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.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Bdrone wrote:
Ahh. so less command points than expected at 2k, but hey, 3k is the 4th supported playing size now, with a point increase to match.

well, thats amusing, and makes preparing for 9th even harder to predict than before. i wonder what this did for my prospective knight and IG lists. can't even exactly call it a nerf, because the points changes could be all over the place, except for people who played for max command points. pretty sure they get less no matter what now unless that command phase thing is involved with some kind of generation as theorized.

12 CP + what generated in turn. Reece said average you have more than before but less than maximum. Maybe 1CP per turn then for 18 CP in game. 2 CP would be 24CP for game.

Both players generate CP each player turn, so it'd be 24 CP a game for 1CP a turn, and 36/game for 2CP a turn:

Reading this I'm not convinced that CPs are generated every turn by default. "both players muster strategic resources and use tactical abilities" could be referring to things like issuing orders, earning VPs, and spending CPs on certain strategems that prevoiusly happened "at the start of the turn"/"beginning of the movement phase" and possible other mechanics.

 alextroy wrote:
I find it funny after all the times people have said "4 point Guardsmen are too cheap" and "we should increase the points cost to allow more space for points granularity", people complain because they increased the points cost of units (including the Chaos Guardsmen counterpart) to allow more granularity. Love you, Dakka

Problem is they are increasing horde units more relatively speaking than more elites while also giving buffs to elites and debuffs to cheap stuff.

That's triple kick to the teeth. ATM there's nothing whatsoever that DOESN'T help marines vs everybody else. Now remind me...which faction was sprouting win rate of low 60's(ETC) and nearly 70%(ITC)? Answer: marines.

If people thought marines were too good in 8th ed they might not have seen nothing yet...so far everything GW has shown indicates marines are going to be even more overpowered.

Aash wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Bdrone wrote:
Ahh. so less command points than expected at 2k, but hey, 3k is the 4th supported playing size now, with a point increase to match.

well, thats amusing, and makes preparing for 9th even harder to predict than before. i wonder what this did for my prospective knight and IG lists. can't even exactly call it a nerf, because the points changes could be all over the place, except for people who played for max command points. pretty sure they get less no matter what now unless that command phase thing is involved with some kind of generation as theorized.

12 CP + what generated in turn. Reece said average you have more than before but less than maximum. Maybe 1CP per turn then for 18 CP in game. 2 CP would be 24CP for game.

Both players generate CP each player turn, so it'd be 24 CP a game for 1CP a turn, and 36/game for 2CP a turn:

Reading this I'm not convinced that CPs are generated every turn by default. "both players muster strategic resources and use tactical abilities" could be referring to things like issuing orders, earning VPs, and spending CPs on certain strategems that prevoiusly happened "at the start of the turn"/"beginning of the movement phase" and possible other mechanics.

From WHC:

The Command phase is a quick new addition to the turn sequence. In this phase, Battle-forged armies will acquire new Command points and spend the ones they have on certain Stratagems.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

That's just some of the stuff based on the strength of hordes in ITC style scoring games, which 9th clearly is taking a lot of notes from.

Eh. Marines gain about 10% boost to their win rate with ITC. That's bad news for hordes for 9th ed since 9th ed is taking notes from ITC. Taking notes of marine favouring ruleset=marines are very likely GAINING rather than being hurt by new scenarios.

ITC is about marine gunlines. Unless 9th ed somehow fixes that marines the non-ITC tournaments will go toward the marine domination like ITC was already.

tneva82 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I find it funny after all the times people have said "4 point Guardsmen are too cheap" and "we should increase the points cost to allow more space for points granularity", people complain because they increased the points cost of units (including the Chaos Guardsmen counterpart) to allow more granularity. Love you, Dakka

Problem is they are increasing horde units more relatively speaking than more elites while also giving buffs to elites and debuffs to cheap stuff.

