Tabletop tactics big hint....

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.

**Racerguy180**

Amishprn86 wrote:
DarknessEternal wrote:
At what point did anyone start winning with objectives in eighth? It's still kill everything in three turns.

People that play the actually game and not the 1 mission that is Kill points.

Try doing that in any CA missions and see how you fair, or try Maelstrom. The game is more than just ITC you know. Try it sometime you might find it more fun.

Wait, the game exists without total tableage, never would know that based on how some people act.

**Daedalus81**

Wayniac wrote:
Amishprn86 wrote:
DarknessEternal wrote:
At what point did anyone start winning with objectives in eighth? It's still kill everything in three turns.

People that play the actually game and not the 1 mission that is Kill points.

Try doing that in any CA missions and see how you fair, or try Maelstrom. The game is more than just ITC you know. Try it sometime you might find it more fun.

Maybe if you play ITC Champions missions it's kill everything in three turns, but not using real missions.

*BOOM* Headshot.

Can you say that's true when LVO games are scoring in the 4th and 5th rounds quite commonly?

**Reemule**

I still support CP based off points, losing CP for taking more than 1 detachment, and more than 1 faction.

**oni**

GW really needs to go back to the original printing of 3CP's for a Battalion and 9 CP's for the Brigade.

If they want to change Battle-forged to 5 CP's to compensate, fine. But one of the worst things to have happened to this edition is the increase in CP's for the Battalion and Brigade detachments.

Beyond this, GW should make it so that in Matched Play games you need to pay CP's to add Faction keywords to the army.

**Daedalus81**

oni wrote:
GW really needs to go back to the original printing of 3CP's for a Battalion and 9 CP's for the Brigade.

If they want to change Battle-forged to 5 CP's to compensate, fine. But one of the worst things to have happened to this edition is the increase in CP's for the Battalion and Brigade detachments.

Beyond this, GW should make it so that in Matched Play games you need to pay CP's to add Faction keywords to the army.

That change was helpful to marines and just fine in the context of Guard not being able to use all that CP, but the surplus now has an outlet. Reducing it still just hurts elites more, because Guard get it more cheaply. Forcing people to pay for factions just hurts elites more, because Guard get CP more cheaply.

**An Actual Englishman**

The thing is GW have said a lot of things recently that they haven't necessarily followed up on and I'm not sure how much TT are in the know.

As an example - didn't they say that every player would be excited for what turned out to be the Shadowspear/Abaddon reveal?

This news seems really, really bizarre to me - Troops are already critical in any list because they generate CPs. What I'd rather see is more CPs for taking themed armies like all bikes, all Termies etc

**Daedalus81**

An Actual Englishman wrote:

As an example - didn't they say that every player would be excited for what turned out to be the Shadowspear/Abaddon reveal?

This news seems really, really bizarre to me - Troops are already critical in any list because they generate CPs. What I'd rather see is more CPs for taking themed armies like all bikes, all Termies etc

Where did you hear that? On stream? Could it be every hobbyist would be excited? Because that Abaddon model is baller.

**Marmatag**

Spoletta wrote:
Marmatag wrote:
Command points should be based on the points values of troops you take. If you spend 300 points on troops you should get more cp than someone who spends 120.

It's a race to the bottom because of that.

Only troops holding objectives is a *TERRIBLE* idea. If they restricted it to <INFANTRY>, <BIKER>, and <CAVALRY> i'd be okay with that. But it does completely feth over some armies entirely, which doesn't seem like a good way to balance the game.

I'm laughing so hard that people think allies are a problem.

Why aren't all the Space Marines + Castellan lists winning? Same percentage of allies. Where are they?
What about Sisters of Battle + Castellan?
What about all knights, including Castellan?
What about all Scions + Castellan?

There is a smoking gun here. But seeing the truth is hard, so it's easier just to blame "soup." I put soup in quotes because it really stopped being soup when they banned IMPERIUM, CHAOS, and TYRANIDS as legal detachment construction keywords.

This^

Also, this is exactly what i expect to happen following that hint.
CPs being based on the actual POINTS spent on troops. A simple beta rule could do it "A detachment can give a maximum of one CP for every 3 PL of troops in it". Done.
Now a battalion requires 15 pl of troops in it to give the full 5 CP, and a battalion requires a really big investment in troops to do the same.

I would like it.

