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.

20 for a 2k point game sounds about reasonable, if I'm going to be honest--and assuming that regenerating command points isn't a thing.

Ice_can wrote:
Which army can't actually fit enough units in a brigade to pass 2k points? MSU spam is going to be somewhat less of a thing now, but GW has never supported MSU spam, they just accidentally wrote rules that did.

Pure Militarum Tempestus armies can’t make brigades.

 Apple Peel wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Which army can't actually fit enough units in a brigade to pass 2k points? MSU spam is going to be somewhat less of a thing now, but GW has never supported MSU spam, they just accidentally wrote rules that did.

Pure Militarum Tempestus armies can’t make brigades.

They can break 2k with a Battalion so mute point, they can still make a 2k list in 1 detachment.

the_scotsman wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Well, some armies such as GSC just "need" a lot of detachments, both because they often need Vigilus stuff for some basic functionality and because many of their basic strats that make a given unit work are tied to specific faction, since these factions had no pre-established lore-identity and GW took the shortcut of creating sub-factions based on units (e.g. the GSC-bike-faction, the GSC-Aberrant-faction), thus making a synergistic army using multiple types of units much harder to work as a single sub-faction.

Yeah, it's almost like a pathetically tiny fraction of GSC units can get chapter tactics after you remove

-All vehicles
-All brood brother units (including stuff like Sentinels, which for some reason must be brood brothers...after all, Genestealer Cultists could totally steal and retrofit a scout vehicle with weapons, but they could never do the same thing to a Sentinel, incredibly common imperial vehicle used for many different jobs!)
-All Genestealers (???????) including the Patriarch, head of the whole cult (???????????????????????) Wouldn't make sense for those guys to gain any subfaction benefits!

If you're going to have a total of like...five non-character units that can actually gain a cult trait, why not just make the cult traits correspond to one particular unit? feth it!

I am also wondering how they handle Dark Eldar. maybe the real space raiders detachment will count as one freebee? Otherwise it will drain CP in order to take wyches along with warriors from the same damned book lol.

 bullyboy wrote:

Wakshaani wrote:

 CKO wrote:
How many command points do you think you will start with in a 2000 point game? I wish I could be like Las Vegas and gamble with the odds.

My gut says 20, since they stated that "You get more" and they're adding a bunch of generic strats to the core book. I really think that the 1 Cp per 100 pts is going to be the rule, but, we'll see.

I was wondering this too, but I really hope it's not 20 at 2000pts. Strategems should be perks that can help you occasionally each game, not a reliable crutch you get to do every single turn (which for many armies it has been throughout 8th). Heck, I remember playing pure Ravenwing at start of 8th with just 5CP, lol.

I'm really hoping it's not more than 15 at 2000pts, or if it is 20, we drop down to 1750pt games to keep it at 15CP.

I suspect it's going to be that or higher as they have said there will be a list of new core strategums in the 9th edition rule book for helping CC as it sounded like tripointing may not be a thing in 9th.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
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.

"Best rules of anything currently on the market". That's priceless man. Pure gold.

But hey, you know what they say, right? That which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence...

Are you really demanding someone present evidence of their opinion? Are you twelve?

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Maybe not perfect, but certainly a Churchill-ian "the worst except for all the others".

Hmm... not really. If I want real rules crunch that basically always works, I'll play BattleTech. Yes, it doesn't have the cool terrain I love, and I can't play Tyranids, but at least LOS and range and movement and all that jazz is binary. BTech ain't balanced, not by a long shot, but perfect balance isn't possible anyway. I'll take imperfect balance any day. 40K has... weird balance, backed up by a group of people who have been at this so long that they should know better, yet somehow don't, and have (and likely still do) make rules design decisions based upon selling more miniatures rather than the actual health of the game.

Or maybe, just maybe, it's possible someone's opinion differs from yours.

Yeah honestly I’d rather have a surplus of command points if they want them to be so integral that units are getting command abilities that should have just been on their data sheet and paid for all along.

Early on in the edition they were a triviality, but it seems since I stopped regularly playing command points have become a much more overbearing part of the core gameplay, something you actually have to pay attention to rather than the occasional reroll and a way to budget some of your Deep strikes.