That's triple kick to the teeth. ATM there's nothing whatsoever that DOESN'T help marines vs everybody else. Now remind me...which faction was sprouting win rate of low 60's(ETC) and nearly 70%(ITC)? Answer: marines.

If people thought marines were too good in 8th ed they might not have seen nothing yet...so far everything GW has shown indicates marines are going to be even more overpowered.

Stop extrapolating the full game's point changes based on two units. You're not jumping the fun, you're leaping a whole artillery company when you do that.

And wait for more info before you go beating that drum about Marines still breaking the game. Friggin he'll, all you're doing is jumping to conclusions and then attacking people for not sharing your conclusions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

That's just some of the stuff based on the strength of hordes in ITC style scoring games, which 9th clearly is taking a lot of notes from.

Eh. Marines gain about 10% boost to their win rate with ITC. That's bad news for hordes for 9th ed since 9th ed is taking notes from ITC. Taking notes of marine favouring ruleset=marines are very likely GAINING rather than being hurt by new scenarios.

ITC is about marine gunlines. Unless 9th ed somehow fixes that marines the non-ITC tournaments will go toward the marine domination like ITC was already.

Please stop, because your posting out your backside. Terrain is changing, points are changing, heck CP and missions are changing. Elite units have to turn off larger portions of their army to score some objectives. Before you do your best Chicken Little impression wait for more info before making claims about an edition you haven't played a single game of, much less seen the full rules.

Aash wrote:
Reading this I'm not convinced that CPs are generated every turn by default. "both players muster strategic resources and use tactical abilities" could be referring to things like issuing orders, earning VPs, and spending CPs on certain strategems that prevoiusly happened "at the start of the turn"/"beginning of the movement phase" and possible other mechanics.

Reece already has said players gain CP midgame though(and only way the CP values in table makes sense since GW said players get more and table results in CP nerf for many...). While Reece can't be trusted on what is good and what is not(especially orks...stompas brokenly good in 8th ed? lol. And that was before codex that buffed stompa which is still sucky...) one would presume he doesn't speak total crap about how rules work.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Aash wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Bdrone wrote:
Ahh. so less command points than expected at 2k, but hey, 3k is the 4th supported playing size now, with a point increase to match.

well, thats amusing, and makes preparing for 9th even harder to predict than before. i wonder what this did for my prospective knight and IG lists. can't even exactly call it a nerf, because the points changes could be all over the place, except for people who played for max command points. pretty sure they get less no matter what now unless that command phase thing is involved with some kind of generation as theorized.

12 CP + what generated in turn. Reece said average you have more than before but less than maximum. Maybe 1CP per turn then for 18 CP in game. 2 CP would be 24CP for game.

Both players generate CP each player turn, so it'd be 24 CP a game for 1CP a turn, and 36/game for 2CP a turn:

Reading this I'm not convinced that CPs are generated every turn by default. "both players muster strategic resources and use tactical abilities" could be referring to things like issuing orders, earning VPs, and spending CPs on certain strategems that prevoiusly happened "at the start of the turn"/"beginning of the movement phase" and possible other mechanics.

From WHC:

The Command phase is a quick new addition to the turn sequence. In this phase, Battle-forged armies will acquire new Command points and spend the ones they have on certain Stratagems.

Yes, but this is vague enough that it doesn't necessarily mean the CPs are generated every turn for everyone. It could be that already existing mechanics which generate CPs now take place in the Command Phase. The same way for the shooting phase says that you shoot ranged weapons at the enemy, this only applies to some factions (looking at Daemons) or the pychic phase that doeasn't apply for some factions.

That being said, I expect that there will be CPs generated each turn, but an inkling of doubt has slipped in for me.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
[Stop extrapolating the full game's point changes based on two units. You're not jumping the fun, you're leaping a whole artillery company when you do that.

And wait for more info before you go beating that drum about Marines still breaking the game. Friggin he'll, all you're doing is jumping to conclusions and then attacking people for not sharing your conclusions.

