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.

 Sabotage! wrote:
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.

Well, without us knowing the full rules and implications, I'd simply just caution invoking the notion of a cost as necessarily a penalty, though.

It may well end up, in some way, to be the case, but I don't think we could say we know that as of yet.

Yeah, I suppose that’s probably the case. I suppose I’m just always bummed that playing the type of army I used to play (Witch Hunters from 4th) is always made such a chore these days (for the past 4 editions at least). Well that and the other faction I used to play has been basically forgotten.

 Sabotage! wrote:
Yeah, I suppose that’s probably the case. I suppose I’m just always bummed that playing the type of army I used to play (Witch Hunters from 4th) is always made such a chore these days (for the past 4 editions at least). Well that and the other faction I used to play has been basically forgotten.

Yeah, it sucks that factions have become so granularized at this point. Just adding a few more faction keywords to inquisitors would allow them to be more cleanly fielded with their retinues in actually fluffy imperial soup armies.Deathwatch don't even get the ordo xenos keyword...wtf...like I"m willing to give up my deathwatch chapter tactic thingy just to take them with inquisitors and henchmen and stuff.

 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.

I play both. I wouldn't be suprised if GW see taking multiple subfactions split across detachments as 'soup', though to a lesser extent that across armies. The different armies are supposed to specialise and be better at something that others - obviously taking the best version of everything is better than just having one subfaction. But using cheap detachments to get just what you need from each subfaction makes having subfactions pointless. There's not many armies that you can argue don't get better if you mix subfactions, and I'm not going to argue that the GSC strat system is particularly well designed (that's a whole other thing and I think is mostly down to just how much better Rusted Claw bikers are) - but mixing subfactions is pretty much soup. Something for a narrative game or a thing that comes at a cost - say some amount of CP?

As for Tau, I knew as I was typing that I should have made it appear more hypothetical. But you pretty much reinterate my point - Crisis commanders are really good, as some would say a HQ should be. But they're often fundamentally doing the same thing crisis suits are because they've got access to the same weapons, they're just better at it (needing less support, being more reliable). If you're not going to strip away bonuses from the Commanders, then they need to be limited in order to allow other things to compete - which mutiple detachments then removes. Making Tau commanders unlimited options makes the job of bringing Crisis suits up to par with other units a lot harder because the Commander is so much more of a direct competitor. Does actually making Crisis commanders 0-1 improve the competitive ranking of Tau right now? Obviously not, but that's not the point I'm making and when we're looking at something that the writers have come up with, knowing that they can and will change things - complaining that tau don't work anymore because you're paying CP to get more commanders is the wrong way to think about it. It just shows that the Tau list is currently broken and the last fix didn't go far enough (in reducing the need/appearance of commanders, or making crisis teams a more viable option).

Some units being rare and needing CP to take more than one of, doesn't seem a bad mechanic in my book.

Without getting into too much speculation, I think they're trying to reward those people who want to take fluffy lists like all Deathwing while changing the narrative on using other codices. Remember Stu Black described it is "requisitioning resources". So, you're spending some of your resources to bring in the Drukhari Razorwings into your Eldar army. The more I think about how they're phrasing these changes, it seems like you're going to be unlocking Codices with CP, not necessarily detachments.

Remember, detachment bonuses are gone, so having 1 detachment versus having 3 is not that big of a deal, unless you're including allies.

the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, it sucks that factions have become so granularized at this point. Just adding a few more faction keywords to inquisitors would allow them to be more cleanly fielded with their retinues in actually fluffy imperial soup armies.Deathwatch don't even get the ordo xenos keyword...wtf...like I"m willing to give up my deathwatch chapter tactic thingy just to take them with inquisitors and henchmen and stuff.

Well, while they say that 8th editions books work with 9th (and I'm sure they do) that doesn't mean that all 8th edition books will be optimal for 9th. And, while they say that 8th edition books were written with 9th in mind, I really doubt all 8th edition books are optimized for 9th. They'll work, but how well likely depends on a lot of factors.

In other words, it isn't beyond possibility that the Inquisition could get an update that allows them "free" soup or discounted soup. For example, a rule like, I don't know "for every Inquisitor Lord, you may take a <whatever> detachment at no CP cost." Again, not that this is probable, or that I somehow know it will happen, but it is something possible.

The same could go for DE, or other armies where soup is a major portion of the army's identity. We really have to wait and see what it actually looks like and where they take the idea.

That would be awesome for Inquisition to get something like that, but I think we are done with the days of Inquisition being represented in codices. It’s been what? 3 editions since they were hodge-podged into Grey Knights?