Also i'd just like to know it was funny 7mins into the stream when discussing how terrain would be better Pete Foley said you wont be able to just draw line of sight through a letter box to a carnifex's wing... unless he knows something we don't.... i'll look out for those WINGED carnifexes

 Latro_ wrote:
Also i'd just like to know it was funny 7mins into the stream when discussing how terrain would be better Pete Foley said you wont be able to just draw line of sight through a letter box to a carnifex's wing... unless he knows something we don't.... i'll look out for those WINGED carnifexes

I noticed that too. He probably meant to say hive tyrant.

Wakshaani wrote:

 CKO wrote:
How many command points do you think you will start with in a 2000 point game? I wish I could be like Las Vegas and gamble with the odds.

My gut says 20, since they stated that "You get more" and they're adding a bunch of generic strats to the core book. I really think that the 1 Cp per 100 pts is going to be the rule, but, we'll see.

I don't think it'll be listed as 1CP per 100 points as they said it would be based on game size, and that their are 4 game sizes (mentioned while talking about missions) so we're more likely to see a set CP value for a points range.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Well, some armies such as GSC just "need" a lot of detachments, both because they often need Vigilus stuff for some basic functionality and because many of their basic strats that make a given unit work are tied to specific faction, since these factions had no pre-established lore-identity and GW took the shortcut of creating sub-factions based on units (e.g. the GSC-bike-faction, the GSC-Aberrant-faction), thus making a synergistic army using multiple types of units much harder to work as a single sub-faction.

I think that's intentional, and is "soup". The subfactions have a specialist unit that they do better than someone else, and every army should be suboptimal compared to the best combination of things from across multiple codexes or subfactions.

In the case of things like the Tau commander, it means things don't have to be as good as the Tau commander to be taken and the Commander can still be heroic rather than just an alternative to a Riptide.
You might always pick a commander over crisis suits as your first pick, but after that hopefully there's a few other competitive options across the army that can perform a similar role if you need more than one thing.

 bullyboy wrote:

Wakshaani wrote:

 CKO wrote:
How many command points do you think you will start with in a 2000 point game? I wish I could be like Las Vegas and gamble with the odds.

My gut says 20, since they stated that "You get more" and they're adding a bunch of generic strats to the core book. I really think that the 1 Cp per 100 pts is going to be the rule, but, we'll see.

I was wondering this too, but I really hope it's not 20 at 2000pts. Strategems should be perks that can help you occasionally each game, not a reliable crutch you get to do every single turn (which for many armies it has been throughout 8th). Heck, I remember playing pure Ravenwing at start of 8th with just 5CP, lol.

I'm really hoping it's not more than 15 at 2000pts, or if it is 20, we drop down to 1750pt games to keep it at 15CP.

It sounds like you'll have more, but you'll have to spend more too. Like needing to spend CP to put things in reserves. It sounds like deep striking won't be a free option anymore for example.

 Latro_ wrote:
Be interesting how the soup CP unlock works. Because surely it will be based on the number of different battle-forged detachments you have?

Could effect a lot of current armies massively if it does work like this. e.g. taking that word bearer psyker patrol with say your nightlords battalion

or that badmoon spearhead with your deathskull battalion. L32 etc is a common one but you'll find a lot of the more competitive lists a lot of the time hinge on this cross keyword play from the same book

I wouldn't be surprised if it was 5cp per extra detachment after the first. That way, if you have a soup list at 2000 pts., you would have 10 CPs after two detachments (if we're assuming that 2k is going to be 20 cp).

 Tastyfish wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Well, some armies such as GSC just "need" a lot of detachments, both because they often need Vigilus stuff for some basic functionality and because many of their basic strats that make a given unit work are tied to specific faction, since these factions had no pre-established lore-identity and GW took the shortcut of creating sub-factions based on units (e.g. the GSC-bike-faction, the GSC-Aberrant-faction), thus making a synergistic army using multiple types of units much harder to work as a single sub-faction.

I think that's intentional, and is "soup". The subfactions have a specialist unit that they do better than someone else, and every army should be suboptimal compared to the best combination of things from across multiple codexes or subfactions.

In the case of things like the Tau commander, it means things don't have to be as good as the Tau commander to be taken and the Commander can still be heroic rather than just an alternative to a Riptide.
You might always pick a commander over crisis suits as your first pick, but after that hopefully there's a few other competitive options across the army that can perform a similar role if you need more than one thing.

