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.

tneva82 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Don't know till Tuesday but I thought you only paid CP for Detachments beyond your own Codex?

Could be wrong but pretty sure I heard CP for detachments and CP for unlocking other codexes. Ie you would pay both going for different codex. And in terms of balance it makes sense to pay CP to get multiple detachments even inside same codex. For one it encourages using all kinds of slots rather than spamming your optimal slot forever. For second it gives reward to staying same order/klan/regiment/dynasty/whatever despite flat out losing pure power. With sisters ATM taking bloody rose for melee units is no brainer. Apart from more CP from 2nd detachment you ALSO get better units for no cost! By docking CP for another deatchment even inside same codex you a) encourage filling up detachment slots rather than simply taking new one b) optimizing bonuses comes with cost.

When you have seen pure evil suns for example? Or goffs? Orks with zero shooting doesn't really work so they need shooting element but...evil sun souped up shock attack gun? Ummm...right. Not that useful. Goff is even more ridiculous. More attacks in melee in shooty unit But if I heard right and you dock CP for detachments even inside same codex that SSAG would be tradeoff between better shooting ability and CP. There would actually be choise to make. With sisters valorous heart would be making decision does he/she want more CP or bloody rose bonuses for those repentias which might or might not be as obvious choice depending on army build.

From what I understand GW only mentioned in the Q&A livestream this past Tuesday that bringing in detachments from OTHER codeciies would cost CP and somehow that evolved into people speculating that detachments WITHIN the same codex would cost CP and it's kind of become the standard mantra which is bizarre to me. We also don't know if detachments are going to change or if some detachments that exist now are going to be scrapped altogether. GW did say Troops choices are still important so I think armies taking 3 bare min Troop choices are going to be at a big disadvantage compared to armies that choose to field more, as it should be.

For all we know game size might determine what your starting detachment is. Somebody mentioned that game size will determine what missions are played so that can factor in army choice. It's fair to compare what we know to how 8th plays now but we don't know the whole picture. We might lose some detachments, some detachments that stay might get restructured to have different comp. choices that make that detachment up.

I need to take what I know about 9th (which is obviously not very much), do some theory hammer about rules and see how it affects the forces I play. Sisters have lots of flexibility (not Marine level but more than Tau or even Orks or Nids) so I don't think the detachment fears are going to be merited, especially if a person can run multiple AS detachments for no CP penalty.

Well as said could be wrong but thought I heard first det is free and further cost. And that's the balanced way. If you can get multiple different order/chapter/regiment/whatever from same codex then that's still not balanced and fair leaving mono armies at disadvantage. Power boosts should never be free.

What we do know is you aren't forced to take troops. If there's going to be troops on field it's because you are encouraged to take for sake of efficiency. Not because you are forced to field detachment that has them. They even specifically mentioned deathwing army and that's army that doesn't use troops as there's no troop slot for deathwing.

Maybe I'm wrong but doesn't Belial make your Tactical terminators count as Troops?

I know not everybody that plays DW fields him but that doesn't ignore the fact he does.

We again don't know how detachments work or what detachments are allowed at various points levels.

If DW/RW are crap mono that's a codex issue, not a detachment issue. Daemons are strongest when souped, that's not because of the rules of 8th edition.

Not to mention for as long as I've been playing 40k (since RT days) a mix of unit types has always been stronger. Daemons were always better souped than mono-god; DW/RW were always stronger together than separate.

I get wanting to focus on one particular area of the codex for theme or fluff or just plain aesthetics but the core rules should never try to fix imbalanced army specific rules, the codex should address that.

I don't know how this will affect Sisters of Battle. As has been the norm, we have a good reason to take troops. We dont have planes. So I mean.... i don't know that i see a ton of change for us and maybe that is a good thing. Our tanks will be better off and that's a good thing but so frequently, the tanks are very well shielded from such entanglements since Sisters boast 100 models on a regular basis (well in my world they do).

My REAL concern would have been Marines not taking troops, but then again they have some very good and popular troops choices also. I think min maxing with Marines will be far easier and thats bad for us from a competitive edge standpoint, but from a game play standpoint we might well be one of the least impacted codex's

I think 9th is going to be driven more by CP / stratagems and their effectiveness. Therefore I think GW will use CP to dis-incentivize using nothing but “elite” type builds.

