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.

**Chamberlain**

About the total power level including both armies: There are lots of open and narrative scenarios in 8th where one side has more forces than the other. Totaling them together can make sense when it's not always two equal armies facing each other.

So a narrative scenario can say Strike Force and be 200PL but it might say that one side gets 75PL and the other gets 125PL but has harder victory conditions.

Anyone looking for a fun game should play the unequal army size scenarios in the Open Play section of the 8th edition rulebook. They are great fun.

**BrianDavion**

Pickled_egg wrote:
So, cut them down.

Let me get this straight in my head.

If I flee a unit of 30 Gretchin or Termagants I take potentially 5 Mortal wounds, If I flee a unit of 6 Assault Centurions I take 1 mortal wound?

Who is signing off on this terrible design?

And in what world do you ever get 30 Ork boyz intact into an enemy and all in engaged anyway??

This has been extensively play tested by people who know the game and this is the end result?

I'm not pooping on the whole edition as i like a lot of what I'm hearing but how do things like this still slip through?

playing devil's advocate here, back before 8th edition (and withdraw rules) one of the big uses of the large cheap melee hoard units wasn't nesscarily to kill but to tarpit. to hold a much more dangerous foe in melee for a few turns while you choke it with bodies. it could be GW is making this rule work like this to make that stragety viable again. so if your small but powerful unit is in combat agaisnt a swarm of guys he can't kill fast, you have to balance risking those mortal wounds agaisnt withdrawing and doing what you want it to do.

**Ice_can**

the_scotsman wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
I think compared to most 8th ed lists at this point, 12+1 per turn will be less. I think with armies nobody would ever really consider taking in the context of 8th, it will be significantly more.

I feel like it's a good balance. Less CP up front but you can take more of the good stuff in your army.

Eh. I can see it both ways. Part of me likes seeing the less specialized, less deadly, less skewy units getting tabletime. It's one of the things I liked about 8th in contrast with 7th - I no longer had to see "all dreadnoughts, all tanks, all riptides, all hive tyrants, all knights, all XYZ" every game. in 7th they had to give you pretty whackadoodle buffs just to get necron players to field 3 units of warriors or marine players 3 units of tacticals, 1 unit of assualt marines, and 1 unit of devs, and before that every army for the whole edition had been like, a big ball of centurions+HQs.

Hopefully there's some mysterious reason troops are still good, but my suspicion is that the reason they're being all winky-coy about it is the same reason they were about melee units in 8th: There's nothing there. They're changing away from a troop-heavy meta on purpose, and I like troops.

Except I you only get the cost of the detachment refunded if it is a Patrok, Battalion or Brigade, which means forgoing troops already has a downside of however many CP the detachment you have chosen costs.

Troops Tax is still very much a thing just less of one then before.

**gungo**

BrianDavion wrote:
Pickled_egg wrote:
So, cut them down.

Let me get this straight in my head.

If I flee a unit of 30 Gretchin or Termagants I take potentially 5 Mortal wounds, If I flee a unit of 6 Assault Centurions I take 1 mortal wound?

Who is signing off on this terrible design?

And in what world do you ever get 30 Ork boyz intact into an enemy and all in engaged anyway??

This has been extensively play tested by people who know the game and this is the end result?

I'm not pooping on the whole edition as i like a lot of what I'm hearing but how do things like this still slip through?

playing devil's advocate here, back before 8th edition (and withdraw rules) one of the big uses of the large cheap melee hoard units wasn't nesscarily to kill but to tarpit. to hold a much more dangerous foe in melee for a few turns while you choke it with bodies. it could be GW is making this rule work like this to make that stragety viable again. so if your small but powerful unit is in combat agaisnt a swarm of guys he can't kill fast, you have to balance risking those mortal wounds agaisnt withdrawing and doing what you want it to do.