This just suggests you don't know anything about either of the those 2 armies. For starters Sunny Side Up was talking about Genestealer Cults only, so one codex, and how the only way that army really works is by taking multiple detachments and giving them different Cult traits thanks to some really bad rules design on GW's part, which I hav eno doubt was intentional but was really, really stupid. This is not soup in the Rusty 17/ Imperial Knights/ Guilleman manner at all which is where most problems with soup lie, this is literally trying to make a single codex work.

As for Tau, nobody takes Commanders instead of Riptides, they take them alongside each other but they are taken instead of Crisis Suits for one simple reason, they both pay the same points for their weapons but the Commander is BS2+ and the Crisis Suit is BS4+ making the Crisis Suit a lot more swingy whilst also being less survivable as they don't have CHARACTER protection, all for at least the same points cost. And thats not changing anytime soon as the codexes will be in use for a while yet, though at least the Farsight Enclaves stratagems in PA can make Crisis viable by giving one unit BS3+, but FSE also lets you take extra Commanders.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 puma713 wrote:

 Latro_ wrote:
Be interesting how the soup CP unlock works. Because surely it will be based on the number of different battle-forged detachments you have?

Could effect a lot of current armies massively if it does work like this. e.g. taking that word bearer psyker patrol with say your nightlords battalion

or that badmoon spearhead with your deathskull battalion. L32 etc is a common one but you'll find a lot of the more competitive lists a lot of the time hinge on this cross keyword play from the same book

I wouldn't be surprised if it was 5cp per extra detachment after the first. That way, if you have a soup list at 2000 pts., you would have 10 CPs after two detachments (if we're assuming that 2k is going to be 20 cp).

I really hope not, that kind of nonsense will defeate the purpose of changing the CP generation rules to help out elite armies.

 Imateria wrote:

Spoiler:

 Tastyfish wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Well, some armies such as GSC just "need" a lot of detachments, both because they often need Vigilus stuff for some basic functionality and because many of their basic strats that make a given unit work are tied to specific faction, since these factions had no pre-established lore-identity and GW took the shortcut of creating sub-factions based on units (e.g. the GSC-bike-faction, the GSC-Aberrant-faction), thus making a synergistic army using multiple types of units much harder to work as a single sub-faction.

I think that's intentional, and is "soup". The subfactions have a specialist unit that they do better than someone else, and every army should be suboptimal compared to the best combination of things from across multiple codexes or subfactions.

In the case of things like the Tau commander, it means things don't have to be as good as the Tau commander to be taken and the Commander can still be heroic rather than just an alternative to a Riptide.
You might always pick a commander over crisis suits as your first pick, but after that hopefully there's a few other competitive options across the army that can perform a similar role if you need more than one thing.

This just suggests you don't know anything about either of the those 2 armies. For starters Sunny Side Up was talking about Genestealer Cults only, so one codex, and how the only way that army really works is by taking multiple detachments and giving them different Cult traits thanks to some really bad rules design on GW's part, which I hav eno doubt was intentional but was really, really stupid. This is not soup in the Rusty 17/ Imperial Knights/ Guilleman manner at all which is where most problems with soup lie, this is literally trying to make a single codex work.

As for Tau, nobody takes Commanders instead of Riptides, they take them alongside each other but they are taken instead of Crisis Suits for one simple reason, they both pay the same points for their weapons but the Commander is BS2+ and the Crisis Suit is BS4+ making the Crisis Suit a lot more swingy whilst also being less survivable as they don't have CHARACTER protection, all for at least the same points cost. And thats not changing anytime soon as the codexes will be in use for a while yet, though at least the Farsight Enclaves stratagems in PA can make Crisis viable by giving one unit BS3+, but FSE also lets you take extra Commanders.

Crisis suits have a host of other issues besides BS4+ base they simply pay way to many points and for some reason GW won't admit they are busted, compair them to agressors and its laughably bad for them.

But on the topic of GSC why should one player get to optimise the subfaction bonuses, keywords and strategums across their entiee army with some sort of downside, the idea is to pay CP essentially as a handicap system for each additional step you take towards an optimised list with nothing but power units.

