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.

Honestly, I've long been an advocate for certain types of HQ 'tier's required to take certain types of units for an army, similar to what the Horus Heresy does.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Honestly, I've long been an advocate for certain types of HQ 'tier's required to take certain types of units for an army, similar to what the Horus Heresy does.

I'd like to see more of that system as a sort of buy in on supplement books. Want to play Imperial Fists? You need X, Y and Z mininum. Ect, ect.

From what we've seen so far, the new CP and detachment system will work, ROUGHLY, like so:

There will be a set number of Command Points for the point level of a game. For now, let's just say 1 CP per 100 pts of the game... so, 10 CP at 1000 points, 15 at 1500, 20 at 2000, and so on. This set level keeps things fair and allows for easy of figuring out certain costs.

NOTE: We don't know the formula yet, but it will be something along those lines.

Detachments don't seem to have changed in design (IE, a Patrol still has 1-2 HQ, 1-3 Troops, and 0-2 of Elite, Fast, and Heavy support) but instead of GENERATING CP, they instead COST CP, with possibly one being free.

So what you'll have is some kind of a shopping list, like:

Patrol - 1 CP
Battalion - 3 CP
Brigade - 5 CP
Vanguard - 4 CP
Spearhead - 4 CP
Outrider - 4 CP
Supreme Command - 5 CP
Super Heavy - 5 CP
Air Wing - 3 CP
Super Heavy Auxillary - 2 CP
Fortification Network - 1 CP
Auxillary Support - 1 CP

"One for free" will be worked in somehow, possibly based on points. 0-999: Free Patrol. 1000-1999: Free Batallion 2000+ Free Brigade Any you want beyond that will have a cost.

So, in a 2000 point game, if you just wanted three Spearheads, you could, but that would set you back 12 of your 20 CP, giving your opponent more strategic options.

So, you'd still be encouraged to take troops, since the three Troop-heavy detachments would be cheaper than the specialized ones, but would carry a 'troop tax' of a sort as a balance.

Obvviously, I don't have the exact numbers but that really rough layout up above will let you see how it should work, based on what we know, and let you play around a bit unill we get the actual rules, to see how your own forces can be laid out.

Maybe you know your force sneeds a TON of CP, like Orks, so you just plan on a pair of REALLY FAT Batalions, leaving you 17 CP.

Maybe you want the raw POWAH of a bunch of heavy choices, but all those Spearheads leave you short on CP for upgrades, rerolls, and so on, so you have to rely on the big guns getting it done.

It's just spending some pre-game, just like you do to get more Relics or upgrade a Psycher, only it gives you more slots to stick units into.

Obviously, this is just based on what we know at this stage and it could change (For instance, they cold ditch detachments and just do a straight CP to buy 1 slot (2 if troops)) and, most important, the exact numbers are unknown to us, but, it'll work as a guidepost.

So there ya go.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

You're either or choice is invalid for a couple of reasons: first 9th was written with the 8th ed rules in mind, which is something people keep screwing up since it means they didn't write the edition then release codexes written as a sort of foot in both edition mess. Secondly the game is a transitional bump like 6th to 7th, not 7th to 8th. That means consolidating the changes, improving on things the community provided feedback for over the last three years, and that means this idea that the Chicken-Little-ing over the edition change is unnecessary, as it always is.

So we are back at no meaningful changes if they can't release errata. And 6th to 7th had errata too. So did 3rt tow4th, 4th to 5th. If you want same codex to stay either you can't make real changes or there's errjta.

All your claims were same in 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th. Guess what? Erratas.


So it's back to invalidate codexes, no meaningful changes or erratas. Your pick. You can't keep codexes, have meaningful changes and no errata's


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sledgehammer wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:
Thats kinda the point I'm making. No one is going to take infantry "for objectives", because that's boring and not fun.

Give infantry a role to fill and something to do. Otherwise people aren't going to take them, and if they do it will only be out of sheer necessity.

That's literally what infantry do though. They hold the ground your better stuff has taken.

This has been true since as early as WW1 when you couldn't send infantry across no man's land without the support of your heavy support units (machine guns and artillery).

Infantry provide multiple roles other than waiting around for everyone else to do everything

They can protect heavier elements from receiving fire from unsuspecting angles, provide reconnaissance and spotting for other assets. Can defend emplacements and operate in dense environments that are not suited to tanks and larger assets. They are smaller targets and thus can be utilized to infiltrate behind enemy lines, destroying vital supply lines and causing disarray along the front.

