated that statement although also talked about sub-factions the same way (meaning they'd cost extra points as well).

Maybe they misspoke but I'd wager that whatever detachment you take other than what matches your warlods' specific subfaction will cost extra CP. That'll become an issue pretty quick for Orks.

Patrol/bat/brigade refunds if warlord there. All dets cost so if warlord is in say vanquard you pay for all det's. Bat is 3cp. Wonder how much vanquard etc cost. In 8th gave least. In 9th do they thus take most? Second bat will cost 3cp. So multi klan will cost cp. Thats now sure


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dendarien wrote:
This is exactly what I was worried about. The only klans that are reasonably competitive pure would be DS and FB.

A huge benefit to marines, who already get bonuses for staying mono.

Multi klan etc should cost cp. Mono should for sake of balance have something to compensate.

Issue is marines who get 3 bonuses staying mono. More cp, doctrines, super doctrines. In 8th ed codes should have mono bonus(though not marine level. Sister is much better. Maybe bit too light). In 9th ed they shouldn't. Marine codex 1 was 9th ed suitable. Mk2 was 8th

I think for some factions a mixture is actually appropriate for background sake (Orks and Dark Eldar). The biggest balance issues have been pulling multiple codices together, not multiple subfactions. As much as this hurts orks though, man RIP DE who were already in a kind of rough spot.

I totally agree that ideally for balance sake, mono faction is the way to go. I just hope there is some compensating factors for this that are not just point cost adjustments down the line.

RIP non-CWE generally. Quins are a joke to play mono, the codex is totally, woefully incomplete. It's got literally half as many units of the next smallest codex. It was never intended to be a completely independent faction.

It's also very hard to square this nonsense with the claim that the PA books were designed with 9th in mind. If so, why so much focus in the ork book on specialist detachments? This is a mechanic that just became total junk.

Fluff wise appropriate yes but mono goffs etc are also thing in fluff and crucially mono goff is worse than mix of klans(not to mention benefit you get from more slots). Balance requires thus mono klan get boost.

If this makes orks be too weak correct solution is to give enough buffs to orks, not make multi klan/order/regiment be free power ups with no downside.

How much CP would you spend to take a second detachment?

Honestly, I don't think double clan is dead. If it costs 1 CP, it's fine. 2 CP I think is okay. 3+... that's a no.

I could easily see taking a Deathskull or Evil Suns bat (depending what you want as troops), then an outrider of the other.. taking stuff like Deff Koptas, Buggies. That'll be very powerful and it's not super CP intensive for the first couple of turns, so waiting a few turns for CP regen won't be a big deal.

tneva82 wrote:
Fluff wise appropriate yes but mono goffs etc are also thing in fluff and crucially mono goff is worse than mix of klans(not to mention benefit you get from more slots). Balance requires thus mono klan get boost.

If this makes orks be too weak correct solution is to give enough buffs to orks, not make multi klan/order/regiment be free power ups with no downside.

I agree 100%. I've always loved Goffs and would like that to be a competitive alternative to DS or FB. Unfortunately I doubt any adjustment to kultures will come without a new codex, which is likely a long ways off.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tulun wrote:
How much CP would you spend to take a second detachment?

Honestly, I don't think double clan is dead. If it costs 1 CP, it's fine. 2 CP I think is okay. 3+... that's a no.

I could easily see taking a Deathskull or Evil Suns bat (depending what you want as troops), then an outrider of the other.. taking stuff like Deff Koptas, Buggies. That'll be very powerful and it's not super CP intensive for the first couple of turns, so waiting a few turns for CP regen won't be a big deal.

Warhammer Community confirmed its 3 CP for a battalion.

Not sure if the others will be more or less.

The really interesting thing will be how much patrols cost. If patrols are 1CP, a lot of the issues go away, and they will become the preferred supplementary detachment. Paying only 1CP to soup isn't a big deal. Paying 3 is prohibitive.