It seems a little strange considering they are one of the most popular aspects of 40k fluff and also considering how their are more Inquisitors (not henchmen, but full Inquisitors) than any given Space Marine chapter has members and far more than the number of custodes that exist.

Regarding CPs, I did a little thought experiment with my Deathwing. We know that each army will get a fixed number of CP based on the size of the game. We know that the first detachment is free, additional ones will cost CP and Allies will cost CP. We can infer that the Strats currently in play will still exist with their current CP costs since the Codexes and PA books are valid. I think that 15 CP for a 2000 point game is as good a guess as any.

In 8th Edition I could make a Deathwing army, but it would have 4 or 5 CP. Since Deathwing have access to numerous new Strats it put me in a tough spot for list construction. Now, I can make a decent Vanguard with two HQs and a number of Deathwing Squads. I would have 15 CP (or whatever the starting number is), which really opens up the playbook for me. For board control I could stay with my Vanguard and add a squad of Scouts if I felt it necessary, but now its driven by the usefulness of the Scouts to my plan as opposed to a way to generate CP. Cool. I think we'll see more variety in Detachments.

What we do not know (I think..) is if there is CP cost difference between additional detachments from the same Codex and detachments of Allies. Hopefully Allies cost more which would seem to meet the intent. We don't know about what we call "sub-factions" from the same Codex. I don't think that different Regiments from the Astra Militarum or Ork Klans would count as Allies - but who knows...There would be a CP cost, though, so you really want to bring the Klans/Regiments together. I hope that adding a Scions detachment to an AM Cadian force would cost less CP than a Knight but I guess we'll see? Drukhari might need an Errata regarding detachments - maybe make the Raiding Force a 1 CP total cost to bring those three Patrols?

In the meantime, now is a perfectly good time to panic.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Sabotage! wrote:
Yeah, I suppose that’s probably the case. I suppose I’m just always bummed that playing the type of army I used to play (Witch Hunters from 4th) is always made such a chore these days (for the past 4 editions at least). Well that and the other faction I used to play has been basically forgotten.

Yeah, it sucks that factions have become so granularized at this point. Just adding a few more faction keywords to inquisitors would allow them to be more cleanly fielded with their retinues in actually fluffy imperial soup armies.Deathwatch don't even get the ordo xenos keyword...wtf...like I"m willing to give up my deathwatch chapter tactic thingy just to take them with inquisitors and henchmen and stuff.

I hope they just do the sensible thing and make micro-factions like inquisition have a reduced CP cost to include as an army special rule.

 Sabotage! wrote:
That would be awesome for Inquisition to get something like that, but I think we are done with the days of Inquisition being represented in codices. It’s been what? 3 editions since they were hodge-podged into Grey Knights?

It seems a little strange considering they are one of the most popular aspects of 40k fluff and also considering how their are more Inquisitors (not henchmen, but full Inquisitors) than any given Space Marine chapter has members and far more than the number of custodes that exist.

Well, it is only neglected until it isn't. How long were Sisters neglected? Then they weren't. Necrons are on that path too (although less dramatically long).

I think part of it, also, is that sometimes GW just doesn't have many/any ideas for things. So, it just languishes. In this edition though, maybe the idea of the Inquisition as a sort of Imperial Requisition force, where Inquisitors are a way to together many things with no/low cost, is something that inspires them to make new rules. Who knows.

A large FAQ/Errata is a given (I mean, they formally said that such would be available on day 1). Given the news about the +/-1 cap on (some?) modifiers, it seems likely that theres a large number of pieces of wargear, special rules, and abilities that will no longer be usable as written across most/all armies, that alone would make a FAQ/Errata document mandatory and require an eventual rerelease/update of the codexes, especially for those factions that were reliant on mod-stacking as part of their playstyle (Harlequins made heavy use of this, for example). I doubt GW would do more than just a blanker change in the modifier stat in the errata document, I can't imagine them reworking rules and abilities entirely in order to preserve their "value" and maintain balance.

Of course the flagship force in the Trailer is a Marines/Sisters soup

Hopeing that 2000pts you get 15-20 max - although I always run out around turn 3-4 with that many


I wonder if there will be limitations to how many CP you can spend on one unit per phase?

Paying some CP for allies seems fine to me, as long as the price is not too steep. And some Inquisitorial Acolytes shouldn't have a same cost than an Imperial Knight. Furthermore, I hope that along with this they remove bonus rule pure army limitations; having those and the CP cost is too much.

So... I just saw a version of the cinematic as a Youtube ad, and the 'Warhammer 40,000' logo which was on it was slightly different to the version which GW have been using elsewhere - namely the A was more central, and the R didn't overhang the edge of the wing.
Have... have GW been using the wrong version of the logo..?