At best let’s say I’m using 30 Gretchin and trying to tie up your Newly improved lord of change So it can’t go around sucking up my psychic powers... we already know they can shoot into (and out?) combat now. At best I’m probably only getting what 18? Models within 1in of the LoC if I am able to completely encircle the base. That’s 3 mortal wounds on average. Which is the ideal situation. Which I admit isn’t bad but for most armies this isn’t going to happen.

Being tarpitted isn’t as bad as it use to be now that you can shoot into (and maybe out of) combat.

**BoomWolf**

gungo wrote:
I’m thinking 12 command points with 1 per turn realistically first 4 are all that matters.. is way to low for command points since they are adding more strategems, adding command points consuming abilities, and taking away command points if I want 2 detachments regardless of soup or not. I’m already at 15 command points on my current triple bat list and it’s not enough...

At best I hope tournaments go back to the old 6th ed 2000+1 tourney list.. allowing us to start with 18 command points. This is less not more command points..

You may be at 18 CP already (trip bat is 18, not 15 mate), some of us are at 13, because we made an extra battalion for no reason except CP generation, and would have done a single battalion otherwise.

And if a turny wants to shove more command points to the game, there is no reason for 2000+1 stupidity, they can just say "everyone gets X more CP, because reasons"
As if turny bigheads outright changing the rules of the game wasn't a thing in the past.

**Not Online!!!**

ClockworkZion wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
I think compared to most 8th ed lists at this point, 12+1 per turn will be less. I think with armies nobody would ever really consider taking in the context of 8th, it will be significantly more.

I feel like it's a good balance. Less CP up front but you can take more of the good stuff in your army.

If , IF, you have good Stuff not relying on and stratagems and vast hq support.

**gungo**

BoomWolf wrote:
gungo wrote:
I’m thinking 12 command points with 1 per turn realistically first 4 are all that matters.. is way to low for command points since they are adding more strategems, adding command points consuming abilities, and taking away command points if I want 2 detachments regardless of soup or not. I’m already at 15 command points on my current triple bat list and it’s not enough...

At best I hope tournaments go back to the old 6th ed 2000+1 tourney list.. allowing us to start with 18 command points. This is less not more command points..

You may be at 15 CP already, some of us are at 13, because we made an extra battalion for no reason except CP generation, and would have done a single battalion otherwise.

And if a turny wants to shove more command points to the game, there is no reason for 2000+1 stupidity, they can just say "everyone gets X more CP, because reasons"
As if turny bigheads outright changing the rules of the game wasn't a thing in the past.

But the 2000+1 “stupidity” is exactly what they did before As it is within the rules. Regarding the last time GW created hamfisted FOC building issues.
You keep acting like tanks and elites are every armies best units... for some armies HQs and troops were thier best units.

**BoomWolf**

gungo wrote:
BoomWolf wrote:
gungo wrote:
I’m thinking 12 command points with 1 per turn realistically first 4 are all that matters.. is way to low for command points since they are adding more strategems, adding command points consuming abilities, and taking away command points if I want 2 detachments regardless of soup or not. I’m already at 15 command points on my current triple bat list and it’s not enough...

At best I hope tournaments go back to the old 6th ed 2000+1 tourney list.. allowing us to start with 18 command points. This is less not more command points..

You may be at 15 CP already, some of us are at 13, because we made an extra battalion for no reason except CP generation, and would have done a single battalion otherwise.

And if a turny wants to shove more command points to the game, there is no reason for 2000+1 stupidity, they can just say "everyone gets X more CP, because reasons"
As if turny bigheads outright changing the rules of the game wasn't a thing in the past.

But the 2000+1 “stupidity” is exactly what they did before As it is within the rules. Regarding the last time GW created hamfisted FOC building issues.
You keep acting like tanks and elites are every armies best units... for some armies HQs and troops were thier best units.

One of my armies is TS, basically everything except HQs is bad, so I know full well how it works.
And depending on the CP cost of supcom, I might still end up with more CPs than I used to have with a battalion+supcom at 2000 (it used to be 9 CP. meaning if its 3 CP, I start at the same point, and get a few more over the game.)