Please stop, because your posting out your backside. Terrain is changing, points are changing, heck CP and missions are changing. Elite units have to turn off larger portions of their army to score some objectives. Before you do your best Chicken Little impression wait for more info before making claims about an edition you haven't played a single game of, much less seen the full rules.

lol. People always go "just wait" and 99% times just wait results in "just wait" group being proven wrong, again.

Note point values show marines are rather gaining more.

Terrain and missions are changing to ITC style that favours marines. Nothing so far being shown HURTS marines.

CP? Bonus for marines. Again.

Oh and playtesters are guys who have been making their tournaments pro elites, anti horde.

But yeah keep putting your head under the sand and repeat "all is well, all is well, all is well". You forget: GW doesn't care about balance. They aren't doing it for balance. Their playtesters are pro elite, anti horde as shown in the rules THEY THEMSELVES have created. NO INFORMATION WHATSOEVER has been helping hordes. Everything has been giving bonuses to marines. At this point there needs to be something HUGE to offset. Terrain, CP, missions, points, vehicles. All helping elites more than hordes so far.

Just because you can't see obvious doesn't mean others can't. I hope you don't have hopes of career in game design.

Both players gain command resources is a clear statement. You can try reading it another way, but there is no reading of "both players" and "command resources" to mean they don't get the same exact resources (aka CP) every turn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
[Stop extrapolating the full game's point changes based on two units. You're not jumping the fun, you're leaping a whole artillery company when you do that.

And wait for more info before you go beating that drum about Marines still breaking the game. Friggin he'll, all you're doing is jumping to conclusions and then attacking people for not sharing your conclusions.

Please stop, because your posting out your backside. Terrain is changing, points are changing, heck CP and missions are changing. Elite units have to turn off larger portions of their army to score some objectives. Before you do your best Chicken Little impression wait for more info before making claims about an edition you haven't played a single game of, much less seen the full rules.

lol. People always go "just wait" and 99% times just wait results in "just wait" group being proven wrong, again.

Note point values show marines are rather gaining more.

Terrain and missions are changing to ITC style that favours marines. Nothing so far being shown HURTS marines.

CP? Bonus for marines. Again.

Oh and playtesters are guys who have been making their tournaments pro elites, anti horde.

But yeah keep putting your head under the sand and repeat "all is well, all is well, all is well". You forget: GW doesn't care about balance. They aren't doing it for balance. Their playtesters are pro elite, anti horde as shown in the rules THEY THEMSELVES have created. NO INFORMATION WHATSOEVER has been helping hordes. Everything has been giving bonuses to marines. At this point there needs to be something HUGE to offset. Terrain, CP, missions, points, vehicles. All helping elites more than hordes so far.

Just because you can't see obvious doesn't mean others can't. I hope you don't have hopes of career in game design.

Arguing from emotion and with no real proof while spamming nonsense does nothing to contribue to the discussion of news and rumors. This isn't a thread for you to throw a fit in about how you assume something will screw the whole game system.over just because 8th ended with Marines leading the pack.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Both players gain command resources is a clear statement. You can try reading it another way, but there is no reading of "both players" and "command resources" to mean they don't get the same exact resources (aka CP) every turn.

You're probably right, but I'm not 100% convinced. I wouldn't be surprised if CP generation is linked to your Warlord being on the table or some such. I think I'm trying to make as few assumptions as possible right now.

Aash wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Both players gain command resources is a clear statement. You can try reading it another way, but there is no reading of "both players" and "command resources" to mean they don't get the same exact resources (aka CP) every turn.

You're probably right, but I'm not 100% convinced. I wouldn't be surprised if CP generation is linked to your Warlord being on the table or some such. I think I'm trying to make as few assumptions as possible right now.

I could see your Warlotd being alive reason to give an additional CP on top of whatever your army generates for being battleforged. There may be other bonuses as well.