I can easily point to the Long rang reconnaissance patrols of Vietnam, Merrill's marauders, the Chindits, and the paratroopers of ww2 (which on the battlefield itself were nothing more than infantry. They didn't deep strike into combat).

Funny that. Protect from unsuspecting angles. Sounds a lot like what is going to be even more essential than before in 9th.

tneva82 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

You're either or choice is invalid for a couple of reasons: first 9th was written with the 8th ed rules in mind, which is something people keep screwing up since it means they didn't write the edition then release codexes written as a sort of foot in both edition mess. Secondly the game is a transitional bump like 6th to 7th, not 7th to 8th. That means consolidating the changes, improving on things the community provided feedback for over the last three years, and that means this idea that the Chicken-Little-ing over the edition change is unnecessary, as it always is.

So we are back at no meaningful changes if they can't release errata. And 6th to 7th had errata too. So did 3rt tow4th, 4th to 5th. If you want same codex to stay either you can't make real changes or there's errjta.

All your claims were same in 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th. Guess what? Erratas.


So it's back to invalidate codexes, no meaningful changes or erratas. Your pick. You can't keep codexes, have meaningful changes and no errata's

You're misunderstanding something pretty fundamental here. We know for a fact that there are errata. We also know there are meaningful changes. We also know the books aren't going anywhere and the meaningful changes are based on the core mechanics, not in the books (save for some wargear changes). So basically you're trying to force an either or situation that doesn't exist to suit a narrative not based on reality. Guess you win the internet then.

Reality exists in shades of grey, not black and white. We can have sweeping changes that will upend the meta without changing the books themselves, but they're taking steps to try and keep the shifted meta from getting out of control with some of the sillier nonsense we're known to pull when given a chance by changing points. No one is saying they're won't be errata, what is being said is the books aren't being invalidated on the level the change from 7th to 8th did, and at worse are the bump we saw from 6th to 7th which didn't really change much in how the books worked, even if the core rules shifted a bit.

Basically people need to chill out because no one knows enough to make informed decisions about the game and all this crying about the game being broken is based on nothing that we have any actual evidence of.

Honestly it's discussions like this that always bring me back to one frequent little thought.

..Maybe at some point, Warhammer 40k's game system/rules need to be completely redone from the ground up. Not a variation of what it was before, but perhaps just entirely re-done with a completely new system.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Honestly it's discussions like this that always bring me back to one frequent little thought.

..Maybe at some point, Warhammer 40k's game system/rules need to be completely redone from the ground up. Not a variation of what it was before, but perhaps just entirely re-done with a completely new system.

8th was a new system. Yes, it had elements from past systems, but those aren't the same as being the same system. We don't need yet -another- new system. Nor do we really need to change dice (I won't deny a new die system wouldn't be interesting, but stick to a die that is round at least if you go down that road, like a D8, D12 or D20 to allow for greater randomness). I see a lot of people who cry for a game more like a simulation and I don't think that a tabletop wargame is the best place for that level of granularity and micromanagement. Leave that to computers for it already takes people 3 hours to play and average game now. Making it into a proper simulation with all the complexity the internet regularly demands of it and you'd need to book a weekend just to get a game in.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
..Maybe at some point, Warhammer 40k's game system/rules need to be completely redone from the ground up. Not a variation of what it was before, but perhaps just entirely re-done with a completely new system.

Given GWs track record, would that result in anything really different?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
..Maybe at some point, Warhammer 40k's game system/rules need to be completely redone from the ground up. Not a variation of what it was before, but perhaps just entirely re-done with a completely new system.

Given GWs track record, would that result in anything really different?

Given the internet's track record would we ever be happy with it instead of griping about how much better the old system was?

The secret to success in 40k has been through game knowledge rather than through board control and maneuvering.

The more you can get people thinking of combos and different army builds, the more likely you're to sell more armies.

Success being determined on the battlefield is antithetical to selling more miniatures.

 Sledgehammer wrote:
The secret to success in 40k has been through game knowledge rather than through board control and maneuvering.

The more you can get people thinking of combos and different army builds, the more likely you're to sell more armies.

Success being determined on the battlefield is antithetical to selling more miniatures.

And here I was thinking it was getting people hooked on the setting and resulting in people creating massive collections of the factions they like, even if they don't use all of it most of the time.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Given GWs track record, would that result in anything really different?

I've got this weird theory that the major problem with 40k is that somewhere a long time ago, instead of saying "okay we can make a better system to represent this", someone said "nah what we did the first time worked, let's just stick with that"- and while there's some sound logic in 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'- well, maybe it's time to experiment and see what is less broken than his (if it's actually broken) and see what they come up with.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Given the internet's track record would we ever be happy with it instead of griping about how much better the old system was?