For many armies, the CP total is pretty much unchanged, or improved.
For the armies that could spam battalions like crap, there is a decrease.

**Voss**

gorgon wrote:
Sotahullu wrote:
Article on new art was put up:

Spoiler:

There's some freaky gak in that xenos art.

Yep, yep. New stuff too.
I hope we get to see Commando Blob, Orb Hands or Gunner Shroom in an army at some point

**gorgon**

Voss wrote:
gorgon wrote:
Sotahullu wrote:
Article on new art was put up:

Spoiler:

There's some freaky gak in that xenos art.

Yep, yep. New stuff too.
I hope we get to see Commando Blob, Orb Hands or Gunner Shroom in an army at some point

I know, right? I mean, the arguments about stratagems are faaaaaascinating, but there's some wild possibilities there. Feels kinda RT that way.

**BrianDavion**

GW doesn't want us spamming strats, they want the use of strats to be a deliberate CHOICE. make CPs easy to come by and it's not a choice it's a no brainer.

**ClockworkZion**

Not Online!!! wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
I think compared to most 8th ed lists at this point, 12+1 per turn will be less. I think with armies nobody would ever really consider taking in the context of 8th, it will be significantly more.

I feel like it's a good balance. Less CP up front but you can take more of the good stuff in your army.

If , IF, you have good Stuff not relying on and stratagems and vast hq support.

Eh, we're looking at up to 24 CP in between the game and the list building phase, so most armies have more CP overall, just less front loaded. And less need for triple Battalions for large amounts of CP.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

gorgon wrote:
Voss wrote:
gorgon wrote:
Sotahullu wrote:
Article on new art was put up:

Spoiler:

There's some freaky gak in that xenos art.

Yep, yep. New stuff too.
I hope we get to see Commando Blob, Orb Hands or Gunner Shroom in an army at some point

I know, right? I mean, the arguments about stratagems are faaaaaascinating, but there's some wild possibilities there. Feels kinda RT that way.

New Tau auxillaries confirmed?

**BaconCatBug**

ClockworkZion wrote:
Eh, we're looking at up to 24 CP in between the game and the list building phase, so most armies have more CP overall, just less front loaded. And less need for triple Battalions for large amounts of CP.

How does 12+2=24?

**Wakshaani**

Here's an interesting thought.

What if Falling Back wasn't just something that you can do but was, in fact, a 1 CP strat of it's own?

IE, most units in melee are stuck there but one a turn, for a cost, can beat feet and retreat?

Suddenly melee gets a big boost.

**Dudeface**

BaconCatBug wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
Eh, we're looking at up to 24 CP in between the game and the list building phase, so most armies have more CP overall, just less front loaded. And less need for triple Battalions for large amounts of CP.
How does 12+2=24?

12 starting, 1 per turn and +1 from a regen relic or w/e a turn for 6 turns = 24

Protip, bonus 4 for huron and the boys in a batallion.

**Eldarain**

Dudeface wrote:
BaconCatBug wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
Eh, we're looking at up to 24 CP in between the game and the list building phase, so most armies have more CP overall, just less front loaded. And less need for triple Battalions for large amounts of CP.
How does 12+2=24?

12 starting, 1 per turn and +1 from a regen relic or w/e a turn for 6 turns = 24

Protip, bonus 4 for huron and the boys in a batallion.

Wouldn't the cost of the battalion negate that? Assuming you're adding them to another force.

**Dudeface**

Eldarain wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
BaconCatBug wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
Eh, we're looking at up to 24 CP in between the game and the list building phase, so most armies have more CP overall, just less front loaded. And less need for triple Battalions for large amounts of CP.
How does 12+2=24?

12 starting, 1 per turn and +1 from a regen relic or w/e a turn for 6 turns = 24

Protip, bonus 4 for huron and the boys in a batallion.

Wouldn't the cost of the battalion negate that? Assuming you're adding them to another force.