It wouldn't make much sense to have a patrol be only 1CP but a bat be 3CP...but god knows making sense isn't really GW's strong suit. It didn't make any sense in 8th either that a patrol gave you nothing but a bat gave you 5, but that's still how it worked.

It's 3CP for a battalion that exactly matches your warlords' faction. Perhaps vanguard/spearhead/outriders cost less CP each (but I somewhat doubt that), you're still going to get hit by the "soup tax". I can't see an extra soup detachment costing less than 3CP personally so it's doubtful if that's worth it for Orks, who are so incredibly CP hungry already.

I play mono, no skin off my back. But I wager DS are going to become the norm

"So, if you don’t earn Command points by taking additional Detachments, do they still interact with each other in any way? The answer is yes, but how they do so has been turned on its head. Instead of earning you Command points, each Detachment you take will instead COST you Command points. However, it’s worth noting that the Command points spent on a ‘core’ Detachment (Patrol, Battalion or Brigade) are refunded if it also includes your Warlord, so your first Detachment is usually free. "

Brigade is gonna be the way to be.

Also I misread that new strat at first and went insane, thankfully i was corrected.

PiñaColada wrote:
It's 3CP for a battalion that exactly matches your warlords' faction. Perhaps vanguard/spearhead/outriders cost less CP each (but I somewhat doubt that), you're still going to get hit by the "soup tax". I can't see an extra soup detachment costing less than 3CP personally so it's doubtful if that's worth it for Orks, who are so incredibly CP hungry already.

I play mono, no skin off my back. But I wager DS are going to become the norm

The battalion image on the WHC article shows that it costs 3 for the batt, but you get 3 back if it includes your warlord so it is free for the first.

Will definitely be interesting to see how they handle other detachments, or if they even add/change/remove some of them. My guess is those that gave less CP in the past will now cost more, as there is less HQ and troop tax and generally deadlier units.

 Dendarien wrote:

PiñaColada wrote:
It's 3CP for a battalion that exactly matches your warlords' faction. Perhaps vanguard/spearhead/outriders cost less CP each (but I somewhat doubt that), you're still going to get hit by the "soup tax". I can't see an extra soup detachment costing less than 3CP personally so it's doubtful if that's worth it for Orks, who are so incredibly CP hungry already.

I play mono, no skin off my back. But I wager DS are going to become the norm

The battalion image on the WHC article shows that it costs 3 for the batt, but you get 3 back if it includes your warlord so it is free for the first.

Will definitely be interesting to see how they handle other detachments, or if they even add/change/remove some of them. My guess is those that gave less CP in the past will now cost more, as there is less HQ and troop tax and generally deadlier units.

I know that, but your soup detachment still has to actually be a detachment. Hence you're paying an extra 3CP for your second battalion, plus an additional 1 or 2 because your second detachment is of a different subfaction than your first

The strat seems poorly designed, especially if they are trying to move away from hordes. It gives grots the same ability to cut down a retreating super heavy tank that a warlord titan has.

But it's also so underwhelming you're unlikely to see it used much. You basically need 12 or more models within 1" of the enemy unit to make using it worth the CP based on the way most strats are valued - and if you've got 12+ models within an inch and haven't wrapped the unit, you probably messed something up anyway. So the use is even more marginal.

The ability to make an attack (maybe even full attacks) per model against a falling back unit should have just been standard in 9th edition. Making people pay CP for it, and turning it into mortal wounds, is a bit silly.

 Emicrania wrote:
"So, if you don’t earn Command points by taking additional Detachments, do they still interact with each other in any way? The answer is yes, but how they do so has been turned on its head. Instead of earning you Command points, each Detachment you take will instead COST you Command points. However, it’s worth noting that the Command points spent on a ‘core’ Detachment (Patrol, Battalion or Brigade) are refunded if it also includes your Warlord, so your first Detachment is usually free. "

Brigade is gonna be the way to be.

Also I misread that new strat at first and went insane, thankfully i was corrected.