 Imateria wrote:

 Tastyfish wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Well, some armies such as GSC just "need" a lot of detachments, both because they often need Vigilus stuff for some basic functionality and because many of their basic strats that make a given unit work are tied to specific faction, since these factions had no pre-established lore-identity and GW took the shortcut of creating sub-factions based on units (e.g. the GSC-bike-faction, the GSC-Aberrant-faction), thus making a synergistic army using multiple types of units much harder to work as a single sub-faction.

I think that's intentional, and is "soup". The subfactions have a specialist unit that they do better than someone else, and every army should be suboptimal compared to the best combination of things from across multiple codexes or subfactions.

In the case of things like the Tau commander, it means things don't have to be as good as the Tau commander to be taken and the Commander can still be heroic rather than just an alternative to a Riptide.
You might always pick a commander over crisis suits as your first pick, but after that hopefully there's a few other competitive options across the army that can perform a similar role if you need more than one thing.

This just suggests you don't know anything about either of the those 2 armies. For starters Sunny Side Up was talking about Genestealer Cults only, so one codex, and how the only way that army really works is by taking multiple detachments and giving them different Cult traits thanks to some really bad rules design on GW's part, which I hav eno doubt was intentional but was really, really stupid. This is not soup in the Rusty 17/ Imperial Knights/ Guilleman manner at all which is where most problems with soup lie, this is literally trying to make a single codex work.

As for Tau, nobody takes Commanders instead of Riptides, they take them alongside each other but they are taken instead of Crisis Suits for one simple reason, they both pay the same points for their weapons but the Commander is BS2+ and the Crisis Suit is BS4+ making the Crisis Suit a lot more swingy whilst also being less survivable as they don't have CHARACTER protection, all for at least the same points cost. And thats not changing anytime soon as the codexes will be in use for a while yet, though at least the Farsight Enclaves stratagems in PA can make Crisis viable by giving one unit BS3+, but FSE also lets you take extra Commanders.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 puma713 wrote:

 Latro_ wrote:
Be interesting how the soup CP unlock works. Because surely it will be based on the number of different battle-forged detachments you have?

Could effect a lot of current armies massively if it does work like this. e.g. taking that word bearer psyker patrol with say your nightlords battalion

or that badmoon spearhead with your deathskull battalion. L32 etc is a common one but you'll find a lot of the more competitive lists a lot of the time hinge on this cross keyword play from the same book

I wouldn't be surprised if it was 5cp per extra detachment after the first. That way, if you have a soup list at 2000 pts., you would have 10 CPs after two detachments (if we're assuming that 2k is going to be 20 cp).

I really hope not, that kind of nonsense will defeate the purpose of changing the CP generation rules to help out elite armies.

Yeah, there are many GSC subfaction traits/strats/whatever that can only benefit one single unit in the codex, and the GSC codex is abysmally underpowered (see competitive WR in the dumpster BEFORE they got heavy nerfs in Chapter Approved because marinebros salty that a kelermorph killed their Primaris Lieutenant that one time ) This leads to a situation that GSC players have to soup in different subfactions to feel like particular units actually work well.

I'm not saying we have to throw the baby out with the bathwater but I really do hope that GSC gets some heavy points consideration in this appendix that they're going to be releasing with 9th. I'm guessing that they won't, and just like the indexes GW trying to release rules for everything at once will lead to them leaving the smaller factions by the wayside because they just don't have enough time to properly balance everyone, but I hope they'll at least think about reverting some of the more bonkers nerfs GSC got when they were already sitting at a 45-ish percent competitive WR. 35pt stop sign, things like that.

 Imateria wrote:
I really hope not, that kind of nonsense will defeate the purpose of changing the CP generation rules to help out elite armies.

Get it into your heads that CP aren't a horde vs elite balancing factor. They are a balanced list vs skew list balancing factor. GW has always intended that the player who is the closest to a traditional army with a mix of all unit types should have the most CP.

