40k 9th edition, : App released page 413

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.

**Canadian 5th**

Imateria wrote:
I'm not sure why people are so insistent on any detachment after the first will always cost CP given that in both streams the question was solely in relation to soup and for me the implication was that only detachments from allied codexes would cost CP. Given that there are several codexes that would autamitaclly be handicapped by any system that forces you to spend CP to take more than 1 detachment, I suspect it will be the latter set up (but on past evidence I wont be shocked if they take the boneheaded move of the former system).

Likely this belief/hope is that not having additional and/or specialized detachments cost CP means that here may as well not be any restrictions on a mono faction build. If the system allows that kind of freedom be ready to face all kinds of very focused optimal units only spam lists with even less unit diversity than we have now.

**Ice_can**

Imateria wrote:
Canadian 5th wrote:
Asmodai wrote:
MajorWesJanson wrote:
Just mulling over detachments in 9th, and how they can change things up as a result of costing command points rather than granting them- Potentially is there a reason for some of the specialist detachments anymore? Instead of spearhead detachments or vanguard or flyer wings, they could do a set of strategems that just say- 2 CP: You may increase the maximum allowance of (elite, Fast attack, flyer, ect) by 1 for a patrol detachment, 2 for a battalion, or 3 for a brigade. And maybe do the same for fortifications, but make that one 1 cp.

Easy to do, and would cut down on the number of different detachments and ability to detachment spam certain types of units and rules

You'd still have a minimum Troops if they were add-ons. They've said that pure Deathwing armies (only Elites, HQs and Heavy Support) will be playable in 9th - so presumably Batts or Brigades won't be mandatory.

Presumably, it will be pick a single detachment from a list of options available for the game size you're playing and that's free. That would make sense based on everything we've seen thus far.

I'm not sure why people are so insistent on any detachment after the first will always cost CP given that in both streams the question was solely in relation to soup and for me the implication was that only detachments from allied codexes would cost CP. Given that there are several codexes that would autamitaclly be handicapped by any system that forces you to spend CP to take more than 1 detachment, I suspect it will be the latter set up (but on past evidence I wont be shocked if they take the boneheaded move of the former system).

In the Saturday stream they clearly state additional detachments will cost CP, they then talk about aditional codex's costing CP.
Now that could be interpreted as one and the same, or as you pay extra for multiple detachments and extra again for souping.

Simply put outside of Drukari GW dont agree with most players that they "MUST" optimise subfactions. They are correct for that someone who plays entirely mono subfaction should probably start eith a bonus over someone optimising their units into the.best subfactions. However both of them should have and advantage over someone cherry picking from multiple codex's.

**lord_blackfang**

bullyboy wrote:

Not sure why you are adding non 40K releases in the bundle, that's not how it works unless you want to add in the Black Library releases this week too.

I believe the topic is GW's release capacity, not another whingefest on who gets more, and the point made was that this week's release is not bigger than some past releases, thus not indicating an accelerated release schedule to make up for the lockdown stall. I am baffled as to why this has triggered a headbutting contest.

**bullyboy**

lord_blackfang wrote:
bullyboy wrote:

Not sure why you are adding non 40K releases in the bundle, that's not how it works unless you want to add in the Black Library releases this week too.

I believe the topic is GW's release capacity, not another whingefest on who gets more, and the point made was that this week's release is not bigger than some past releases, thus not indicating an accelerated release schedule to make up for the lockdown stall. I am baffled as to why this has triggered a headbutting contest.

No idea either. I just would be surprised if GW didn't at least try a moderately advanced cycle to try and catch up (or delay something), but they also realize they can't push too much product at one time as a hobby budget only stretches so far. Proof in the pudding will be seeing how soon War of the Spider and Pariah are released. Each PA book would have been 1 month apart, putting them at end of June and July respectively. I have a feeling this will not be the case.

**BrianDavion**

I mean war of the spider and Pariha are both notable in that, as far as we know they only have 1 new model accompany it, so at least it's not back to back 40k army releases or something

**H.B.M.C.**

Only one? War of the Spider has Fabius, and Pariah has Szeras, Ephrael Stern and her Harli friend, and a new Inquisitor.

**alextroy**

Pariah has at least three kits for the release:
* Daemonifuge - Ephrael Stern and Kyganil
* Illuminor Szeras
* Lord Inquisitor Kyria Draxus

That being said, I expect it will be released with some non-40K content since a book and 3 model character kits is a light week of releases. Maybe this is when they slot in some Warcry or Underworlds releases.

**H.B.M.C.**

Maybe (hopefully!) those last two BSF expansions.

**ClockworkZion**

Getting back on topic, looks like we're going to have articles and video about 9th all week, so we should get more info pretty soon. Like in about 9 and-a-half hours from this post soon.