We agree! #heartattack

**Pain4Pleasure**

Marmatag wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Marmatag wrote:
Command points should be based on the points values of troops you take. If you spend 300 points on troops you should get more cp than someone who spends 120.

It's a race to the bottom because of that.

Only troops holding objectives is a *TERRIBLE* idea. If they restricted it to <INFANTRY>, <BIKER>, and <CAVALRY> i'd be okay with that. But it does completely feth over some armies entirely, which doesn't seem like a good way to balance the game.

I'm laughing so hard that people think allies are a problem.

Why aren't all the Space Marines + Castellan lists winning? Same percentage of allies. Where are they?
What about Sisters of Battle + Castellan?
What about all knights, including Castellan?
What about all Scions + Castellan?

There is a smoking gun here. But seeing the truth is hard, so it's easier just to blame "soup." I put soup in quotes because it really stopped being soup when they banned IMPERIUM, CHAOS, and TYRANIDS as legal detachment construction keywords.

This^

Also, this is exactly what i expect to happen following that hint.
CPs being based on the actual POINTS spent on troops. A simple beta rule could do it "A detachment can give a maximum of one CP for every 3 PL of troops in it". Done.
Now a battalion requires 15 pl of troops in it to give the full 5 CP, and a battalion requires a really big investment in troops to do the same.

I would like it.

We agree! #heartattack

I typically run anywhere from 15-18 pl of troops in my ynnari anyway. So I’d be 100% ok w that even from a competetive standpoint

**Quasistellar**

that's not a bad idea really. Interesting!

**FezzikDaBullgryn**

So, my DW Army would have about 30CP.....

YOU GET STRATAGEMS, AND YOU GET STRATAGEMS, EVERYONE GETS A STRATAGEM!

**Spoletta**

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, my DW Army would have about 30CP.....

YOU GET STRATAGEMS, AND YOU GET STRATAGEMS, EVERYONE GETS A STRATAGEM!

Sorry no

That beta rule adds a limit on the CPs given, does not give MORE. You can have 60 PL in a battalion, it would still be 5 CP.

**Pain4Pleasure**

Spoletta wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, my DW Army would have about 30CP.....

YOU GET STRATAGEMS, AND YOU GET STRATAGEMS, EVERYONE GETS A STRATAGEM!

Sorry no

That beta rule adds a limit on the CPs given, does not give MORE. You can have 60 PL in a battalion, it would still be 5 CP.

Yeah cause otherwise we would
Be simply handing out more to the terrible guard/castellan/DW/ad mech group. Honestly another fix for the castellan, just to say, is if you bring him and only him, you can’t use CP or relics/warlord traits on him. You have to at least bring a lance. Doesn’t hurt knight players, or players who run more than one knight. Only those trying to abuse the castellan

**FezzikDaBullgryn**

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, my DW Army would have about 30CP.....

YOU GET STRATAGEMS, AND YOU GET STRATAGEMS, EVERYONE GETS A STRATAGEM!

Sorry no

That beta rule adds a limit on the CPs given, does not give MORE. You can have 60 PL in a battalion, it would still be 5 CP.

Yeah cause otherwise we would
Be simply handing out more to the terrible guard/castellan/DW/ad mech group. Honestly another fix for the castellan, just to say, is if you bring him and only him, you can’t use CP or relics/warlord traits on him. You have to at least bring a lance. Doesn’t hurt knight players, or players who run more than one knight. Only those trying to abuse the castellan

The problem with these 4th quarter changes is that the units established back in 2017/8 were built with a style of gameplay in mind. The problem is allowing titans and lords of war in an infantry based game. Setting the rules to Apoc style skewed the game into this.

**Pain4Pleasure**

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, my DW Army would have about 30CP.....

YOU GET STRATAGEMS, AND YOU GET STRATAGEMS, EVERYONE GETS A STRATAGEM!

Sorry no

That beta rule adds a limit on the CPs given, does not give MORE. You can have 60 PL in a battalion, it would still be 5 CP.

Yeah cause otherwise we would
Be simply handing out more to the terrible guard/castellan/DW/ad mech group. Honestly another fix for the castellan, just to say, is if you bring him and only him, you can’t use CP or relics/warlord traits on him. You have to at least bring a lance. Doesn’t hurt knight players, or players who run more than one knight. Only those trying to abuse the castellan

The problem with these 4th quarter changes is that the units established back in 2017/8 were built with a style of gameplay in mind. The problem is allowing titans and lords of war in an infantry based game. Setting the rules to Apoc style skewed the game into this.