So my thoughts:

CP generation and Detachments: I really like the sound of this. I know the original thinking was that elite armies have more powerful units but not the assets to generate command points to balance things out, which initially makes sense, but the entirety of 8th has proven that elite armies struggle really badly as they can't power these abilities beyond the first turn and lose out to armies with a lot more CP that can keep going, leveling the playing field in this way is definitely the best option IMO. I'm not entirely sure how the detachment thing is going to work out though, in both streams the talk around CP generation came up entirely from questions about soup, I got the impression that you pay CP for taking detachments from other armies rather than for taking more detachments from the same codex. At least thats how I hope it works, as a Drukhari player the idea that I have to pay CP to take units from more than 1/3rd of my codex without crippling myself is assinine bs.

Terrain: I'm optimistic here, it sounds like they are creating a list of pre-definied terrain types that all effect your units differently and are applied to terrain features pre-game. We already kind of have that but it's so light on rules content, and generally all boils down to giving Infantry cover, that it might as well not exist, what they were talking about suggests things will be cosniderably more expanded which is much needed.

To Hit Modifierst: Not entirely sure what to make of this. We certainly have far too many examples of units that can get negatives to hit stacked to -3 and -4 which I and pretty much everyone else has found to be really bad for the game. Then again these tend to be outliers and were better dealt with via errata. But some units really needed to stack negatives beyond -1 to stay alive for a bit longer (like Harlequin Troopes), or are stuck paying points for multiple abilities that may not work anymore (Ghostkeels have -1 to hit naturally and pay 20pts for drones that provide another -1, and those drones aren't optional). Not that it matters that much, the odious Chapter Master stratagem has invalidated anything less than -3 to hit anyway. We need more information on this.

Resreves: This sounds really interesting, if I got it right then you cn pay CP to put any unit into reserve and they can come on from any board edge, thats going to be really cool and very useful. It also doesn't invalidate those units that can do this as an ability already or the various Deep Strike strtagems as they give you more flexibility on where you set up. Again, I want more details but I'm liking this.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Imateria wrote:
I really hope not, that kind of nonsense will defeate the purpose of changing the CP generation rules to help out elite armies.

Get it into your heads that CP aren't a horde vs elite balancing factor. They are a balanced list vs skew list balancing factor. GW has always intended that the player who is the closest to a traditional army with a mix of all unit types should have the most CP.

That is...literally the opposite of what was put forth by the designers yesterday.

They spent a really, REALLY long time talking about how one of their major goals with fixed CP is to allow people "to play that army they wanted in their head without a ton of units that they feel like they HAVE to include" and they specifically listed all-biker Saim-Hann and all-terminator Deathwing.

Those are examples of skew lists. Those lists do not have a "mix of all unit types" they are definitionally skew towards a single unit type.

The only difference, functionally, between an all-terminator deathwing list and an all-riptides and drones Tau list is how individually strong the unit your spamming is. If terminators got some massive bonkers buff making them super OP tomorrow, powergamers would be running all-terminator deathwing lists.

the_scotsman wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Imateria wrote:
I really hope not, that kind of nonsense will defeate the purpose of changing the CP generation rules to help out elite armies.

Get it into your heads that CP aren't a horde vs elite balancing factor. They are a balanced list vs skew list balancing factor. GW has always intended that the player who is the closest to a traditional army with a mix of all unit types should have the most CP.

That is...literally the opposite of what was put forth by the designers yesterday.

They spent a really, REALLY long time talking about how one of their major goals with fixed CP is to allow people "to play that army they wanted in their head without a ton of units that they feel like they HAVE to include" and they specifically listed all-biker Saim-Hann and all-terminator Deathwing.

Those are examples of skew lists. Those lists do not have a "mix of all unit types" they are definitionally skew towards a single unit type.

The only difference, functionally, between an all-terminator deathwing list and an all-riptides and drones Tau list is how individually strong the unit your spamming is. If terminators got some massive bonkers buff making them super OP tomorrow, powergamers would be running all-terminator deathwing lists.

Right, and these skew lists will have less CP than a mixed list, just like they do now. They just won't be incentivised to break their theme with 32 guardsmen, because that would net them even less CP; not more.

the_scotsman wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Get it into your heads that CP aren't a horde vs elite balancing factor. They are a balanced list vs skew list balancing factor. GW has always intended that the player who is the closest to a traditional army with a mix of all unit types should have the most CP.

That is...literally the opposite of what was put forth by the designers yesterday.

They spent a really, REALLY long time talking about how one of their major goals with fixed CP is to allow people "to play that army they wanted in their head without a ton of units that they feel like they HAVE to include" and they specifically listed all-biker Saim-Hann and all-terminator Deathwing.