Aash wrote:

Spoiler:

Wakshaani wrote:
Two things left for me to see before I'll be solid on this one.

One: Detatchments, or army building in general. I need to know what direction they're going with, now that we have the four battle sizes and the CP worked out.

Two: Terrain. We know the official rules were awful and they've changed them, probably aligned with the ITC but hopefully more than that. But we need to know more.

After that? Things like specific point costs or the pages of new strats are *nice*, but they aren't *essential*.

But we need to know more on army building and terrain and the sooner the better.

C'mon G-dubs. Help a brother out.

I'm happy with the reveals so far, more details would be nice, but the whole point is to tease and generate buzz, so I'm fine with it only being small reveals so far.

I agree that army building/detachments info would be nice,but what I really want to see is some reveals for terrain: how it works, how much terrain will be recommended, but I think what I'm most interested in seeing now is the nrew morale attrition mechanic. If Leadership really does become meaningful, this could be a game changer.

I'm interested in how morale will work as well, seeing as how they specifically mentioned it would help Night Lords.

tneva82 wrote:

Bdrone wrote:
Ahh. so less command points than expected at 2k, but hey, 3k is the 4th supported playing size now, with a point increase to match.

well, thats amusing, and makes preparing for 9th even harder to predict than before. i wonder what this did for my prospective knight and IG lists. can't even exactly call it a nerf, because the points changes could be all over the place, except for people who played for max command points. pretty sure they get less no matter what now unless that command phase thing is involved with some kind of generation as theorized.

12 CP + what generated in turn. Reece said average you have more than before but less than maximum. Maybe 1CP per turn then for 18 CP in game. 2 CP would be 24CP for game.

To be fair even 24 CP is less that IG's 25 starting CP plus 1 per turn for 31 CP.

It also depends on how all these WL traits and Relics for CP generation work with the edition changes aswell.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Aash wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Both players gain command resources is a clear statement. You can try reading it another way, but there is no reading of "both players" and "command resources" to mean they don't get the same exact resources (aka CP) every turn.

You're probably right, but I'm not 100% convinced. I wouldn't be surprised if CP generation is linked to your Warlord being on the table or some such. I think I'm trying to make as few assumptions as possible right now.

I could see your Warlotd being alive reason to give an additional CP on top of whatever your army generates for being battleforged. There may be other bonuses as well.

Well your first statement either has to be wrong or it's a massive leak your not sharing as things like WL traots and relics the generate CP either have to have been removed from the game or those being able to hand out 6 CP and/or 5CP which will ofset any CP cost of allies.
That or Allies turn off/half your CP per turn generation to make it an actual downside to taking them.

Not how it follows that passive CP generation also means that all existing CP generation abilities will need to have been removed.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Not how it follows that passive CP generation also means that all existing CP generation abilities will need to have been removed.

If both players get the "same CP each command phase" then all those other ways have to have been removed.
If they are still in the game then the statement is not accurate.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Aash wrote:

Spoiler:

Wakshaani wrote:
Two things left for me to see before I'll be solid on this one.

One: Detatchments, or army building in general. I need to know what direction they're going with, now that we have the four battle sizes and the CP worked out.

Two: Terrain. We know the official rules were awful and they've changed them, probably aligned with the ITC but hopefully more than that. But we need to know more.

After that? Things like specific point costs or the pages of new strats are *nice*, but they aren't *essential*.

But we need to know more on army building and terrain and the sooner the better.

C'mon G-dubs. Help a brother out.

I'm happy with the reveals so far, more details would be nice, but the whole point is to tease and generate buzz, so I'm fine with it only being small reveals so far.

I agree that army building/detachments info would be nice,but what I really want to see is some reveals for terrain: how it works, how much terrain will be recommended, but I think what I'm most interested in seeing now is the nrew morale attrition mechanic. If Leadership really does become meaningful, this could be a game changer.