My theory is all lists will start with 20 CP (100 pts per CP).
Battalions and Super-heavy Knight Detachments will neither cost nor add CP to the total.
Brigades will ADD 5 CP to the list total.
“Other” detachments will subtract 2 CP per detachment.
Detachments of a different Faction from the first detachment will subtract 2 CP per.

So a pure brigade detachment would start with 25 CP whereas an “elite” type force of Space Marines with 3 “other” detachments would start off with 14 CP, and if one of those was, say, a Custodes detachment, then they’d start with 12 CP.

I think the 13 CP difference in the brigade is enough incentive for those builds, which can “rev up” their “lower-performing” units so that they can be competitive vs the all-elite builds.

Just my guess.

 davidgr33n wrote:

I think 9th is going to be driven more by CP / stratagems and their effectiveness. Therefore I think GW will use CP to dis-incentivize using nothing but “elite” type builds.

My theory is all lists will start with 20 CP (100 pts per CP).
Battalions and Super-heavy Knight Detachments will neither cost nor add CP to the total.
Brigades will ADD 5 CP to the list total.
“Other” detachments will subtract 2 CP per detachment.
Detachments of a different Faction from the first detachment will subtract 2 CP per.

So a pure brigade detachment would start with 25 CP whereas an “elite” type force of Space Marines with 3 “other” detachments would start off with 14 CP, and if one of those was, say, a Custodes detachment, then they’d start with 12 CP.

I think the 13 CP difference in the brigade is enough incentive for those builds, which can “rev up” their “lower-performing” units so that they can be competitive vs the all-elite builds.

Just my guess.

I really really doubt that's how it works. That's just the system we have now with extra steps. If they were going to do it that way they wouldn't have made such a hoopla about both players starting with the same CP. They would have just made the battleforged benefit higher and the detachment benefit smaller.

I would not be surprised at all to see no specific benefits to the different detachments at all.

Different ones could easily have different cost depending on how much of a tax it is.

But yeah no detachment gives CP. That's extremely likely based on what GW has said.

I do like that my Flame based Immolators can shoot in combat now as well.

I tend to burn through CPs as well so having a large base is no bad thing - big boost for some other armies like Knights if the base is 20.

The no Stacking mods is one that will make a big difference if its more than just "to hit " rolls.

Depending on how Terrain actually works IG artillery could get even more powerful especially if they can fire out of Close combat.

Immolators might be good in 9th. Being able to shoot all those Flamer weapons at whatever is trying to bog you down might just dislodge the pests.

jivardi wrote:From what I understand GW only mentioned in the Q&A livestream this past Tuesday that bringing in detachments from OTHER codeciies would cost CP and somehow that evolved into people speculating that detachments WITHIN the same codex would cost CP and it's kind of become the standard mantra which is bizarre to me. We also don't know if detachments are going to change or if some detachments that exist now are going to be scrapped altogether. GW did say Troops choices are still important so I think armies taking 3 bare min Troop choices are going to be at a big disadvantage compared to armies that choose to field more, as it should be.

For all we know game size might determine what your starting detachment is. Somebody mentioned that game size will determine what missions are played so that can factor in army choice. It's fair to compare what we know to how 8th plays now but we don't know the whole picture. We might lose some detachments, some detachments that stay might get restructured to have different comp. choices that make that detachment up.

I need to take what I know about 9th (which is obviously not very much), do some theory hammer about rules and see how it affects the forces I play. Sisters have lots of flexibility (not Marine level but more than Tau or even Orks or Nids) so I don't think the detachment fears are going to be merited, especially if a person can run multiple AS detachments for no CP penalty.

They seemed indicate not he Saturday Preview stream that additional detachments will cost CP and using extra books will also cost CP. At this point, everyone is speculating on imprecise statements. Don't take anything as gospel until you get more details from Warhammer Community in June.

jivardi wrote:Maybe I'm wrong but doesn't Belial make your Tactical terminators count as Troops?

That's a rule for an edition long, long ago (OK 5th - 7th I think).