Right. And the fact that this will cost a bunch of CP is meant to balance all that flexibility/weirdness against a vanilla list. Or did they also say that these all-whatever lists would cost less CP to make than a standard battalion? Because I don’t remember that part.

Ice_can wrote:

 Imateria wrote:

Spoiler:

 Tastyfish wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Well, some armies such as GSC just "need" a lot of detachments, both because they often need Vigilus stuff for some basic functionality and because many of their basic strats that make a given unit work are tied to specific faction, since these factions had no pre-established lore-identity and GW took the shortcut of creating sub-factions based on units (e.g. the GSC-bike-faction, the GSC-Aberrant-faction), thus making a synergistic army using multiple types of units much harder to work as a single sub-faction.

I think that's intentional, and is "soup". The subfactions have a specialist unit that they do better than someone else, and every army should be suboptimal compared to the best combination of things from across multiple codexes or subfactions.

In the case of things like the Tau commander, it means things don't have to be as good as the Tau commander to be taken and the Commander can still be heroic rather than just an alternative to a Riptide.
You might always pick a commander over crisis suits as your first pick, but after that hopefully there's a few other competitive options across the army that can perform a similar role if you need more than one thing.

This just suggests you don't know anything about either of the those 2 armies. For starters Sunny Side Up was talking about Genestealer Cults only, so one codex, and how the only way that army really works is by taking multiple detachments and giving them different Cult traits thanks to some really bad rules design on GW's part, which I hav eno doubt was intentional but was really, really stupid. This is not soup in the Rusty 17/ Imperial Knights/ Guilleman manner at all which is where most problems with soup lie, this is literally trying to make a single codex work.

As for Tau, nobody takes Commanders instead of Riptides, they take them alongside each other but they are taken instead of Crisis Suits for one simple reason, they both pay the same points for their weapons but the Commander is BS2+ and the Crisis Suit is BS4+ making the Crisis Suit a lot more swingy whilst also being less survivable as they don't have CHARACTER protection, all for at least the same points cost. And thats not changing anytime soon as the codexes will be in use for a while yet, though at least the Farsight Enclaves stratagems in PA can make Crisis viable by giving one unit BS3+, but FSE also lets you take extra Commanders.

Crisis suits have a host of other issues besides BS4+ base they simply pay way to many points and for some reason GW won't admit they are busted, compair them to agressors and its laughably bad for them.

But on the topic of GSC why should one player get to optimise the subfaction bonuses, keywords and strategums across their entiee army with some sort of downside, the idea is to pay CP essentially as a handicap system for each additional step you take towards an optimised list with nothing but power units.

Agreed with Crsis Suits, but BS4+ tends to be at the heart of it just not all of it.

Well GSC are the prime example here becuase you have to optimise across multiple subfactions just to get the army up to usable standards. Several codexes have problems where subfaction benefits haven't been particularly well thought out, or are so heavily flanderised that trying to do something that isn't the meta choice without mixing subfactions into your army severly handicaps you to the point that it wasn't worth bothering with.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Imateria wrote:
I really hope not, that kind of nonsense will defeate the purpose of changing the CP generation rules to help out elite armies.

Get it into your heads that CP aren't a horde vs elite balancing factor. They are a balanced list vs skew list balancing factor. GW has always intended that the player who is the closest to a traditional army with a mix of all unit types should have the most CP.

That is...literally the opposite of what was put forth by the designers yesterday.

They spent a really, REALLY long time talking about how one of their major goals with fixed CP is to allow people "to play that army they wanted in their head without a ton of units that they feel like they HAVE to include" and they specifically listed all-biker Saim-Hann and all-terminator Deathwing.

Those are examples of skew lists. Those lists do not have a "mix of all unit types" they are definitionally skew towards a single unit type.

The only difference, functionally, between an all-terminator deathwing list and an all-riptides and drones Tau list is how individually strong the unit your spamming is. If terminators got some massive bonkers buff making them super OP tomorrow, powergamers would be running all-terminator deathwing lists.

Right, and these skew lists will have less CP than a mixed list, just like they do now. They just won't be incentivised to break their theme with 32 guardsmen, because that would net them even less CP; not more.