 Crimson wrote:
Paying some CP for allies seems fine to me, as long as the price is not too steep. And some Inquisitorial Acolytes shouldn't have a same cost than an Imperial Knight. Furthermore, I hope that along with this they remove bonus rule pure army limitations; having those and the CP cost is too much.

They will do it's called points.
You pay CP to acess aditional codex's, how inquisition fits ibto that considering they don't have a codex and an inquisitor can be added to any imperial detachment without breaking bonus/traits I simply don't see them really counting untill you decied to make a detachment which will cost CP like any other.

Has there been any word on the number of times Stratagems can be used in the new edition? I'm hoping that Stratagems are a one off, once used it cannot be used again this battle to force diversity of CP spending and keep people from spamming the same three stratagems over and over again.

 Togusa wrote:
Has there been any word on the number of times Stratagems can be used in the new edition? I'm hoping that Stratagems are a one off, once used it cannot be used again this battle to force diversity of CP spending and keep people from spamming the same three stratagems over and over again.

Nothing of that sort has been shown or hinted at.

If anything, more generic strats and overwatch and/or falling back from cc possibly becoming a strat and more CP would point in the opposite direction.

 Togusa wrote:
Has there been any word on the number of times Stratagems can be used in the new edition? I'm hoping that Stratagems are a one off, once used it cannot be used again this battle to force diversity of CP spending and keep people from spamming the same three stratagems over and over again.

Won’t happen if they’re implementing new core Strats and they rate things like Command Re-roll.

 Mr_Rose wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Sabotage! wrote:
Yeah, I suppose that’s probably the case. I suppose I’m just always bummed that playing the type of army I used to play (Witch Hunters from 4th) is always made such a chore these days (for the past 4 editions at least). Well that and the other faction I used to play has been basically forgotten.

Yeah, it sucks that factions have become so granularized at this point. Just adding a few more faction keywords to inquisitors would allow them to be more cleanly fielded with their retinues in actually fluffy imperial soup armies.Deathwatch don't even get the ordo xenos keyword...wtf...like I"m willing to give up my deathwatch chapter tactic thingy just to take them with inquisitors and henchmen and stuff.

I hope they just do the sensible thing and make micro-factions like inquisition have a reduced CP cost to include as an army special rule.

That would entirely defeat the purpose.

Voss wrote:

 Mr_Rose wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Sabotage! wrote:
Yeah, I suppose that’s probably the case. I suppose I’m just always bummed that playing the type of army I used to play (Witch Hunters from 4th) is always made such a chore these days (for the past 4 editions at least). Well that and the other faction I used to play has been basically forgotten.

Yeah, it sucks that factions have become so granularized at this point. Just adding a few more faction keywords to inquisitors would allow them to be more cleanly fielded with their retinues in actually fluffy imperial soup armies.Deathwatch don't even get the ordo xenos keyword...wtf...like I"m willing to give up my deathwatch chapter tactic thingy just to take them with inquisitors and henchmen and stuff.

I hope they just do the sensible thing and make micro-factions like inquisition have a reduced CP cost to include as an army special rule.

That would entirely defeat the purpose.

Is the purpose to make minifactions unusable?

Voss wrote:

 Mr_Rose wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Sabotage! wrote:
Yeah, I suppose that’s probably the case. I suppose I’m just always bummed that playing the type of army I used to play (Witch Hunters from 4th) is always made such a chore these days (for the past 4 editions at least). Well that and the other faction I used to play has been basically forgotten.

Yeah, it sucks that factions have become so granularized at this point. Just adding a few more faction keywords to inquisitors would allow them to be more cleanly fielded with their retinues in actually fluffy imperial soup armies.Deathwatch don't even get the ordo xenos keyword...wtf...like I"m willing to give up my deathwatch chapter tactic thingy just to take them with inquisitors and henchmen and stuff.

I hope they just do the sensible thing and make micro-factions like inquisition have a reduced CP cost to include as an army special rule.

That would entirely defeat the purpose.

Not really, it just creates niches. It might also be that micro factions have other negatives/bonuses to prevent them simply being the "escape to soup" options in the game. This might even come down to them being able to pick one army as a "core" force which they treat as if it were their own army (ergo no CP cost, doesn't count as allies) and then adding in other armies just as normal. That way you're only really getting the handful of niche-faction models and rules as "free allies" attached to an existing army core. Simple and effective.

Yinarri can do the same, pick either Dark or Craftworld Eldar to be the "Core" army and then all that you add from the other side must be paid for in Command Points. Each core army option is the same as normal, save that you've got the handful of Yinnari units to use as well.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
So... I just saw a version of the cinematic as a Youtube ad, and the 'Warhammer 40,000' logo which was on it was slightly different to the version which GW have been using elsewhere - namely the A was more central, and the R didn't overhang the edge of the wing.
Have... have GW been using the wrong version of the logo..?