I'm interested in how morale will work as well, seeing as how they specifically mentioned it would help Night Lords.

Yea i'm looking forward to more info on morale. They mentioned an 'attrition' mechanic, so perhaps units suffer debuffs in addition to loosing models if they fail morale. Something like they can't move next turn or -1 bs or something.
Back in older editions morale was so much more important, i can remember in 2ed having units failing a break test falling back 2d6 and never passing it so they ran off the board, it was huge. OFC marines were 'shaken' which negated most of this, because marines

Regarding CP generation I imagine KT rules might be implemented. 1 CP per your turn(since this is not AA) and you can get an extra CP for your warlord. I would love that rule as it makes killing the Warlord a rewarding experience.

So Points Go up across-the-board.
Will games be played at 2.500 points now?
I don't want smaller games, but I appreciate the attempt for better fine tuning.

 Eldarsif wrote:
Regarding CP generation I imagine KT rules might be implemented. 1 CP per your turn(since this is not AA) and you can get an extra CP for your warlord. I would love that rule as it makes killing the Warlord a rewarding experience.

Yeah, In KT if they kill your leader it doesn't mean automatic loss ,but you're really, really crippled. I would like to see this change too.

Hey so i know i am a bit late but i wanted to adress what some people said of cultist getting a more relative important increase because actions could be taken more easily with them, 2 things:

-A minimum intercessor unit is 5 men while a minimum cultist unit is 10 so the diference in order to perform action will not be that big

-Speaking as a mostly guard player unless something prevents me from it i will NOT use my guardsmen to perform actions, i will use my otherwise useless except for orders officers, not sure if other armies have it that clear cut but characters seem a good idea for actions.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Not how it follows that passive CP generation also means that all existing CP generation abilities will need to have been removed.

Why though?

Ice_can wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Not how it follows that passive CP generation also means that all existing CP generation abilities will need to have been removed.

If both players get the "same CP each command phase" then all those other ways have to have been removed.
If they are still in the game then the statement is not accurate.

Depending on the context, it could still be accurate. The statement would not be false if they were talking generally, rather than making a definitive statement covering every scenario.
Furthermore, it is also entirely possible (albeit not the best writing practice) that all current CP generation methods remain unchanged in their timing, and thus don't activate in the command phase.

@H.B.M.C.: I meant to say "Not sure how", if that changes how you view the post at all.

If they make morale truly more important I hope they're not going to give "unbreakable" left and right so that it still matters. Keep the 2CP strat to auto-pass and a few Ld buffs from characters maybe, but unbreakable units are just tiresome.

What would be interesting would be a system where the size of the unit doesn't matter that much. I don't see why a sole survivor from a 5 man squad would be as likely to flee as a unit of 10 that lost 4 men. You still have 5 comrades.

Morale in 8th was a mess because there was no incentive on taking large or max sized units as you had the same Ld whether the unit is min sized or max sized. Yeah I can get a third special weapon on my Skitarii squad, but if I roll a 6 after losing 3 guys I lose 2 more for free whereas the unit would just be wiped on min sized, and thus I would've lost less models in a way.

I dislike the way morale is just free additional casualties. My cyborg soldiers wouldn't run like hell because they lost a few dudes, they'd regroup somewhere and counter-attack.

Small scoop from a GW employee, apparently there is supposed to be a site update of some description for the web store booked on the 10th of July. July 11th might be either the preorder or release date.

diepotato47 wrote:
Small scoop from a GW employee, apparently there is supposed to be a site update of some description for the web store booked on the 10th of July. July 11th might be either the preorder or release date.

That would tie in with the other roumer of 25th as release day, with a 2 week preorder window.

Since the rules are going to be free in a basic capacity, I wouldn't be surprised if some video'd preview games may be released before the end of this month to build further momentum. There's only so much they can divulge in articles every day before they run out of content that is not flat out just giving away all the rules.