Source for this? They've said that additional detachments take additional CP. It is much, much easier for me to make a list that contains only one thing in a single detachment than it is for me to make a list with a mix of different elements.

If you want to make an all-terminators list or an all-tanks list or an all-wraithknights list, that's usually 1 detachment of whatever relevant slot those things go into. There's only two slots that are more difficult to spam, and that's HQ and Troops.

BS3+ would be a start for Crisis Suits.

 Mr_Rose wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Get it into your heads that CP aren't a horde vs elite balancing factor. They are a balanced list vs skew list balancing factor. GW has always intended that the player who is the closest to a traditional army with a mix of all unit types should have the most CP.

That is...literally the opposite of what was put forth by the designers yesterday.

They spent a really, REALLY long time talking about how one of their major goals with fixed CP is to allow people "to play that army they wanted in their head without a ton of units that they feel like they HAVE to include" and they specifically listed all-biker Saim-Hann and all-terminator Deathwing.

Right. And the fact that this will cost a bunch of CP is meant to balance all that flexibility/weirdness against a vanilla list. Or did they also say that these all-whatever lists would cost less CP to make than a standard battalion? Because I don’t remember that part.

They didn't exactly specify, but I cannot imagine the CP differential would be anywhere NEAR what it is right now if you take an all-Deathwing list vs an infantry spam guard army.

You can easily start the game with like 24CP with an infantry-heavy guard army, while a deathwing army gets like 5, 6 max.They didn't say that extra detachments would cost CP (only ALLIED detachments from a different codex). All this talk about "oh battalions will be free while vanguards will cost CP" is pure speculation.

You can make an "All X" army using fewer detachments than a "mix of different stuff" army most of the time, because usually "All X" only requires 1 kind of slot to accomplish that. A deathwing army is easy to fit in one Vanguard, if that's the goal.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Imateria wrote:
I really hope not, that kind of nonsense will defeate the purpose of changing the CP generation rules to help out elite armies.

Get it into your heads that CP aren't a horde vs elite balancing factor. They are a balanced list vs skew list balancing factor. GW has always intended that the player who is the closest to a traditional army with a mix of all unit types should have the most CP.

That is...literally the opposite of what was put forth by the designers yesterday.

They spent a really, REALLY long time talking about how one of their major goals with fixed CP is to allow people "to play that army they wanted in their head without a ton of units that they feel like they HAVE to include" and they specifically listed all-biker Saim-Hann and all-terminator Deathwing.

Those are examples of skew lists. Those lists do not have a "mix of all unit types" they are definitionally skew towards a single unit type.

The only difference, functionally, between an all-terminator deathwing list and an all-riptides and drones Tau list is how individually strong the unit your spamming is. If terminators got some massive bonkers buff making them super OP tomorrow, powergamers would be running all-terminator deathwing lists.

Right, and these skew lists will have less CP than a mixed list, just like they do now. They just won't be incentivised to break their theme with 32 guardsmen, because that would net them even less CP; not more.

You still haven't gotten it through your head that 8th edition has proven that approach doesn't work. You've also conveniently cut out the post I was replying to that suggested they wouldn't be surprised to see the cost of taking extra detachments being 5CP. That means you're probably spending a good 10CP to run that thematic Wraith, Ravenwing or Nidzilla list which would be such a punitive cost (assuming GW doesn't do something ridiculous like give everyone 35CP as the starting point for a 2K game) that it puts them right back to where they currently are, the trash heap. Given the stated intention is to avoid that, it seems rather counter productive to then have massive costs holding such lists back.

At first I was considering getting back into the game casually with 9th because some of the changes sounded cool (obviously still waiting for more info), but then I read about being penalized for taking “soup.” I get this to a point, to prevent exploitation of Knights and cheap troops an what not, but it means the one army I have interest in playing (Ordos combined arms forces) will be even less fun to play. It’s not as if taking Scions (counts as Inq Storm Troopers), some Sisters, and an Inquisitor with retinue would be a particularly good army to begin with. I don’t think you should be penalized for running fluffy lists.

Maybe if we ever get Guard infantry that don’t look terrible, or if Traitor Guard ever become more than a goofy seven man squad you can take two of I will reconsider.

the_scotsman wrote:

They didn't exactly specify, but I cannot imagine the CP differential would be anywhere NEAR what it is right now if you take an all-Deathwing list vs an infantry spam guard army.