For me as a red corsairs player it's all profit, but yeah you'd just get a free battalion in essence otherwise.

**yukishiro1**

You get 18CP over the course of the game (+ any from relics, warlord traits etc) if you have a single patrol, bat or brigade detachment. If you take anything more than that, you're paying a CP penalty per addition detachment - 3 per bat, we don't know the costs for the others yet.

Triple bat lists see a 6CP nerf from 8th to 9th. If you collapse the triple bat into a double bat instead, it's a 3CP nerf.

It is possible that if patrols, vanguards etc are significantly cheaper, the average list could end up with more CP than it had before - but not if they cost 3CP like the bat does.

**Ice_can**

Dudeface wrote:
BaconCatBug wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
Eh, we're looking at up to 24 CP in between the game and the list building phase, so most armies have more CP overall, just less front loaded. And less need for triple Battalions for large amounts of CP.
How does 12+2=24?

12 starting, 1 per turn and +1 from a regen relic or w/e a turn for 6 turns = 24

Protip, bonus 4 for huron and the boys in a batallion.

That unfortunately assumes that everyone gets access to a regeneration per turn ability (they don't) Also some are not very reliable being 6+ vrs 5+.

**BaconCatBug**

Dudeface wrote:
BaconCatBug wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
Eh, we're looking at up to 24 CP in between the game and the list building phase, so most armies have more CP overall, just less front loaded. And less need for triple Battalions for large amounts of CP.
How does 12+2=24?

12 starting, 1 per turn and +1 from a regen relic or w/e a turn for 6 turns = 24

Protip, bonus 4 for huron and the boys in a batallion.

12+4 still doesn't equal 24. As far as I can see the leathality of the game has not been toned down. You'll be hard pressed to see a game go past turn 2 especially since the model count will be a good 15-20% fewer due to the points increases.

**yukishiro1**

If the table is the same size, fewer models will equal longer games in terms of turns, not shorter ones. Fewer models relative to terrain means more opportunities to hide, more ground that has to be covered, etc.

**CthuluIsSpy**

BaconCatBug wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
BaconCatBug wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
Eh, we're looking at up to 24 CP in between the game and the list building phase, so most armies have more CP overall, just less front loaded. And less need for triple Battalions for large amounts of CP.
How does 12+2=24?

12 starting, 1 per turn and +1 from a regen relic or w/e a turn for 6 turns = 24

Protip, bonus 4 for huron and the boys in a batallion.
12+4 still doesn't equal 24. As far as I can see the leathality of the game has not been toned down. You'll be hard pressed to see a game go past turn 2 especially since the model count will be a good 15-20% fewer due to the points increases.

I don't know about that. They said terrain is getting overhauled to be actually useful, so we could see a return of area terrain. Which means no more long range alpha strikes because you couldn't hide enough models behind a small wall.

I hope they rework the character rules to be less stupid. The fact I can't shoot a character who's completely exposed in the open with no models around him because there's a cultist or whatever closer to my units that the character is, that I couldn't even target because of no LoS is bad design.

**Ice_can**

BaconCatBug wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
BaconCatBug wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
Eh, we're looking at up to 24 CP in between the game and the list building phase, so most armies have more CP overall, just less front loaded. And less need for triple Battalions for large amounts of CP.
How does 12+2=24?

12 starting, 1 per turn and +1 from a regen relic or w/e a turn for 6 turns = 24

Protip, bonus 4 for huron and the boys in a batallion.
12+4 still doesn't equal 24. As far as I can see the leathality of the game has not been toned down. You'll be hard pressed to see a game go past turn 2 especially since the model count will be a good 15-20% fewer due to the points increases.

It's 12+(1CP +1CP)x6 turns =12+2×6=24
Its based on a bunch of assumptions you can add Clagar so Marines can actually make 26CP because you know they need them buffs.

**Leth**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Leth wrote:
I mean, I have often spent command points to get that final 2-3 wounds off a target so I don’t see how this is significantly different.