I don’t mind titants. I’m just saying a way to kill single castellan models while having zero negative affects on people who want to run mono titans or a mix of some titants and a few troops

**An Actual Englishman**

Daedalus81 wrote:
An Actual Englishman wrote:

As an example - didn't they say that every player would be excited for what turned out to be the Shadowspear/Abaddon reveal?

This news seems really, really bizarre to me - Troops are already critical in any list because they generate CPs. What I'd rather see is more CPs for taking themed armies like all bikes, all Termies etc

Where did you hear that? On stream? Could it be every hobbyist would be excited? Because that Abaddon model is baller.

Yea stream. New Abaddon model is baller. Doesn't excite me though.

**ccs**

An Actual Englishman wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
An Actual Englishman wrote:

As an example - didn't they say that every player would be excited for what turned out to be the Shadowspear/Abaddon reveal?

This news seems really, really bizarre to me - Troops are already critical in any list because they generate CPs. What I'd rather see is more CPs for taking themed armies like all bikes, all Termies etc

Where did you hear that? On stream? Could it be every hobbyist would be excited? Because that Abaddon model is baller.

Yea stream. New Abaddon model is baller. Doesn't excite me though.

I'm excited for the Chaos players who're excited about the new Abaddon model. Does that count?

**Pain4Pleasure**

ccs wrote:
An Actual Englishman wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
An Actual Englishman wrote:

As an example - didn't they say that every player would be excited for what turned out to be the Shadowspear/Abaddon reveal?

This news seems really, really bizarre to me - Troops are already critical in any list because they generate CPs. What I'd rather see is more CPs for taking themed armies like all bikes, all Termies etc

Where did you hear that? On stream? Could it be every hobbyist would be excited? Because that Abaddon model is baller.

Yea stream. New Abaddon model is baller. Doesn't excite me though.

I'm excited for the Chaos players who're excited about the new Abaddon model. Does that count?

Yes lol, it’s a nice model. I do feel like the sword got smaller? Or did they not scale it up when they scaled him up

**Blndmage**

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, my DW Army would have about 30CP.....

YOU GET STRATAGEMS, AND YOU GET STRATAGEMS, EVERYONE GETS A STRATAGEM!

I'm actually 100% with this, assuming Strategems are faction locked.

It Really shows the Elite nature of DW, as they can do the exceptional consistently. I wonder how it would break down for other forces?

**the_scotsman**

An Actual Englishman wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
An Actual Englishman wrote:

As an example - didn't they say that every player would be excited for what turned out to be the Shadowspear/Abaddon reveal?

This news seems really, really bizarre to me - Troops are already critical in any list because they generate CPs. What I'd rather see is more CPs for taking themed armies like all bikes, all Termies etc

Where did you hear that? On stream? Could it be every hobbyist would be excited? Because that Abaddon model is baller.

Yea stream. New Abaddon model is baller. Doesn't excite me though.

I have zero interest in chaos stuff, but I am excited whenever a super old kit gets replaced - and we know chaos marines are getting three super fething old kits revamped. That's awesome.

I'm sorry if you feel betrayed by standard hype language. no, dedicated players of a single one of what, 24 factions out now, are not going to be excited about *any* given release if their criteria is "only things that pertain to my faction and only things that pertain to my faction that I specifically want!!"

**drbored**

Youtubers often get early looks at GW stuff so that they can prep/paint the models and prepare videos for when the stuff is about to be released, which helps GW build up hype for relatively little cost.

It's great for GW since they get youtubers to sell their product and great for the youtubers since brand new content tends to drive up views which helps their own income.

The youtubers have to sign a fat NDA and adhere to strict rules, and those that don't follow them get removed from the 'in crowd'.

The effect, however, is that youtubers often know more about upcoming GW product than GW's own staff! But, if anyone knows anything about GW's plans, it would be the playtesters and youtubers that work closely with them. I wouldn't be surprised if Tabletop Tactics knew a thing or two about the upcoming FAQ.

**Ginjitzu**

As a hardcore fluff player, I don't think objective scoring should be limited to troops choices; it just doesn't fit the narrative. On the other hand, Stormcraft's suggestion that only the Warlord's detachment should score objectives is intriguing from both a matched play and a narrative perspective.