What matters is relative cost if you have 20 cp and it costs 1 cp per book and 1cp per detatchment nothing much changes

if you have 10 cp and 1 per detatchment or 5 per book then a mono brigade sisters army is crippled by a loss of cp

so discussion on ninth is a waste of time

U02dah4 wrote:
What matters is relative cost if you have 20 cp and it costs 1 cp per book and 1cp per detatchment nothing much changes

if you have 10 cp and 1 per detatchment or 5 per book then a mono brigade sisters army is crippled by a loss of cp

so discussion on ninth is a waste of time

I almost feel like i said so like 2 pages ago. Lol.

Honestly, 9th edition will be what it will be. They have gotten a lot of political capital from me by the way they have been doing things so I really am not worried. I think the management team they have is heads and tails above what they have ever had before.

I think Immolators will be worth taking because at least in 9th they won't get bogged down by enemy units. I mean I guess enemy Terminators or somthing good at ripping tanks apart but at least those flame weapons will at least fire into melee.

Kind of want to see how reserves are going to work.

They also said that overwatch is changing.

I wouldn't be surprised if vehicles will no longer be able to overwatch, since they can still shoot while in melee.

jivardi wrote:
I think Immolators will be worth taking because at least in 9th they won't get bogged down by enemy units. I mean I guess enemy Terminators or somthing good at ripping tanks apart but at least those flame weapons will at least fire into melee.

Kind of want to see how reserves are going to work.

Into? So far we know tanks/monsters can shoot FROM melee. Haven't seen anywhere they would also gain ability to fire INTO melee.

Firing into melee would make mortifiers heavy flamer special rule irrelevant not to mention being very illoogical.

Spoletta wrote:
They also said that overwatch is changing.

I wouldn't be surprised if vehicles will no longer be able to overwatch, since they can still shoot while in melee.

That would be....disapointing for flamer type weapons.....

 Mr Morden wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
They also said that overwatch is changing.

I wouldn't be surprised if vehicles will no longer be able to overwatch, since they can still shoot while in melee.

That would be....disapointing for flamer type weapons.....

Only vehicle mounted ones.

Spoletta wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
They also said that overwatch is changing.

I wouldn't be surprised if vehicles will no longer be able to overwatch, since they can still shoot while in melee.

That would be....disapointing for flamer type weapons.....

Only vehicle mounted ones.

Still though - They really seem the weapons that should be overwatching!

The rules will be out in due course till then this discussion is pointless

If you don't want to discuss then don't discuss and don't spam same phrase?

Getting tagged in melee isn't the problem with Immolators, so I don't expect them to become better. If anything, I expect them to become more overcosted in the short term.

Lammia wrote:
Getting tagged in melee isn't the problem with Immolators, so I don't expect them to become better. If anything, I expect them to become more overcosted in the short term.

Why not? It's short ranged tank. It will get easily tagged and before this it meant no shooting.

If you think overwatch protects there is plenty of ways to tag tank into melee WITHOUT triggering overwatch. Especially good vs targets that don't worry you by their melee attacks and immolator isn't exactly big threat on melee ability...Hitting on 6's.

tneva82 wrote:

Lammia wrote:
Getting tagged in melee isn't the problem with Immolators, so I don't expect them to become better. If anything, I expect them to become more overcosted in the short term.

Why not? It's short ranged tank. It will get easily tagged and before this it meant no shooting.

If you think overwatch protects there is plenty of ways to tag tank into melee WITHOUT triggering overwatch. Especially good vs targets that don't worry you by their melee attacks and immolator isn't exactly big threat on melee ability...Hitting on 6's.

My Immolator serves as a distraction Carnifex/tarpit/overwatch soaker. Anything that charges it has to deal with the Arcos/Repentia that were following.

Being out of Martyrs Immolation range with 10 wounds and t7 is more scary than being pinned out of Overwatch and charged.

Overwatch? As i said. It gets tagged without overwatch. Tagged and if you have troops inside don't even count being able to unload them.

Problem of tanks with short range guns and no fly

tneva82 wrote:
Overwatch? As i said. It gets tagged without overwatch. Tagged and if you have troops inside don't even count being able to unload them.