I don't know, but lord I hope they fix it soon. Ever since it was pointed out, the errors are all I see when I see the new logo.

 puma713 wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
So... I just saw a version of the cinematic as a Youtube ad, and the 'Warhammer 40,000' logo which was on it was slightly different to the version which GW have been using elsewhere - namely the A was more central, and the R didn't overhang the edge of the wing.
Have... have GW been using the wrong version of the logo..?

I don't know, but lord I hope they fix it soon. Ever since it was pointed out, the errors are all I see when I see the new logo.

Personally I think it was an intenional 'error'. I haven't seen anyone complaining about the price increase lately, they're all complaining about the off-kilter logo

 Ghaz wrote:

 puma713 wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
So... I just saw a version of the cinematic as a Youtube ad, and the 'Warhammer 40,000' logo which was on it was slightly different to the version which GW have been using elsewhere - namely the A was more central, and the R didn't overhang the edge of the wing.
Have... have GW been using the wrong version of the logo..?

I don't know, but lord I hope they fix it soon. Ever since it was pointed out, the errors are all I see when I see the new logo.

Personally I think it was an intenional 'error'. I haven't seen anyone complaining about the price increase lately, they're all complaining about the off-kilter logo

Oh man, that's Creed-level tactical genius.

 Ghaz wrote:

 puma713 wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
So... I just saw a version of the cinematic as a Youtube ad, and the 'Warhammer 40,000' logo which was on it was slightly different to the version which GW have been using elsewhere - namely the A was more central, and the R didn't overhang the edge of the wing.
Have... have GW been using the wrong version of the logo..?

I don't know, but lord I hope they fix it soon. Ever since it was pointed out, the errors are all I see when I see the new logo.

Personally I think it was an intenional 'error'. I haven't seen anyone complaining about the price increase lately, they're all complaining about the off-kilter logo

The price increases are absolute crap but honestly do you expect everyone to just voice it forever ? Don't mistake a lack of reading it to no one still remembering it. Not everyone is going to fall into hype or the dumbness of a logo. In fact I think once the costs of these new kits comes out some eyes are going to water for sure.

Old Buddy that stopped in 7th , states he liked the Look and asked for the price policy nowadays.

I showed him the primaris snipers and the updated csm kits...

You can imagine his reaction, then i Pointed to the recent pricehike aswell.

The reaction in the pricetag for khorne berzerker was amusing.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
So... I just saw a version of the cinematic as a Youtube ad, and the 'Warhammer 40,000' logo which was on it was slightly different to the version which GW have been using elsewhere - namely the A was more central, and the R didn't overhang the edge of the wing.
Have... have GW been using the wrong version of the logo..?

I'm assuming the logo is a single vectored graphic that they can scale to whatever size they need rather than having dozens of files in different resolutions. Vectored graphics shouldn't experience this issue, but I have seen where sometimes they do if the overall image isn't 'flattened', leaving some elements to scale differently than the others around it. So the overhanging R is likely an issue that only happens when the logo is scaled down in size.

AngryAngel80 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 puma713 wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
So... I just saw a version of the cinematic as a Youtube ad, and the 'Warhammer 40,000' logo which was on it was slightly different to the version which GW have been using elsewhere - namely the A was more central, and the R didn't overhang the edge of the wing.
Have... have GW been using the wrong version of the logo..?

I don't know, but lord I hope they fix it soon. Ever since it was pointed out, the errors are all I see when I see the new logo.

Personally I think it was an intenional 'error'. I haven't seen anyone complaining about the price increase lately, they're all complaining about the off-kilter logo

The price increases are absolute crap but honestly do you expect everyone to just voice it forever ? Don't mistake a lack of reading it to no one still remembering it. Not everyone is going to fall into hype or the dumbness of a logo. In fact I think once the costs of these new kits comes out some eyes are going to water for sure.

I see some people don't understand what a joke is...

Not Online!!! wrote:
Old Buddy that stoppen in 7th , states he liked the Look and asked for the price policy nowadays.

I showed hin the primaris snipers and the updated csm kits...

You can imagine his reaction, then i Pointed to the recent pricehike aswell.

The reaction in the pricetag for khorne berzerker was amusing.

That is the real thing right ? The only people who don't think the prices are insane, are those so deep invested they only need a thing or two maybe now and then. When you show it to others who don't play or have stopped and think of restarting ? The price tags make your head spin as you ponder how much a workable force will cost.


Edit: @Ghaz, sorry I didn't see it was a joke as I don't find GW prices very funny lol

Any guesses for the new necron warriors?
Pricetag that is.