Speak for yourself. 40k has never had good rules. It's had some rules that were better than others are certain points, but it's never been fantastic. Thankfully it's never been about that, as no one plays 40K for the rules (that'd be daft). I think 8th is garbage and I know for a fact that I could write a better set of rules blindfolded, but who cares, 8th is an absolute blast to play and I haven't had this much fun with 40k in years.

The problem is when they change too much that it starts to cut into what was fun about the previous (broken) edition. And given the way GW always tries to apply wide sweeping simple solutions to detailed and complex problems, new editions tend to make people skittish.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Given the internet's track record would we ever be happy with it instead of griping about how much better the old system was?

Speak for yourself. 40k has never had good rules. It's had some rules that were better than others are certain points, but it's never been fantastic. Thankfully it's never been about that, as no one plays 40K for the rules (that'd be daft). I think 8th is garbage, but boy is it fun to play. The problem is when they change too much that it starts to cut into what was fun about the previous (broken) edition. And given the way GW always tries to apply wide sweeping simple solutions to detailed and complex problems, new editions tend to make people skittish.

We seem to have different definitions of "good". Perfect 40k is not, but it's good. It's going to be better in the near future as well, but I can't agree with a claim that the game is "bad".

But that's really not here or there. The joke was more that the internet complains about everything. Hell, anyone remember the inane complaining about Spider-man for the PS4 having less puddles than where in the dev footage? No? Guess I'm the only one who remembers the internet community runs on salt with the fuel efficiency of a forty year old truck.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

You're misunderstanding something pretty fundamental here. We know for a fact that there are errata. We also know there are meaningful changes. We also know the books aren't going anywhere and the meaningful changes are based on the core mechanics, not in the books (save for some wargear changes). So basically you're trying to force an either or situation that doesn't exist to suit a narrative not based on reality. Guess you win the internet then.

Uuh I'm responding to complain about day 1 errata's...Did you even read what I was replying to before replying?


"We already know that? Is nothing right day one nowadays?"

tneva82 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

You're misunderstanding something pretty fundamental here. We know for a fact that there are errata. We also know there are meaningful changes. We also know the books aren't going anywhere and the meaningful changes are based on the core mechanics, not in the books (save for some wargear changes). So basically you're trying to force an either or situation that doesn't exist to suit a narrative not based on reality. Guess you win the internet then.

Uuh I'm responding to complain about day 1 errata's...Did you even read what I was replying to before replying?


"We already know that? Is nothing right day one nowadays?"

And my point was the complaints being raised were false because there are erratas that are coming. Making claims about how good or bad a codex will be in the new edition is meaningless right now and yet people keep trying to do it.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Given GWs track record, would that result in anything really different?

I've got this weird theory that the major problem with 40k is that somewhere a long time ago, instead of saying "okay we can make a better system to represent this", someone said "nah what we did the first time worked, let's just stick with that"- and while there's some sound logic in 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'- well, maybe it's time to experiment and see what is less broken than his (if it's actually broken) and see what they come up with.

Ding ding ding we have a winner. GW always ends up having the same consistent problems every edition basically, and they never bother to fix those core issues themselves. Then we get a new edition where those problems are still there (but not exacerbated), and the cycle begins anew with every release.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Given the internet's track record would we ever be happy with it instead of griping about how much better the old system was?

Speak for yourself. 40k has never had good rules. It's had some rules that were better than others are certain points, but it's never been fantastic. Thankfully it's never been about that, as no one plays 40K for the rules (that'd be daft). I think 8th is garbage and I know for a fact that I could write a better set of rules blindfolded, but who cares, 8th is an absolute blast to play and I haven't had this much fun with 40k in years.

The problem is when they change too much that it starts to cut into what was fun about the previous (broken) edition. And given the way GW always tries to apply wide sweeping simple solutions to detailed and complex problems, new editions tend to make people skittish.

Speak for yourself.

Having tried a lot of games out there like Infinity, WarmaHordes, X-Wing, Bolt Action, etc.., I certainly came to 40K for having the best rules of anything currently on the market.

Maybe not perfect, but certainly a Churchill-ian "the worst except for all the others".

LOL imagine playing those games and actually saying with a straight face 40k is better. Pray tell what it actually does better. This will be good.

Wow, this post is a recipy for disaster 40k has the best rules - a good morning laugh . Certainly it appeals to some people better than other rules, but it is rare to find a person that elevates it so high

Seriously though, we don't know enough to start bashing the rule set, or getting worried our tau commander spam won't work....