Depends. Taking 6 troops might not be wise, even if it gives you 5 HQ slots and the myriad of other stuff.

If patrols really only cost 1 CP, I actually bet Orks will do Bat / patrol. At current FoC, patrols are awesome for a small second detachment, and you save yourself 2 troop slots.

1-2 HQS

1-3 Troops

0-2 Elites

0-2 Fast Attack

0-2 Heavies

0-2 Flyers

The patrol is interesting because it's by far the most flexible detachment, it's just that nobody used it because it didn't give you any CP. In a world where things cost CP instead of granting them, you may see a lot more use out of it.

The one drawback - the only one - is that you can only take 2 of most things, which means you can't max out the rule of 3. But you may see less of that anyway I think, because if the new standard is effectively 1500 points instead, maxing out the rule of 3 will become a lot more expensive relatively speaking, anyway.

PiñaColada wrote:
It's 3CP for a battalion that exactly matches your warlords' faction. Perhaps vanguard/spearhead/outriders cost less CP each (but I somewhat doubt that), you're still going to get hit by the "soup tax". I can't see an extra soup detachment costing less than 3CP personally so it's doubtful if that's worth it for Orks, who are so incredibly CP hungry already.

I play mono, no skin off my back. But I wager DS are going to become the norm

Brigade i suspect costs less. More tax. Patrol on that logic most expensive.

Wonder what forts are. If they too cost cp will be even less popular. Already weak


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PiñaColada wrote:

 Dendarien wrote:

PiñaColada wrote:
It's 3CP for a battalion that exactly matches your warlords' faction. Perhaps vanguard/spearhead/outriders cost less CP each (but I somewhat doubt that), you're still going to get hit by the "soup tax". I can't see an extra soup detachment costing less than 3CP personally so it's doubtful if that's worth it for Orks, who are so incredibly CP hungry already.

I play mono, no skin off my back. But I wager DS are going to become the norm

The battalion image on the WHC article shows that it costs 3 for the batt, but you get 3 back if it includes your warlord so it is free for the first.

Will definitely be interesting to see how they handle other detachments, or if they even add/change/remove some of them. My guess is those that gave less CP in the past will now cost more, as there is less HQ and troop tax and generally deadlier units.

I know that, but your soup detachment still has to actually be a detachment. Hence you're paying an extra 3CP for your second battalion, plus an additional 1 or 2 because your second detachment is of a different subfaction than your first

Pretty sure different subfaction doesn't cost cp. Article didn'" even mention different codex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Btw minor fix but transports 1 per infantry now. Always felt weird you can bring razorback for every tank

They talked about sub-factions (in passing) on the stream. To me it seemed that they insinuated that not only other codices but also other subfactions would be classified as soup and infer an extra cost.

We'll see how much each detachment will cost in the end, brigades might be cheaper due to the amount of troop slots but I certainly wouldn't wager on patrol and vanguard/spearhead/outrider being cheap as they have a minimal amount of slot tax units.

The rule says additional detachments even of the same sub-faction cost CP.

If there is some additional CP penalty on top of the 3CP for another bat that you have to pay if it isn't of the same sub-faction or faction...hoooooo boy.

Charging more for patrols/vanguards/etc makes no sense in the context of them saying they wanted to move *away* from having tax units. Of course, it's GW, so just because it makes no sense doesn't mean that isn't how it will be. But I would be surprised.

That's what I'm saying. I'm almost certain they mentioned that in passing on todays stream. So if you have 2 battalions, one DS with your warlord, and another ES. It might look something like:

12CP for being 2000 points battleforged
Pay 3 for your first battalion (is fully refunded though)
Pay 3 for your second battalion detachment
Pay 1 for your second battalion not being the same subfaction as the first battalion
---------------------------
Start the game with 8CP

Cut them down is a missed chance to just allow all models to attack IMO.