Exactly, because CP won't reward hordes just for being able to spam more detachments. The difference will be probably what the difference was at the start of 8th between a single Battalion and a single whatever-the-Elites-one-is.

 Imateria wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Imateria wrote:

Spoiler:

 Tastyfish wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Well, some armies such as GSC just "need" a lot of detachments, both because they often need Vigilus stuff for some basic functionality and because many of their basic strats that make a given unit work are tied to specific faction, since these factions had no pre-established lore-identity and GW took the shortcut of creating sub-factions based on units (e.g. the GSC-bike-faction, the GSC-Aberrant-faction), thus making a synergistic army using multiple types of units much harder to work as a single sub-faction.

I think that's intentional, and is "soup". The subfactions have a specialist unit that they do better than someone else, and every army should be suboptimal compared to the best combination of things from across multiple codexes or subfactions.

In the case of things like the Tau commander, it means things don't have to be as good as the Tau commander to be taken and the Commander can still be heroic rather than just an alternative to a Riptide.
You might always pick a commander over crisis suits as your first pick, but after that hopefully there's a few other competitive options across the army that can perform a similar role if you need more than one thing.

This just suggests you don't know anything about either of the those 2 armies. For starters Sunny Side Up was talking about Genestealer Cults only, so one codex, and how the only way that army really works is by taking multiple detachments and giving them different Cult traits thanks to some really bad rules design on GW's part, which I hav eno doubt was intentional but was really, really stupid. This is not soup in the Rusty 17/ Imperial Knights/ Guilleman manner at all which is where most problems with soup lie, this is literally trying to make a single codex work.

As for Tau, nobody takes Commanders instead of Riptides, they take them alongside each other but they are taken instead of Crisis Suits for one simple reason, they both pay the same points for their weapons but the Commander is BS2+ and the Crisis Suit is BS4+ making the Crisis Suit a lot more swingy whilst also being less survivable as they don't have CHARACTER protection, all for at least the same points cost. And thats not changing anytime soon as the codexes will be in use for a while yet, though at least the Farsight Enclaves stratagems in PA can make Crisis viable by giving one unit BS3+, but FSE also lets you take extra Commanders.

Crisis suits have a host of other issues besides BS4+ base they simply pay way to many points and for some reason GW won't admit they are busted, compair them to agressors and its laughably bad for them.

But on the topic of GSC why should one player get to optimise the subfaction bonuses, keywords and strategums across their entiee army with some sort of downside, the idea is to pay CP essentially as a handicap system for each additional step you take towards an optimised list with nothing but power units.

Agreed with Crsis Suits, but BS4+ tends to be at the heart of it just not all of it.

Well GSC are the prime example here becuase you have to optimise across multiple subfactions just to get the army up to usable standards. Several codexes have problems where subfaction benefits haven't been particularly well thought out, or are so heavily flanderised that trying to do something that isn't the meta choice without mixing subfactions into your army severly handicaps you to the point that it wasn't worth bothering with.

Space Marine Subfactions: Get rules that obliquely incentivize taking bikes by providing a benefit that biker units can most effectively use

GSC subfactions: Get a subfaction trait that can literally only possibly apply to 2 weapon options an optional 1 per 4 model that you can add on to 1 unit, which also comes with a stratagem that can be only used by that one unit if you give them another particular upgrade.

This would be comparable if the White Scars trait was "BIKER units can move and fire heavy weapons!"and their stratagem was "Reroll to wound with melee weapons equipped by one BIKER unit in your army!"

 Sabotage! wrote:
I don’t think you should be penalized for running fluffy lists.

It's important to realise that

1) We don't have specifics yet. We have the general idea of the changes but not specifics at all and no army level specifics which might have variations to the core rules. Ergo some armies might be able to take more allies than others because of their very nature.

2) They are trying to balance soup with non-soup mostly because in 8th edition there are several armies which, whilst perhaps very fluffy, through soup they were able to be way more powerful than most pure armies and armies from factions that couldn't do the same trick. It's less about penalising and more about trying to level the playingfield.


Wait and see, its likely a few months before we get all the details and then again before we get playing with the new system when its out on sale.