I absolutely doubt it will happen, but alternating activation could happen for all we know.

Everyone, Calm, Down.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
LOL imagine playing those games and actually saying with a straight face 40k is better. Pray tell what it actually does better. This will be good.

Lol. Imagine playing a game and pursuing its evolution on the internet, when you're actually convinced it isn't the best and you could simply go get a (for you) better game off the shelve at any second. Now that sounds like some really twisted form of masochism.

I suspect that you can't stack multiple modifiers on a single unit but modifiers on different units will still stack. So a flier is minus one to hit but if you take a minus on the firing unit, moving with a heavy weapon for example, the minus one from that would stack with the minus one from the flier resulting in a total of minus two but it's obviously just speculation at this point.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Seriously though, we don't know enough to start bashing the rule set, or getting worried our tau commander spam won't work....

I absolutely doubt it will happen, but alternating activation could happen for all we know.

Everyone, Calm, Down.

Your sentiment is valid. We don't know enough yet. We do know that alternating activation is not happening

Q2: Will the core turn mechanics be changing?
Stu - Short answer is no. Still the game "you know and love". 9th is "heavily based" on 8th.

 Eldarain wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Seriously though, we don't know enough to start bashing the rule set, or getting worried our tau commander spam won't work....

I absolutely doubt it will happen, but alternating activation could happen for all we know.

Everyone, Calm, Down.

Your sentiment is valid. We don't know enough yet. We do know that alternating activation is not happening

Q2: Will the core turn mechanics be changing?
Stu - Short answer is no. Still the game "you know and love". 9th is "heavily based" on 8th.

Fair enough.

having played games with alternating activation it's not a magical cureall for every ill in the game and does have it's own issues. don't get me wrong I prefer it but if they just shoehorns AA into the game that'd be worse then not having it.

I find alternating activation a pretty bad mechanic that makes for far poorer gameplay.

I get it, opinions differ. But if you like alternating activation, it's not like there's a scarcity of that on the market.

lord_blackfang wrote:

nfe wrote:

You're missing my point. Troop tax is only there as an example of a control on CP generation. Flat CP removes the core balancing mechanism for stratagems - that cheap armies with weak individual units have a range of ways to buff them whereas expensive elite armies have to be far more discerning.

But that was never the control. CP were supposed to be an incentive for building a balanced army following the classic FOC while skewed lists like "Oops All Heavy Support" got penalized. They aren't some sort of runner up prize for playing IG or Orks because GW thinks those armies are inherently weaker.

Given you are (generally, there are obviously idiosyncratic examples) directly rewarded for fielding more, cheaper, and less specialised units, I just don't agree.

I don't think it should have been the control - I think stratagem costing should have just been more nuanced - and I don't think it should be now, but I'm nervous that there won't be sufficient thought given to balancing the stratagems already printed with new CP availability in mind.

tneva82 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Doesn't limiting minuses to hit at -1 benefit meq shooting more than lower BS factions? The worst an intercessor will ever hit on will be a 4+, whereas orks will need a 6+, wouldn't making everything hit on a 6 with maybe a -2 cap on modifiers make more sense? It sounds like the way cover benefits marine armour saves more than geq units all over again.

And if everyone gets the same starting cp doesn't that benefit knights? There must be a cp cost to certain detachments.

Uuh and why mono knights shouldn't be helped? Seeing they are atm underpowered(look at their winrate).

And if they soup they lose cp's getting to where they now were with cp batteries.

Underpowered faction getting buff. Oh the horror!

But why are knights in soup, most often? To get them a bunch of extra CP to spend powering their big lads.

Alternating Activation can sometimes almost make the game seem... disconnected. Unless you can multi-activate certain units, it can completely remove any plans for synergy between two or more units.

However, if it has some kind of 'multi-activation' system, then let's just say it'd be helpful against some of those armies that can just drench the field with gunfire and delete multiple units before they're even used.

Also, I kinda like the way Apocalypse does the 'everything dies at the end of the turn after both players have activated their units.

Because if you think that an overwhelming Alpha Strike in 40k isn't an absolute factor in determining how the game plays out- well, you're mistaken. If you think that the problem can be circumvented by some kind of 'deploy better' solution- then you're the exact person that makes me wonder if you actually play the game, or at least play it on more than one table with the same set of terrain.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Seriously though, we don't know enough to start bashing the rule set, or getting worried our tau commander spam won't work....

I absolutely doubt it will happen, but alternating activation could happen for all we know.

Everyone, Calm, Down.

If you checked yesterday stream you would know alternating activation doesn't happen.