As for getting negative vibes from the new rules - orks have always been an army that has worked very closely with the core rules, and many of our competitive strategies rely on exploiting the shortcomings of 8th edition. Fixing them will give those strategies a hit.
This has been the case for every edition change I've been part of, the main difference is that this time we might not be stuck with our problems for multiple years.
Also keep in might that right now we still have the mech build which is semi-competitive and seems to be getting a lot of love from the new rules.

PiñaColada wrote:
They talked about sub-factions (in passing) on the stream. To me it seemed that they insinuated that not only other codices but also other subfactions would be classified as soup and infer an extra cost.

We'll see how much each detachment will cost in the end, brigades might be cheaper due to the amount of troop slots but I certainly wouldn't wager on patrol and vanguard/spearhead/outrider being cheap as they have a minimal amount of slot tax units.

Yeah i expect brigade be 1, vanquard etc 3-5.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:
The rule says additional detachments even of the same sub-faction cost CP.

If there is some additional CP penalty on top of the 3CP for another bat that you have to pay if it isn't of the same sub-faction or faction...hoooooo boy.

Charging more for patrols/vanguards/etc makes no sense in the context of them saying they wanted to move *away* from having tax units. Of course, it's GW, so just because it makes no sense doesn't mean that isn't how it will be. But I would be surprised.

Better det, more pricey. Less tax, more good units. Same reason why they gave least.

If vanquard is 3(or even less) why take inferior bat as 2nd det...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relistening. They mentioned you can take additional detachments gainlng flexibility taking ability to take other factions, subfactions or more slots but this comes at a cost. Sounds it is just reference to det cost, not separate cost even to unlock codex. But will listen more. Maybe they get back to this

yukishiro1 wrote:
The strat seems poorly designed, especially if they are trying to move away from hordes. It gives grots the same ability to cut down a retreating super heavy tank that a warlord titan has.

But it's also so underwhelming you're unlikely to see it used much. You basically need 12 or more models within 1" of the enemy unit to make using it worth the CP based on the way most strats are valued - and if you've got 12+ models within an inch and haven't wrapped the unit, you probably messed something up anyway. So the use is even more marginal.

The ability to make an attack (maybe even full attacks) per model against a falling back unit should have just been standard in 9th edition. Making people pay CP for it, and turning it into mortal wounds, is a bit silly.

This
The only point of this strat for us is tying up units in large mobs of grots to combat lock them. (Although units can fire in melee now)
Then when that lord of change wants to fall back out of combat you can mortal wound spam him with ~18 grots for an average of 3 wounds.

Regarding the rest of this gak
I’m thinking 12 command points with 1 per turn realistically first 4 are all that matters.. is way to low for command points since they are adding more strategems, adding command points consuming abilities, and taking away command points if I want 2 detachments regardless of soup or not. I’m already at 15 command points on my current triple bat list and it’s not enough... I can drop it down to 1 detachments but It’s still worse off. This isn’t more Cp for me or anyone using Triple bat.


At best I hope tournaments go back to the old 6th ed 2000+1 tourney list.. allowing us to start with 18 command points. I can work with 18cp plus 1 a turn.. as I said before I Hope ghaz gives you more command points if not death skulls or freebooter all day everyday.

I really don't think there will be even more CP costs on top of the detachment costs for soup, that would be a truly brutal penalty, and they have been careful to say all along that soup is still viable.

If a bat cost 1CP I could see another 1CP penalty if it's soup, but the idea it will take 4CP or more to take a soup detachment just seems utterly ridiculous.

Yeah. Having listened stream it didn't sound additional cp over det. Just that having more dets giving more flexibility "to bring other factions, subfactions or for example more hq slots. But it comes with cost". Not 100% quote but fairly close i think it was.

Btw on bit positive news on news&rumour forum thread was rumour about character protection now being if within x" of unit that is closer to enemy. If true reduces amount of units that can cover character making easier to kill protectors to shoot with flanking unit. This is i think first core rule change(if true) that helps hordes. Easier to have backups and cover multiple angles.

It also gives reward for outflanking enemy.

On flipside does make characters more vulnerable so ssag etc are bit easier to kill