**Racerguy180**

Ginjitzu wrote:
As a hardcore fluff player, I don't think objective scoring should be limited to troops choices; it just doesn't fit the narrative. On the other hand, Stormcraft's suggestion that only the Warlord's detachment should score objectives is intriguing from both a matched play and a narrative perspective.

I can get behind this.

**Banville**

Racerguy180 wrote:
Ginjitzu wrote:
As a hardcore fluff player, I don't think objective scoring should be limited to troops choices; it just doesn't fit the narrative. On the other hand, Stormcraft's suggestion that only the Warlord's detachment should score objectives is intriguing from both a matched play and a narrative perspective.

I can get behind this.

How about you add that only the Warlord's Detachment can use the CPs.

**Ginjitzu**

Banville wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote:
Ginjitzu wrote:
As a hardcore fluff player, I don't think objective scoring should be limited to troops choices; it just doesn't fit the narrative. On the other hand, Stormcraft's suggestion that only the Warlord's detachment should score objectives is intriguing from both a matched play and a narrative perspective.

I can get behind this.

How about you add that only the Warlord's Detachment can use the CPs.

Deal.

**An Actual Englishman**

the_scotsman wrote:
An Actual Englishman wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
An Actual Englishman wrote:

As an example - didn't they say that every player would be excited for what turned out to be the Shadowspear/Abaddon reveal?

This news seems really, really bizarre to me - Troops are already critical in any list because they generate CPs. What I'd rather see is more CPs for taking themed armies like all bikes, all Termies etc

Where did you hear that? On stream? Could it be every hobbyist would be excited? Because that Abaddon model is baller.

Yea stream. New Abaddon model is baller. Doesn't excite me though.

I have zero interest in chaos stuff, but I am excited whenever a super old kit gets replaced - and we know chaos marines are getting three super fething old kits revamped. That's awesome.

Good for you.

I'm sorry if you feel betrayed by standard hype language. no, dedicated players of a single one of what, 24 factions out now, are not going to be excited about *any* given release if their criteria is "only things that pertain to my faction and only things that pertain to my faction that I specifically want!!"

Not what I said or implied. Read my post again. There are plenty of things they could release/do that would actually excite the entire player base but releasing a sub faction specific model is not one of them. Nor is releasing a boxed set of new models for only 2 factions. There are Chaos players who aren't particularly excited for this release.

Claiming that everyone is going to be hyped for this release is like claiming everyone would be hyped for the Ork releases by your criteria. That also had ancient models getting an update.

Do you want to stop desperately trying to slander me now?

**Bago**

drbored wrote:
Youtubers often get early looks at GW stuff so that they can prep/paint the models and prepare videos for when the stuff is about to be released, which helps GW build up hype for relatively little cost.

It's great for GW since they get youtubers to sell their product and great for the youtubers since brand new content tends to drive up views which helps their own income.

The youtubers have to sign a fat NDA and adhere to strict rules, and those that don't follow them get removed from the 'in crowd'.

The effect, however, is that youtubers often know more about upcoming GW product than GW's own staff! But, if anyone knows anything about GW's plans, it would be the playtesters and youtubers that work closely with them. I wouldn't be surprised if Tabletop Tactics knew a thing or two about the upcoming FAQ.

Especially tabletop tactics as they seem really close to games workshop. They always have the codex before its released. They always upload a battle report with the new army in the week the codex drops. So I wouldn't be surprised, that the get hinted some new changes like "hey guys, we gonna update the troops rule, think about xy before".

**Karol**

Well if this means GW is going to fix GK termintors to be a valid option comparing to the paladins, why not. You guys think the change is going to happen in the big FAQ or through some sort of vigilus 2 errata ?

**stormcraft**

Big FAQ would be the place for this kind of (Beta?)Rules.

I'm really really hoping that they GK a blanket exemption to the 50% Deepstrike rule, that would be an easy band aid buff until a new codex.

**TangoTwoBravo**

Banville wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote:
Ginjitzu wrote:
As a hardcore fluff player, I don't think objective scoring should be limited to troops choices; it just doesn't fit the narrative. On the other hand, Stormcraft's suggestion that only the Warlord's detachment should score objectives is intriguing from both a matched play and a narrative perspective.

I can get behind this.

How about you add that only the Warlord's Detachment can use the CPs.

Warlord's Detachment or Faction? Why do people want to hurt mono-Codex armies with their anti-soup plans?