Problem of tanks with short range guns and no fly

I wouldn't keep troops inside an Immolator... I'd drive it at an enemy to force them to deal with a tank that's going to be right on top of them clearing their troops and then doing mws to anything nearby.

Being able to shoot over watch means your opponent has to waste resources and/or opportunities to deny it or take 2d6 wounds on whatever charges it.

In the meantime you've got a melee element behind it to dig it out if it does get swarmed by geq or finish off the squad of genestealers or whatever that blew up the Immolator.

Lammia wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Overwatch? As i said. It gets tagged without overwatch. Tagged and if you have troops inside don't even count being able to unload them.

Problem of tanks with short range guns and no fly

I wouldn't keep troops inside an Immolator... I'd drive it at an enemy to force them to deal with a tank that's going to be right on top of them clearing their troops and then doing mws to anything nearby.

Being able to shoot over watch means your opponent has to waste resources and/or opportunities to deny it or take 2d6 wounds on whatever charges it.

In the meantime you've got a melee element behind it to dig it out if it does get swarmed by geq or finish off the squad of genestealers or whatever that blew up the Immolator.

Why you keep saying overwatch? Nobody will charge it if 2d6 s5 -1 worries. They will just tag it in melee. No overwatch.

How many times i need to point out you don't get overwatch?

tneva82 wrote:

Lammia wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Overwatch? As i said. It gets tagged without overwatch. Tagged and if you have troops inside don't even count being able to unload them.

Problem of tanks with short range guns and no fly

I wouldn't keep troops inside an Immolator... I'd drive it at an enemy to force them to deal with a tank that's going to be right on top of them clearing their troops and then doing mws to anything nearby.

Being able to shoot over watch means your opponent has to waste resources and/or opportunities to deny it or take 2d6 wounds on whatever charges it.

In the meantime you've got a melee element behind it to dig it out if it does get swarmed by geq or finish off the squad of genestealers or whatever that blew up the Immolator.

Why you keep saying overwatch? Nobody will charge it if 2d6 s5 -1 worries. They will just tag it in melee. No overwatch.

How many times i need to point out you don't get overwatch?

because if anything else of yours is in your opponent's charge range to consolidate into the Immolator, you've messed up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's not a Main Battle Tank, that will activately lose you more games than it helps. It's playstyle more closely resembles a Scout Sentinel than it does a Predator.

I loved my Immolator, but have found it a bit expensive now days for what it does.

And what it does best is draw fire. Nobody wants a tank that tosses out 2d6 S5 AP-1 auto hit attacks rolling up to them (as an Advance move because it as Assault Flamers!) and daring them to kill to so that you can auto-explode it in their face.

However, at a 110 points, it doesn't live long enough to get that done super effectively.

 alextroy wrote:
I loved my Immolator, but have found it a bit expensive now days for what it does.

And what it does best is draw fire. Nobody wants a tank that tosses out 2d6 S5 AP-1 auto hit attacks rolling up to them (as an Advance move because it as Assault Flamers!) and daring them to kill to so that you can auto-explode it in their face.

However, at a 110 points, it doesn't live long enough to get that done super effectively.

Exactly! I just don't think any of the rule changes we know about help that, and may even hurt it. It needs a cost reduction to become great again.

tneva82 wrote:

jivardi wrote:
I think Immolators will be worth taking because at least in 9th they won't get bogged down by enemy units. I mean I guess enemy Terminators or somthing good at ripping tanks apart but at least those flame weapons will at least fire into melee.

Kind of want to see how reserves are going to work.

Into? So far we know tanks/monsters can shoot FROM melee. Haven't seen anywhere they would also gain ability to fire INTO melee.

Firing into melee would make mortifiers heavy flamer special rule irrelevant not to mention being very illoogical.

Well as is the case even in more modern tank design, some weapons they have would be considered self defense guns like a storm bolter. So its possible that they will add a designation for that and allow SOME guns to do it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lammia wrote:
Getting tagged in melee isn't the problem with Immolators, so I don't expect them to become better. If anything, I expect them to become more overcosted in the short term.

I don't understand why. It does nothing but improve them in the present state of things. i personallly make an extra effort to shut down shooting whenever I can. This is going to make things harder on a melee army, because the game is already shoot-centric (I mean...it is modern warfare).