Kaneda88 wrote:
Hey so i know i am a bit late but i wanted to adress what some people said of cultist getting a more relative important increase because actions could be taken more easily with them, 2 things:

-A minimum intercessor unit is 5 men while a minimum cultist unit is 10 so the diference in order to perform action will not be that big

-Speaking as a mostly guard player unless something prevents me from it i will NOT use my guardsmen to perform actions, i will use my otherwise useless except for orders officers, not sure if other armies have it that clear cut but characters seem a good idea for actions.

Just a hunch, I could very well be totally wrong, but I think Characters won't be able to perform "objective related" actions, at least not the dirt cheap ones. Otherwise yes, order officers, meks, lictors, etc will be better than using troops to accomplish actions.

For all we know only troops will be able to perform some of the actions. If not now, then after the first faq when they realise averyone is trying to take minimal number of troops, jest like in... Nearly all 40k editions (one of the reasons i love 8th) .

I think this 9th ed releset will change a lot ad time goes by, and info fees back to GW. I am confident on the medium-long run for this ed, whatever "anti-hord anti-troop rules" are relased in July

 addnid wrote:

Kaneda88 wrote:
Hey so i know i am a bit late but i wanted to adress what some people said of cultist getting a more relative important increase because actions could be taken more easily with them, 2 things:

-A minimum intercessor unit is 5 men while a minimum cultist unit is 10 so the diference in order to perform action will not be that big

-Speaking as a mostly guard player unless something prevents me from it i will NOT use my guardsmen to perform actions, i will use my otherwise useless except for orders officers, not sure if other armies have it that clear cut but characters seem a good idea for actions.

Just a hunch, I could very well be totally wrong, but I think Characters won't be able to perform "objective related" actions, at least not the dirt cheap ones. Otherwise yes, order officers, meks, lictors, etc will be better than using troops to accomplish actions.

For all we know only troops will be able to perform some of the actions. If not now, then after the first faq when they realise averyone is trying to take minimal number of troops, jest like in... Nearly all 40k editions (one of the reasons i love 8th) .

I think this 9th ed releset will change a lot ad time goes by, and info fees back to GW. I am confident on the medium-long run for this ed, whatever "anti-hord anti-troop rules" are relased in July

Rereading shadow operatives that may be the case, but mental interrogation on astropaths... i hope actions are not spamable

Eldenfirefly wrote:
9th edition sounds like an "elites" edition. Normal cheap troops will not contribute to cp, so why bother bringing them? Also, GW will want to continue to push primaris, which are obviously the elite amongst the troop choices.

They want you to be able to field an all primaris army with zero downsides. Because all the new models they want to sell to Marine players are primaris.

If horde style lists gets the short end of the stick at first, they are probably fine with that. They will let chapter approved address that balance issue.

So my prediction is that 9th ed will launch with "elite" type units firmly in the forefront, and this includes all manner of primaris.

I am willing to bet that objective secured will still be in 9th and that you will need more models (not wounds) on an objective in order to control it vs. enemy models. Troops will still have their place. 10 cultists will still be able to pounce on an objective held by something without obsec and steal it from them etc.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
The subject of the entire post was the Space Marine faction. I even clarified that for you when you read mirror and mistakenly applied it to Intercessor/Cultist.

except THATS ALL WE fething HAVE! an intercessor vs a Cultist. that is it. our SINGLE fething datapoint. there's no "mirror" here. we literally see a unit that is one of the most expendable chaff units in the game, and a unit that is, short of custodes one of the most elite generic troop choices in the game.


even the basic codices aren't exactly mirrors of one another. (GW's been moving away from that for some time) chill. if tactical marines are somehow cheaper then chaos Marines? THEN you have a right to complain. (I'll be right beside you doing so)

Yeah it's weird I did notice that about half the units in the csm codex are shared with the SM codex and they're all still the exact same cost except for that 1ppm differential on the CSMs...so hopefully that's resolved lol.