It is an opportunity for mortal wounds that is situationally relevant. Will it apply all of the time? Nope, but I can easily see a lot of situations where it will make or break a game. Could also see a lot of situations where the risk would prevent someone from falling back.

Consolidate into a character with 2 wounds left, I would burn a CP with 10 guys to try for the kill.

I mean, assuming 30 dudes, it averages 5 mortal wounds for 1CP, that is the highest cp to return ratio I can think of. It really depends on how engagement ranges work but I could also see bigger models havin multiple units worth of models in range as well.

Again, not broken good, but situationally useful like most generic CP abilities are.

30 dudes within range of a melee target? Yeah no.

30 dudes within range of an entire unit? You think that is hard to do? Heck I could easily do that on most vehicles.

**yukishiro1**

It seems like a very odd situation where you could consolidate 10+ models into striking range of a wounded character and not be able to just wrap them.

The only time this seems like it would see any use at all is if you have a ton of crappy infantry surrounding a flying model. And you need 12+ models in striking range in order to give it the same value as the typical 1CP for 1d3 MW in X situation valuation.

And if you've got that many models to work with...you often could probably just move-block it from falling back at all, which would be a far better use of your guys, unless it's super fast.

**addnid**

Latro_ wrote:
we must be missing something with this strat because its a low even for GW. It's just rolling dice porn at this point isnt it? Like the illusion of stuff happening by dice rolls when its all pretty much filler

I mean i thought of this off the top of my head:

Tie them down: 2cp - The target unit cannot fallback in their next movement phase.

- pricey, but effective
- easy to remember
- does not involve you re-counting all the models in your unit then rolling all those dice and picking out 6's
- compliments new vehicle rules as they can shoot in combat anyway so keeps that new rule working

That is a really good idea imho, but sadly, and unless falling back is now a strat like someone here said (sorry can’t remember who), It doesn’t seem GW wants CC to have such a huge role in the game.
They would have told us by now if falling back was now a strat, instead of « type of movement » like advancing, right ?

Instead of showing the « cut their hair » strat

**ClockworkZion**

BaconCatBug wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
Eh, we're looking at up to 24 CP in between the game and the list building phase, so most armies have more CP overall, just less front loaded. And less need for triple Battalions for large amounts of CP.
How does 12+2=24?

1 CP per turn times means 12 turns over 6 rounds which equals 12 CP. GW has made it clear that most missions give CP every turn.

I am guessing that Combat Patrol missions won't fenerate CP.

**BaconCatBug**

ClockworkZion wrote:
BaconCatBug wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
Eh, we're looking at up to 24 CP in between the game and the list building phase, so most armies have more CP overall, just less front loaded. And less need for triple Battalions for large amounts of CP.
How does 12+2=24?

1 CP per turn times 6 turna is 12 CP.

Games don't last 6 turns. Also 1*6 is 6, not 12 (Unless I missed where you get 1 CP in the opponents turn too?). Saying you get 6 turns out of a game is like saying an Infantry Squad under FRFSRF can kill a Knight. Theoretically, yes, but it's never going to happen.

**Eldarain**

ClockworkZion wrote:
BaconCatBug wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
Eh, we're looking at up to 24 CP in between the game and the list building phase, so most armies have more CP overall, just less front loaded. And less need for triple Battalions for large amounts of CP.
How does 12+2=24?

1 CP per turn times 6 turna is 12 CP.

They said you get one in your own command phase not both.

**ClockworkZion**

Eldarain wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
BaconCatBug wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
Eh, we're looking at up to 24 CP in between the game and the list building phase, so most armies have more CP overall, just less front loaded. And less need for triple Battalions for large amounts of CP.
How does 12+2=24?

1 CP per turn times 6 turna is 12 CP.

They said you get one in your own command phase not both.

The turn order page says both players generate CP each turn. CP generation rules are tied to missions though so it could shift based on the mission type and game size.