**Wakshaani**

MajorWesJanson wrote:
Just mulling over detachments in 9th, and how they can change things up as a result of costing command points rather than granting them- Potentially is there a reason for some of the specialist detachments anymore? Instead of spearhead detachments or vanguard or flyer wings, they could do a set of strategems that just say- 2 CP: You may increase the maximum allowance of (elite, Fast attack, flyer, ect) by 1 for a patrol detachment, 2 for a battalion, or 3 for a brigade. And maybe do the same for fortifications, but make that one 1 cp.

Easy to do, and would cut down on the number of different detachments and ability to detachment spam certain types of units and rules

My alternate take was a simple Batallion for all games of 1000 pts or more, with something like:

1 CP - Add 1 HQ slot
1 CP - Add 2 Troop slots
1 CP - Add 1 Elite slot
1 CP - Add 1 Fast Attack slot
1 CP - Add 1 Heavy slot

1 CP - Add 1 Fortification slot
2 CP - Add 1 Flyer slot
3 CP - Add one Super-Heavy slot

A tad more finely-detailed than buying more detachments, but less likely since they've said that soup'll be OK.

But it's still in my back pocket predictions. Just, you know … way, WAY down there.

**tneva82**

Imateria wrote:
I'm not sure why people are so insistent on any detachment after the first will always cost CP given that in both streams the question was solely in relation to soup and for me the implication was that only detachments from allied codexes would cost CP. Given that there are several codexes that would autamitaclly be handicapped by any system that forces you to spend CP to take more than 1 detachment, I suspect it will be the latter set up (but on past evidence I wont be shocked if they take the boneheaded move of the former system).

Well certainly given how poor GW's track record is with balance I wouldn't be surprised them to do good idea and then blow the balance up by forgetting to put cost to CP within same codex.

Different regiment/klan/etc=powerup. Powerups needs to have cost. If you want balanced game you can't have one army get free bonuses with no drawback.

**BrianDavion**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Only one? War of the Spider has Fabius, and Pariah has Szeras, Ephrael Stern and her Harli friend, and a new Inquisitor.

whoops for some reason I forgot the inqusitor and was thinking Szeras was part of the upcoming necron release, I stand corrected.

**Imateria**

Wakshaani wrote:
MajorWesJanson wrote:
Just mulling over detachments in 9th, and how they can change things up as a result of costing command points rather than granting them- Potentially is there a reason for some of the specialist detachments anymore? Instead of spearhead detachments or vanguard or flyer wings, they could do a set of strategems that just say- 2 CP: You may increase the maximum allowance of (elite, Fast attack, flyer, ect) by 1 for a patrol detachment, 2 for a battalion, or 3 for a brigade. And maybe do the same for fortifications, but make that one 1 cp.

Easy to do, and would cut down on the number of different detachments and ability to detachment spam certain types of units and rules

My alternate take was a simple Batallion for all games of 1000 pts or more, with something like:

1 CP - Add 1 HQ slot
1 CP - Add 2 Troop slots
1 CP - Add 1 Elite slot
1 CP - Add 1 Fast Attack slot
1 CP - Add 1 Heavy slot

1 CP - Add 1 Fortification slot
2 CP - Add 1 Flyer slot
3 CP - Add one Super-Heavy slot

A tad more finely-detailed than buying more detachments, but less likely since they've said that soup'll be OK.

But it's still in my back pocket predictions. Just, you know … way, WAY down there.

We know detachments are here to stay so this is just pointless wishlisting (and an absolutely horrible system).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:
Imateria wrote:
Canadian 5th wrote:
Asmodai wrote:
MajorWesJanson wrote:
Just mulling over detachments in 9th, and how they can change things up as a result of costing command points rather than granting them- Potentially is there a reason for some of the specialist detachments anymore? Instead of spearhead detachments or vanguard or flyer wings, they could do a set of strategems that just say- 2 CP: You may increase the maximum allowance of (elite, Fast attack, flyer, ect) by 1 for a patrol detachment, 2 for a battalion, or 3 for a brigade. And maybe do the same for fortifications, but make that one 1 cp.

Easy to do, and would cut down on the number of different detachments and ability to detachment spam certain types of units and rules

You'd still have a minimum Troops if they were add-ons. They've said that pure Deathwing armies (only Elites, HQs and Heavy Support) will be playable in 9th - so presumably Batts or Brigades won't be mandatory.

Presumably, it will be pick a single detachment from a list of options available for the game size you're playing and that's free. That would make sense based on everything we've seen thus far.

I'm not sure why people are so insistent on any detachment after the first will always cost CP given that in both streams the question was solely in relation to soup and for me the implication was that only detachments from allied codexes would cost CP. Given that there are several codexes that would autamitaclly be handicapped by any system that forces you to spend CP to take more than 1 detachment, I suspect it will be the latter set up (but on past evidence I wont be shocked if they take the boneheaded move of the former system).

In the Saturday stream they clearly state additional detachments will cost CP, they then talk about aditional codex's costing CP.
Now that could be interpreted as one and the same, or as you pay extra for multiple detachments and extra again for souping.

Simply put outside of Drukari GW dont agree with most players that they "MUST" optimise subfactions. They are correct for that someone who plays entirely mono subfaction should probably start eith a bonus over someone optimising their units into the.best subfactions. However both of them should have and advantage over someone cherry picking from multiple codex's.

And as I've already pointed out, in both streams the answers regarding detachments costing CP were very explicitly regarding questions on soup, which is pretty universally a term for allying in different codexes. My problem is that too many people seem to be posting as if they know that all detachments after the first will cost CP and we simply just don't know that.

**Vector Strike**

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/06/01/rise-of-the-skorpekh-destroyer/

Weapon profile for the 2h Skorpekh weapon

**Tiberius501**

Vector Strike wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/06/01/rise-of-the-skorpekh-destroyer/

Weapon profile for the 2h Skorpekh weapon

Very tasty. Also the actual models look dope af. Really liking the creepiness of these new units.

**Dudeface**

Tiberius501 wrote:
Vector Strike wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/06/01/rise-of-the-skorpekh-destroyer/

Weapon profile for the 2h Skorpekh weapon

Very tasty. Also the actual models look dope af. Really liking the creepiness of these new units.

I'm enjoying the "weapons are hands" approach they've taken but it feels very nid-like!

**Voss**

Dudeface wrote:
Tiberius501 wrote:
Vector Strike wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/06/01/rise-of-the-skorpekh-destroyer/

Weapon profile for the 2h Skorpekh weapon

Very tasty. Also the actual models look dope af. Really liking the creepiness of these new units.

I'm enjoying the "weapons are hands" approach they've taken but it feels very nid-like!

Thats consistent with the current destroyers, though. So its been a property of the 'destroyer cult' since third edition.

**Marshal Loss**

Love the models, weapon looks great. Keep it coming GW

**Kharne the Befriender**

Dudeface wrote:
Tiberius501 wrote:
Vector Strike wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/06/01/rise-of-the-skorpekh-destroyer/

Weapon profile for the 2h Skorpekh weapon

Very tasty. Also the actual models look dope af. Really liking the creepiness of these new units.

I'm enjoying the "weapons are hands" approach they've taken but it feels very nid-like!

So do the spine like things on the back of some of the new characters, it's kind of entertaining. I think the hands are weapons work really well for the destroyers, helps them stick to the theme of replacing bits to make them better at killing things

**Iracundus**

So as was suspected, all these non-bipedal Necrons are insane Destroyers. These Skorpekh seem to be Khorne-like with their focus on getting up close and personal with a choppy blade. That seems...inefficient if one's goal is to sterilize the galaxy as fast as possible.

**Imateria**

Iracundus wrote:
So as was suspected, all these non-bipedal Necrons are insane Destroyers. These Skorpekh seem to be Khorne-like with their focus on getting up close and personal with a choppy blade. That seems...inefficient if one's goal is to sterilize the galaxy as fast as possible.

They're not about efficiency, they're about hatred for anything that lives.

**Tiberius501**

Imateria wrote:
Iracundus wrote:
So as was suspected, all these non-bipedal Necrons are insane Destroyers. These Skorpekh seem to be Khorne-like with their focus on getting up close and personal with a choppy blade. That seems...inefficient if one's goal is to sterilize the galaxy as fast as possible.

They're not about efficiency, they're about hatred for anything that lives.

Yeah and when you hate something that much, sometimes blasting from a distance isn’t cathartic enough.

**Soulless**

So...what if a leg is blown off?

**CthuluIsSpy**

Soulless wrote:
So...what if a leg is blown off?

It repairs itself.
Unlike most life-forms, necrons don't really care if they lose a limb.

**Tiberius501**

Soulless wrote:
So...what if a leg is blown off?

It repairs.

**Quasistellar**

Soulless wrote:
So...what if a leg is blown off?

Same thing that happens when literally any other Necron loses a leg. . .

**ClockworkZion**

So from the stream they mentioned the Movement phase will have a reinforcement step, so it seems like we'll see more subphases to help clarify when certain rules take effect.

**Kanluwen**

The modifiers are to dice rolls, not to characteristics. Stu Black specifically addressed this.

"What's the point of having +2 if it's capped at +1?"..."Then if they have a -1? You still have a +1".

**Coenus Scaldingus**

Soulless wrote:
So...what if a leg is blown off?

It will likely claim tis but a scratch and that he has had worse...

**ClockworkZion**

Kanluwen wrote:
The modifiers are to dice rolls, not to characteristics. Stu Black specifically addressed this.

"What's the point of having +2 if it's capped at +1?"..."Then if they have a -1? You still have a +1".

A +3 or -3 is still a bit much, but stacking a -2 against armies that can get a +2 (or a +2 vs a -1) seems like a solid plan. Looks like spreading out the buffs is a better strategy now.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Soulless wrote:
So...what if a leg is blown off?

Then he gets -mad-.